Classical Apologetics

Plato’s Forms and Atheism: an Implausible Union

May 8, 2013 By Mike Robinson 1 Comment

The Theory of Forms and Non-theism Appear to Be a Difficult Marriage

By Mike Robinson, Granbury, Texas

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God (John 1:1).

“I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End,” says the Lord, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty” (Jesus Christ: Revelation 1:7-8).

Behind this unreliable world of appearances is a world of … “Forms” or “Ideas” (eidos/idea in Greek). But what is a Platonic Form or Idea? Take for example a perfect triangle… This would be a description of the Form or Idea of (a) Triangle. Plato says such Forms exist in an abstract state but independent of minds in their own realm. Considering this Idea of a perfect triangle, we might also be tempted to take pencil and paper and draw it. Our attempts will of course fall short. Plato would say that peoples’ attempts to recreate the Form will end up being a pale facsimile of the perfect Idea, just as everything in this world is an imperfect representation of its perfect Form. The Forms are not limited to geometry. According to Plato, for any conceivable thing or property there is a corresponding Form, a perfect example of that thing or property. The list is almost inexhaustible. Tree, House, Mountain, Man, Woman, Ship, Cloud, Horse, Dog, Table and Chair, would all be examples of putatively independently-existing abstract perfect Ideas.[1]

The thinking Christian knows that God is the foundation for the laws of logic and other immaterial truths. Pressing this actuality is a potent way to refute materialistic atheism (see my post Here). Most atheists are materialists and even strict materialists (physicalists). Nonetheless, there is a small minority of atheists who affirm the reality or possibility of immaterial things such as the laws of logic, selected universals, and Forms.[2] Sundry schools affirm immaterial Platonic Forms[3] of one sort or another. Yet what in an atheist world could produce or ground such immutable universals? The human mind and the material cosmos both lack immutability and universal reign. God is immutable and has universal reign and thus the ontological capacity to ground immutable universals such as selected Forms, ideas, and the laws of logic.

Problems with the Theory of Ungrounded Forms

Various problems appear when one attempts to ground any immutable universal outside God. Selected queries that should be asked regarding ungrounded & impersonal Forms:

1. Plato’s Forms look as if they are arbitrary as well as incomplete. Are all variety of things Forms such as mud, urine, and skin?

2. When and who decides when a Form is not one particular Form but another? When is a large stream Form a creek and not a stream? And when is a large creek a river? Or a large lake Form actually a small sea Form? When is a large hill form actually a mountain Form. Plato’s Forms look, under scrutiny, to be more than a bit problematic.

Who is the world’s shortest giant or the tallest midget?

3. Are Plato’s Forms something definite and if so, where do they reside? What is the ontological makeup of Plato’s Forms? Are they transcendent or immanent? Or both?

4. If one suggests that Plato’s Forms are transcendent, how do they effect the land of the living—the non-transcendent? If they are merely a Form, they do not possess causal powers, so how do they affect the material world? By what power do they achieve their rule?

5. Are the Forms atemporal and aspatial? –if they are, how do they effect the temporal and spatial realm?– by what means do they bridge the gap? Forms are impersonal so they lack will and the power to act and determine things, so how does any non-theistic Form rule as God rules? God is a divine person so He acts, wills, and has the power to effect the non-transcendent.

6. If one denies theism, I cannot apprehend any evidence that a Form or Forms exist anywhere. But there seems to be counterevidence against the possibility of ungrounded Forms, since Forms cannot avoid an infinite regress of negative Forms. Is a Form of a bear also a Form of “not-deer,” and “not-car,” and “not-tree,” and “not-planet,” and “not-number 2” and ad infintum? I cannot see how a Form avoids such. The concept of ungrounded Forms falls into an infinite regress.

A Theory of Forms fails to explain most of reality. It appears that such theories lack the ability to explain change? Additionally, a Theory of Forms may have trouble explaining particulars, love, and the moral ought?

God Has the Explanatory Capacity to Explain Material and Immaterial Truths

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1:1).

God is the beginning, middle, and end of all. He is the supreme mind or reason, the effectual cause of all things, eternal, unchangeable…[4]

The Christian worldview has the explanatory power to explain all things–it appears that the Theory of Ungrounded Forms falls infinitely short in accounting for things it’s designed to enlighten.

In your light do we see light (Psalm 36:9).

The distinctiveness of the Platonic philosophy is precisely this direction toward the supersensuous world, it seeks the elevation of consciousness into the realm of spirit. The Christian religion also has set up this high principle, that the interior spiritual essence of man is his true essence, and has made it the universal principle.[5]

A dualism[6] that manifests in the Theory of Forms might be compatible with minority schools of atheism, but it appears to be an awkward amalgamation. The Theory of Forms advances the existence of mental constituents such as ideas, minds, and souls. These immaterial elements can intrude causally in the physical world of change. Similarly, God is a non-material Person—a Spiritual being that ordains and interposes His will on the material world. Most atheists believe the notion that an immaterial thing can intrude causally in the physical world is incongruent; to consent to the reality that immaterial mental elements exist seems to eliminate a major objection to the existence of God.

Moreover, how did these immaterial elements and ideas come into being through unguided evolutionary progression?

A dualism that exhibits itself in a Theory of Forms might be united with marginal schools of atheism but seems to be an uncomfortable unification. It would be easier to press Sasquatch’s feet into Dorothy’s ruby slippers than a Theory of Forms into atheism.

See my new Apologetics eBook Reality and the Folly of Atheism HERE

——————————————————————————————————————————–

David Macintos. http://philosophynow.org/issues/90/Plato_A_Theory_of_Forms
Forms: I capitalize the word “Form” in order to help the unfamiliar reader correctly identify the usage.
The importance of Plato for the history of philosophy is evident… For Plato to understand anything … is to relate it to its class concept [Form or Idea]… Greg Bahnsen: Van Til’s Apologetic, p. 318.
Plato, Republic. 716 A.
Hegel. History of Philosophy, Vol. 2.
Plato believed that the same point could be made with regard to many other abstract concepts: even though we perceive only their imperfect instances, we have genuine knowledge of truth, goodness, and beauty no less than of equality. Things of this sort are the Platonic Forms, abstract entities that exist independently of the sensible world. Ordinary objects are imperfect and changeable, but they faintly copy the perfect and immutable Forms. Thus, all of the information we acquire about sensible objects (like knowing what the high and low temperatures were yesterday) is temporary, insignificant, and unreliable, while genuine knowledge of the Forms themselves (like knowing that 93 – 67 = 26) perfectly certain forever. Since we really do have knowledge of these supra-sensible realities, knowledge that we cannot possibly have obtained through any bodily experience, Plato argued, it follows that this knowledge must be a Form of recollection and that our souls must have been acquainted with the Forms prior to our births. But in that case, the existence of our mortal bodies cannot be essential to the existence of our souls—before birth or after death—and we are therefore immortal. http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/2f.htm

Filed Under: Apologetics, Christian Philosophy, Classical Apologetics Tagged With: atheist counter apologist, atheist Justin Schieber, bahnsen plato, counter apologist, God plato's forms, Justin Schieber, presuppositional apologetics plato forms, Reasonable Doubts, Schieber, theism plato forms, van til plato forms

Objective Moral Values or Mere Preferences?

May 5, 2013 By Mike Robinson 3 Comments

Objective Moral Values Require God

By Mike Robinson, Granbury, Texas

Introduction

One can avoid moral skepticism by depending upon an unchanging, infinite, infallible, and exhaustive moral authority. God has these necessary qualities. In accounting for objective moral values, God is mandatory since He is unchanging, universal in knowledge, timeless, transcendent, and immaterial. Harmoniously, objective moral values are unchanging, universal, timeless, transcendent, and immaterial. God has the necessary attributes to account for objective moral values.

———————————————————————————————————

You’re thinking in black and white. Think in shades of gray.[1]

[When I was an atheist], My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But, how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?[2]

Let us change the rule we have hitherto adopted for the judging what is good. We took our own will as rule; let us now take the will of God.[3]

Objective moral values are not determined by the opinions, preferences, or psychological dispositions of an individual man or groups of men. It is a moral value “independently of whether anyone believes it or not” (William Lane Craig). The moral view which is based on one’s personal preference is a type of ethical subjectivism. Ultimately, it is based on preferences similar to one liking clam chowder over chicken soup. It is a descriptive form of ethics that leaves one without an ultimate arbitrator to settle moral disagreements among men with different preferences.

One can prefer torturing babies for fun over forbidding such behavior in the same way one prefers the chowder over the soup; it is a matter of personal taste and choice. In principle, if one observes a greasy old man ready to torture an innocent little baby, your repugnance is no more morally justified than one who is a bit queasy over a friend sipping his clam chowder. Under this sort of subjectivism, formally, it makes no sense to claim that the man torturing the baby for fun is morally wrong. He prefers it and you do not. You have no principled justification to attempt to stop the baby torturer from preferring his behavior any more than you may stop a friend from enjoying clam chowder. Nonetheless, torturing babies for fun is objectively and immutably wrong. It cannot be morally right to engage in such behavior. The subjectivist lacks the foundation to declare that torturing babies for fun is morally wrong. There are no behavior directing moral laws; morality is merely a matter of one’s preferences. Of course most atheists know such actions are morally wrong. Nevertheless I contend that it’s not a matter of knowing right from wrong—atheists can know (epistemological realm) right from wrong (Romans chapters 1 & 2)—I argue that atheists cannot account for the truth that there are objective moral values (right & wrong exist; ontological realm).

If there is no God, everything is permitted.[4]

Regeneration Required

If man is to change ethically, he must be converted.[5]

Jesus taught that for men to change, their heart must change; men must be born again (John 3:3-8). If one dresses up a wolf to look like a lamb, one still has an animal that can viciously attack humans if hungry or alarmed. For the animal to become sheep-like, the wolf needs a miracle: regeneration into a lamb (or a huge genetic swap). The wolf needs a complete change. And that’s what God’s grace does to men by the power of the Gospel. By grace through faith men are born again by the Spirit (regenerated) and after regeneration they have a changed heart that leads them to grow in moral goodness.

Biblical Law

Oh, how I love your law! I meditate on it all day long (Psalms 119:97).

Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness (1 John 3:4).

But about the Son He says, “Your throne, O God, will last forever and ever… You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness” (Hebrews 1:8-9).

What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! … So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good… We know that the law is spiritual (Romans 7:7-14).

If you love me, you will keep my commandments. Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him (John 14:15 & 21).

The moral commandments of Scripture found in the Ten Commandments must be the standard for normative ethics. Biblical ethics are proscriptive (what one ought not to do) as well as prescriptive (what one ought to do) of normative human conduct—the general equity of the Decalogue—should be the ground for our rule of law: deontological. Deontological is obligatory inasmuch as it is the moral will of God in real-life situations: explicit actions that are based on its broad principals. Thus all persons are obligated to affirm and embrace the commandments of God in establishing laws and in living their lives.

And this is love: that we walk in obedience to his commands (2 John 6).

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets; I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no way pass from the law, till all is fulfilled (Matthew 5:17-18).

Morality and Unguided Evolution

The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy defines morality as: “An informal public system applying to all rational persons, governing behavior that affects others, having the lessening of evil or harm as its goal, and including what are commonly known as the moral rules, moral ideals, and moral virtues.”[6] The word “ethics” is given the following definition by the same dictionary: “The philosophical study of morality. The word is commonly used interchangeably with morality … and sometimes it is used more narrowly to mean the moral principles of a particular tradition, group, or individual.”[7] Theologian Norman Geisler states: “Moral law is morality for conduct… Law is a moral rule by which we are led to act or are withheld from action… God’s purpose for law is to regulate human activity.”[8]

The theory of unguided evolution offers no ontological basis for fixed moral values. Many people have fallen for the bamboozlement of the ages, the theory of unguided evolution. This theory, along with selected features of Nietzsche’s philosophy, has accomplished a lot. What has been accomplished by this misreading, this hoax, this fallacy, this misapprehension? This theory has given many of the world’s despots and dictators aspects of their ideological systems for carrying out the atrocities they had ordered. Stalin, Mao, and the Khmer Rouge butchered over fifty million people in the twentieth century under the influence of communism, atheism, and evolution. Unguided evolution not only gives no fundamental basis for morals; it, in principle, disallows essential features of benevolent ethics. The evolutionist’s creed is “survival of the fittest.” This doctrine helps hoist the proposition that “might makes right.” When one applies this to reality, the strong should take everything they can through force. Under that view, they should go through the country raping, trampling the weak, and killing the handicapped. Strict Darwinism undermines selected altruistic endeavors and charitable ethics as it gives men reason to be selfish, inhumane, wicked, murderous, and destructive.

All power grows from the barrel of a gun (atheist Mao Zedong).

In atheistic evolution, ultimately, the only thing that is important is promoting the survival of one’s own genes to the next generation. Turning the other cheek or doing good to the physically and mentally challenged only weakens the gene pool, so charity and benevolence should be rejected. The strong should step on anyone they can to promote their own genetic success. In contrast, I agree with the way Martin Luther King put it in his homily upon receiving his Nobel Peace Prize: “I refuse to believe the notion that man is mere flotsam and jetsam … unable to respond to the eternal oughtness that forever confronts him.”

The statutes of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart; the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes (Psalms 19:8).

Today, many people assert that there are no moral absolutes. Yet arguing against unchanging moral truths is self-stupefying. What the anti-moralist asserts stifles itself on its own grounds. If he objects to you pointing this out, he also stultifies himself. To state that he rigidly objects to any moral notion is to appear to assume a moral absolute. Hence, his objection is duplicitous. Just ask the non-absolutist, “Do you think that it is always ‘wrong’ to affirm moral absolutes?” If he answers “No,” at that point he has contradicted himself and indirectly affirms moral absolutes. If he answers “Yes,” you point out that this objection is a moral truth; a truth he seems to want you take as an absolute.

Universal Binding Laws Presuppose God

For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them (Romans 2:14-15).

The moral law was written on the human conscience by nature. This writing has been defaced, but not obliterated. A clear and correct knowledge of the moral law requires the republication of the commandments, summarized in the Decalogue as the permanent and unalterable rule of man’s duty on earth.[9]

Moral laws are immaterial immutable realities that presuppose an immaterial immutable God who has the wisdom and authority to decree and enact them. Without God, as the moral lawgiver, there cannot be invariant moral laws. A holy, wise, and good God is the essential truth condition for true, invariant, immaterial, and irreducible realities called moral laws. The Decalogue provides apodictic (established by God as immutable commandments) moral duties since they are universal and unconditional; they are laws for all cultures and people in all time periods. A distinction is made regarding case law. Case laws are specific applications for particular people and definite applications of these apodictic commandments.

Materialistic atheism cannot account for irreducible immaterial invariant entities that are to govern human behavior. Without an omnipotent sovereign God, issuing laws that are based on His perfect character, one has no motivation to obey the law simply because obedience is morally good. Leave God out of the picture and one only obeys the law because of the fear of possible penal sanction and civil punishment from an earthly government. When the civil authorities aren’t looking, one can steal, lie, cheat, and rape with impunity. There must be a sovereign God, as the sufficient and universal condition, to obey out of gratitude and love. We have strong motivation to follow laws, when no one is looking, if the laws are intrinsically good, and come from a good all-seeing God. A God one loves, who commands humanity to love Him by obeying His commandments. When you take away the character and authority of God to enact law, one is not obliged to obey them out of mere love and gratitude.

Without postulating the existence of God it would be impossible to link the moral order to the natural order: the two realms would remain separate. How could the moral laws confront me with the kind of demands they do, how could they come to me with the kind of force they do, unless they have their source in a Being who exists objectively that is, independently of me and is essentially good? … There is something in every man, it may seem, that demands God as a postulate.[10]

Placing No Value on Objective Moral Absolutes

The denial of moral absolutes is a self-diminishing exertion because the denial of moral absolutes presupposes a moral view: it is morally permissible to absolutely deny absolute moral values. So in a sense, the attempt to deny absolute moral values affirms that they exist. To deny fixed moral values is self-deflating; the denial, in the end, leads to the removal of a standard that obligates others to communicate the denial absolutely. If you ask them if they absolutely believe that there are no absolutes; they may say no. Then you just ask them if they absolutely believe their answer of no. At some point they must stand on an absolute or they fall into idiocy.

Conclusion

It is a divine doctrine which teaches what is right and pleasing unto God and reproves everything that is sin and contrary to God’s will (The Book of Concord).

Fearing the Lord is the beginning of moral knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and instruction (Proverbs 1:7, NET).

The best way to avert moral skepticism is to have an unchanging, infinite, infallible, and exhaustive authority. The God of the Bible has these attributes. God is required because He is unchanging, universal in knowledge, timeless, transcendent, and immaterial. Correspondingly, objective moral values are unchanging, universal, timeless, transcendent, and immaterial. God has the required attributes to account for objective moral values.

Additionally, the way to avoid eternal condemnation is to turn from your ways and trust in Jesus Christ: the One who died for His people and rose again on the third day. He’s wonderful and full of excellencies that will thrill your heart.

Check out my new Apologetics eBook The Sure Existence of Moral Absolutes HERE

——————————————————————————————————————————————-

NOTES

1. Craig Boldman, Every Excuse in the Book: 714 Ways to Say it’s not My Fault (New York: MJF Books, 1998), p. 94.

2. C.S. Lewis: Martindale and Root, Editors, The Quotable Lewis (Wheaton, Il: Tyndale House, 1989), p. 59.

3. Thomas Morris, Making Sense of It All (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdman, 1992), p. 211.

4. Fyodor Dostoevsky: The Brothers Karamazov, Bantam Classics. Many impute this line to Dostoevsky, but it nowhere appears in the volume. Perhaps it is a summary of a position of one of the characters within the text.

5. P. Andrew Sandlin, We Must Create A New Kind of Christian (Vallecito, CA: Chalcedon Publication, 2000), p. 16.

6. Robert Audi, General Editor, The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Second Edition (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Press 1999), p. 586.

7. Ibid., Audi, The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, p. 284.

8. Norman Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2000), pp. 414-416.

9. Carl Henry, Editor, Wycliff Dictionary of Ethics (Peabody, MA: 2000), p. 432.

10.Geddees McGregor, Introduction to Religious Philosophy (Boston, MA: Mifflin, 1959), pp. 117-119.

Filed Under: Apologetics, Classical Apologetics, Covenantal Apologetics Tagged With: atheism objective moral values, greg bahnsen ethics, jp moreland moral absolutes, presuppositional ethics, van til ethics, william craig moral values, william lane craig moral argument

God or Godless? by John Loftus & Randal Rauser: A Book Review

April 23, 2013 By Mike Robinson 2 Comments

God or Godless?: One Atheist. One Christian. Twenty Controversial Questions.

[Paperback] by John Loftus & Randal Rauser

Review by Mike Robinson

Is it necessary to bring in William Lane Craig (debate victor over numerous atheists)? Nope! As he has proved on his blog, and proves once again in a new book, God or Godless? Randal Rauser (MCS, Regent College; PhD, King’s College London; professor theology at Taylor Seminary) is one of those scholars who merit a dedicated readership. As a professor and blogger, he brings along that uncommon but still uncanny ability to make even the most tedious philosophical notions sound both attention-grabbing and comprehensible, while making an inherently difficult, incredibly unreceptive interlocutor seem somehow cordial (in contrast to Loftus’ well-earned reputation).

Unfortunately, what John Loftus (founder of the blog Debunking Christianity and author of Why I Became an Atheist) seems to be proving is that he’s not up to writing reasoned and sound responses to a scholar of Rauser’s education. What few blows Loftus lands represent a triumph of unremarkable skill over formatting space in a book that is more intellectual than his development permits (although Rauser in an interview said, “John does a good job presenting a deflationary picture of atheism”). Nonetheless, the mini-debates are not dull or trivial. Loftus’ words of bluster and pugnacity are often amusing and fun to read for both atheist and theist.

Each writer chose ten issues to present in the affirmative and his interlocutor responds in a counterpoint. A brief comeback is then offered in the affirmative followed by an even shorter reply. Every chapter ends with a petite conclusion. This makes for some gratifying reading. Never mind topics found in the most profound corridors of philosophy, the two combatants swing punch after punch—including some roundhouses—from its potent topics to its readable style God or Godless? reads like a discussion between two disagreeing associates. And no part of that comparison is meant as a slight. The short fluid chapters are engaging and easy to comprehend. The ten subjects from each writer (20 total) are written in clear text and this helps make God or Godless? unique among debate books—it covers a very extensive range of questions regarding the existence of God. This is one reason that it is great for the busy apologist or the atheistic non-specialist.
In this inventive volume, theistic philosopher Randal Rauser and self-styled atheist John Loftus participate in twenty brief debates including subjects such as:

Christianity and Redemption
Slavery
Epistemology
Science
Women and the Bible
Faith
Miracles
The Resurrection of Christ
Moral Values
The existence of God
Significance and Purpose
And more

Early on Rauser presses Loftus on the problem of arbitrary moral principles: “Interestingly, John’s own comments confirm this worry for he writes, ‘In every society we come up with the moral rules just as we do when it comes to speed limits on our highways [or] regulations for food preparation.’ So our moral principles are selected with the same arbitrariness as highway speed limits or modes of food preparation? ‘Sixty miles per hour on this stretch, oh, and no gang rape or murder for the next hundred miles please.’ Really? That’s it? John may not like divine command theory (though given his criticisms, I have to wonder how well he understands it), but he surely needs some transcendent source of moral valuation to avoid the moral relativism that even now is wrapping its tentacles around his oblivious appendages. … I believe moral values are objective and rooted in the necessity of the divine nature. John believes they are rooted in our subjective whims—whatever gets you through the night, it’s all right. On that point John and our retiring serial killer are in hearty agreement. Spot of tea anyone?” (pp. 30-34). Here Rauser straightforwardly rebuts Loftus’ position on moral principles, yet the reader can also enjoy a sense of humor which the combatants comingle with their argumentation throughout the pages.

Due to his own engrained precommitments Loftus offers a response that appears to miss the heart of Rauser’s argument: “Christians use this canard so often it’s nauseating. It seems self-evident to them, that is until they come to disbelieve. Then they will see things differently. The claim of Randal’s in this chapter presupposes that a supernatural being is doing the permitting. But which one? There are other conceptions of gods with their own moralities. And how does this being communicate to us what is permitted? Isn’t it evident that the Christian God has not effectively done so, given the biblical record and the history of the church? There is no evidence that a Christian God is needed for morality since many non-Christian cultures have done very well for themselves in their own time periods with no Christian influence at all, such as Greece during the Golden Age, the Roman Empire, China, and Japan. This is nothing but a parochial, narrow-minded, and uniformed claim. I think all a believer has to do is travel the globe to see this” (p. 31-32).

In contrast to Rauser’s perdurable reasons for theistic morality Loftus often posits rough assertions with little reasoned justification. Typical of his forceful assertions is the following: “…morality evolves. That’s what we know. That’s what we see in the Bible and the church too” (p. 34-35). Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I would have liked a bit more systematic discourse from the atheist side.

Both contestants offer numerous illustrations to support their positions. This will help the reader understand and remember the arguments. Rauser observes: “I once heard of a women who was so enamored with her Harley Davidson that she decided to marry it. Unfortunately, while a motorcycle provides a great mode of transportation, it was never intended to serve as a marital partner. I think of that as I consider secularists who have become so enamored with science that they have elevated it to be the source of transcendent meaning and purpose. While science provides a great mode of enquiry into the natural world, it was never intended to provide transcendent meaning and purpose. … Of course, John doesn’t think these secularists are worshiping science or the natural world because he defines worship as ‘an act of religious devotion directed to one or more deities.’ But worship doesn’t require a deity. Worship is simply honor or deference paid to anything one regards as sacred, worthy of veneration, or one’s ultimate concern. As a result, while God can be the object of worship, so can the scientific method, the natural world, or even super-aliens. Needless to say, the fact that you can worship the universe doesn’t mean you should any more than the willingness of a magistrate to officiate at unconventional weddings means you should ride your Harley Fat Boy down the aisle” (pp. 50-51).

Rauser then offers this challenge: “Does John disagree with Wilson and Raymo’s panegyrics to science and the natural world? Does he eschew Sagan’s existential longing for little green men? He doesn’t say. John is right; worship is directed to something specific. And Wilson, Raymo, and Sagan all have very specific objects to which they ascribe maximal worth-ship” (p. 52).

The atheist responds: “Randal is playing a meaningless language game over the word worship, but it changes nothing. We don’t build cathedrals for people to congregate for prayer to long-dead scientists, nor are their words authoritative unless we can verify them. Nor do we do this for the universe science has discovered” (p. 52). I’m not sure if Loftus fully understood the main thrust of Rauser’s argument, but the exchange is worth reading more than once.

In one of my favorite sections the theist offers the following word-picture to help the reader firmly grasp an argument from causation: “If you spend any time listening to golden oldies radio, you’ve probably heard Tony Orlando’s seventies hit, ‘Knock Three Times.’ The song is sung from the perspective of a lonely fellow who hears a knocking sound on the water wipes in his wall. Most of us, if we hear a knocking sound on our pipes, will probably assume that it is just produced by the changing temperature of hot water running through the pipes. But when this lonely fellow hears the knocking, he concludes that it is produced by the pretty girl living in the apartment below, presumably as some sort of flirtatious Morse code. Emboldened by this belief, the lonely fellow sings back to the girl to knock three times if she’d like him to come down and visit. Gosh, I hope for his sake that it wasn’t just the hot water. In addition to being a fine introduction to the creepy side of seventies pop music ‘Knock Three Times’ is also a great way to introduce two kinds of causation much discussed by philosophers:

Event causation: the process in which one event causally contributes to another event.

Agent causation: the process in which an agent undertakes to cause an event and this undertaking does cause that event.”

Rauser then proceeds to his detailed supposition vis-à-vis agent causation: “Interestingly, these definitions are sufficiently broad that every event can be explained as the result of one or the other. That is, it was either caused by another event or by an agent. If we heard those pipes knocking, we’d probably conclude that a mere event cause (e.g., hot water) was at play. But our lonely fellow believes that an agent cause (i.e., the pretty girl) created the knock as a way to say hello. Note the reference to undertaking in the definition of agent causation. This signals a key difference between event and agent causes. If you attribute something to an event, then it begs the question of a prior cause for that event. For example, if you explain the knocking pipes with recourse to the hot water flow, then you require another cause to explain the hot water flow. This may lead you back to the boiler, but then you need yet another cause to explain the boilers function, and so on. Agent causes are different since the explanation for their effects is rooted not in the prior event cause but rather in a reason, intention or desired outcome. Thus agents can act to initiate new events without any prior determining event cause: they can choose to act. And in that sense they act as a sui generis cause. Given the exhaustive nature of these two explanations, any particular event is the result either of a prior event or an agent. In the same way that we inquire about the cause of particular events in the universe like the knocking of pipes, so we can inquire about that truly stupendous event that happened 13.7 billion years ago when, according to the cosmologists, the universe sprang into existence out of nothing. As we seek cause to explain events in our experience, so we reasonably seek a cause to understand this grandest of all events. But which type of cause is the most plausible? The prospects of appealing to an event cause to explain the universe’s origin are bleak for the reason already noted: event causes beg the question of prior causes. As a result, if we appeal to an event then we have to explain all the events prior to that event, and this leads to an infinite regress of causes that ultimately explains nothing. In addition, it is wholly ad hoc since we have no experience of infinite casual regresses. Finally, it offers no explanation of what caused this mysterious, infinite, casual series, and thus it is really a pseudo-explanation. This dilemma recalls the father who explains to his son that the earth rests on a turtle (an event cause). Then when his son asks what the turtle rests on, the father replies that it is turtles all the way down. Even if appealing to an infinite series of event causes manages to satisfy the curiosity of a child, it is not adequate as a metaphysical explanation of the universe” (pp. 61-63).

Regarding agent causation he concludes: “This leaves us with one remaining option: an agent cause who can simply act out of will to bring about a novel event. This is exactly the kind of causation we require to explain the universe, one that is sui generis and thus can avoid the fatal infinite regress. Once we recognize that the only viable causal explanation is an agent, we can inquire about its identity. Not surprisingly, when the event to be explained is the absolute origination of the material universe (the whole shebang) there is only one viable agent cause, and that is God” (p. 61-63). For the Christian, this segment of the book is particularly helpful.

Loftus of course rejects God as the agent of causation. The theist replies to Loftus’ abjuration: “John thinks we should wait for science to explain the universe’s origin. He suggests, for example, that the ‘concept of inertia’ (that is, Newton’s first law of motion) does away with the need for an ‘unmoved mover’ (that is, an agent cause). But this reflects a fundamental failure to understand the problem. The entire universe including all its energy and matter—Newton’s first law of motion—and even time itself sprang into existence out of nothing 13.7 billion years ago. Science can study the universe once it exists, but it can never explain what brought it into existence. To do that you reason not from a gap of ignorance but rather from the only type of cause known to be capable of producing the observed effect: an agent of great power. If that looks a lot like God, then so be it” (p. 66).

Loftus then offers a heart-felt denial: “With Randal’s God explanation there is no reason to investigate why the universe exists, since he says science can’t do this. This is the standard theistic response to the unsolved mysteries of the past. Why keeping betting on faith to solve them when it has solved nothing so far?”

God or Godless? discusses various philosophical notions, but the two authors also explore many concrete and evidential disputes as well. Concerning the historical claims of the New Testament Rauser offers some judicious thoughts: “Any testimony that is embarrassing to one’s cause is more likely to be true because it would not have been included otherwise. So it seems highly unlikely that the general incredulity of the brothers of Jesus toward his teaching and ministry would have been included if it had not been true. As a result, the evidence supports the fact that James was not a disciple of Jesus during his brother’s life and ministry. This makes it all the more incredible that after the death of Jesus, James emerged as the de facto leader of the Jerusalem Christians (see Acts 15:13; 21:18; Gal. 1:19; 2:9, 12). This testimony is confirmed in Jewish historian Josephus’ work Antiquities where he observes that James was martyred in Jerusalem in AD 62. But how did this happen? How did an intelligent man (you don’t become a leader of the Jerusalem Christians without being intelligent) become persuaded that his crucified brother was the Messiah? Deuteronomy 21:23 teaches that ‘anyone hung on a tree is under God’s course’ (NRSV). If anything, James would have viewed the crucifixion as a confirmation of his suspicions. And yet inexplicably, he became a leader of the Christians.”

Rauser lingers as he defends the reliability of the Resurrection witnesses: “Paul explains why in 1 Corinthians 15 (written ca. AD 50-51), where he recounts a teaching he had received from others: ‘For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance’ (1 Cor. 15:3). This is technical, rabbinic phrasing. One does not innovate or embellish rabbinic teaching but instead passes in on faithfully. What was it that Paul received? He explains: Christ died, was buried, and was raised. And ‘raised’ here is clearly a bodily resurrection, which is made abundantly clear in the rest of the chapter (as well as in the background Jewish worldview of the time). Next, Paul lists in this teaching several names of those who witnessed the risen Jesus and thereby became converts to him, including James, the brother of Jesus.”

Rauser continues to press his resurrection apologia: “What is the best explanation for James’ belief that he had seen his brother raised? Obviously legend is not a plausible explanation. There simply is no time for a legend to develop here, and James’ own leadership in the church and martyrdom attests to his belief. One may think that James saw a vision, but remember, he believed his brother died under God’s curse. Visions come within a climate of background expectation. A hypnotist or magician doesn’t call the scowling skeptic in the audience up on stage. He chooses the fawning fan on the edge of her seat, ready to be manipulated. So James was definitely not susceptible to seeing a vision. So then what? Did James get pulled into an elaborate conspiracy? To what end? So that he could be martyred? The historian who seeks to reconstruct past events based on available evidence needs something to work with here. If you want to posit a non-miraculous reconstruction of the events you can do so, but it has to work with all the available data and be plausible. For those not closed a priori to the invocation of miraculous causes, the bodily resurrection of Jesus remains the most plausible explanation for the transformation of James. Consider it this way: My brother is a fine chap. But to believe he’s the Messiah? That would take nothing short of a miracle” (p. 158-159).

As the volume nears an end Rauser offers this challenge: “Live as if Christianity is true. Begin exploring the rich intellectual and spiritual resources of the Christian tradition. Find a community of Christians with whom you can relate openly and honestly by sharing your beliefs and your doubts. Seek to live out the faith you do not yet fully possess through works of mercy and righteousness as you study, reflect, and learn. And then just see what happens. Most of all, never give up your tireless pursuit of that which none greater can be conceived” (p. 177).

Loftus pushes his conclusion with force in the following entreaty: “If they refuse to do this [critical religious self-examination], I merely ask them why the double standard? Why treat other religions differently than you do your own? Believers should be skeptical of what they were taught to accept given the proliferation of so many other religions and sects separated into distinct regions on the planet who learned their religion in the same way—on their mama’s knee” (p. 182). Not me. I was raised irreligious. I came to Christ when I was nineteen. I gave my whole life to Jesus after I researched and studied countless religions and atheism. I found that Christianity alone was true inasmuch as it had substantial quantities of evidence. Moreover, by God’s grace I discovered that Jesus is not only merciful, He’s wonderful.

It’s obvious that this reviewer is biased and holds robust Christian presuppositions. I do not apologize for this since Christianity is true and atheism is false. Furthermore, I owe it to my readers to offer my opinion on this important volume and not merely furnish a dry arcane review. During a memorable scene in the movie Quiz Show, a character queries, “If you look around the table and you can’t tell who the sucker is, it’s you.” That flick was about the scandal surrounding a long-forgotten game show. Might as well make a flick about the militant atheists of the 2000s. Sometimes people are suckers. Despite the beauty of the transcendent, objective moral values, the grace and mercy of Christ, there remains a pervasive threat from professional skeptics and e-atheists. And many of their followers not only miss the hope and glory, they get suckered into anti-theism. I hope this book assists numerous people—people who may have been hoodwinked into antitheism and after reading this volume seek the truth found in Christ.

Because Loftus makes up for his lack of sound argumentation with stimulating rhetoric, firm bravado, and undiminished confidence neo-atheists will enjoy much of what he stipulates and the style of his presentation. This, together with Rauser’s well-reasoned and often witty argumentation, makes for an enjoyable read.

This volume is not without flaws. Sometimes it teeters close to an oversimplification of perplexing theoretical and theological issues (due to space limitations and Loftus’ lack of philosophical gravitas). Though not consummately trained, Loftus roams happily in unfamiliar fields—amid the erudition and epistemic nimbleness of a skilled academic. But the honesty of the exchanges, the significance of the topics and Rauser’s ability to convey the truth of God in Christ overshadow those inconsequential elements. Even though I maintain a different apologetic methodology and a dissimilar theological approach than Rauser, I truly enjoyed this book. God or Godless? is a work I recommend to apologists and atheists.

Filed Under: Apologetics, Book Reviews, Classical Apologetics Tagged With: Christian atheist debate book, God or Godless Rauser, God or Godless?: One Atheist. One Christian. Twenty Controversial Questions, randal rauser, refute atheism, village atheist

Interview with Greg West – The founder of the Apologetics blog: The Poached Egg

April 14, 2013 By Mike Robinson 1 Comment

Christian apologist Greg West is the founder and director of the influential Apologetics blog: The Poached Egg

interview by Mike Robinson

On the Poached Egg’s thought-provoking site Greg offers apologetics and biblical truth for the glory of God. Information on his ministry and outreach are posted below the interview.

The Poached Egg Network is where Christian apologetics, history, philosophy, science, theology, and pop culture collide. Their goal is to help guide believers, seekers, and skeptics alike to the Ultimate Source of Truth and a better understanding of the Christian worldview.

I URGE YOU TO CONTEND FOR THE FAITH THAT WAS ONCE FOR ALL ENTRUSTED TO THE SAINTS. JUDE 3

Interview Questions

Greg, greetings and welcome to our site. What part of the country are you originally from and where do now you call home?

Thanks for having me, Mike. It’s a real honor. I was born and raised in Southwest Missouri, where I still call home today. Although I don’t consider myself ‘well traveled’, I have been around much of the U.S. and served a year overseas in Korea back in my army days.

Were you raised in a Christian home?

Yes, as a matter of fact I was. My dad is an ordained deacon and serves as a volunteer chaplain at a local hospital. He and my mom have been married for over 50 years. We were in church whenever the doors were open. I remember that we often went to church where ever we were–even when we were on vacation.

How did you come to faith in Jesus Christ?

I’m not sure exactly how old I was—around six or seven—but I remember sitting through a sermon in Vacation Bible School and realizing that I was a sinner in need of a Savior and responding to an alter call.

What is your favorite book of the Bible and why?

That’s a tough call. It’s really hard for me to pick a favorite, but if I had to, I’d probably choose the book of John because it paints such an intimate portrayal of Jesus, the Trinity, and Jesus as God incarnate and Savior. One of my favorite verses in the Bible is John 18:37–where Jesus tells Pilate that the reason he came into the world was to bear witness to the truth. That verse is also found on one of the oldest known fragments of NT manuscripts—dating back to the early 2^nd century.

What drove you or prompted you to pursue Christian apologetics?

As a young man in my twenties I turned my back on God and Christianity because I had begun to doubt that it was the “one true religion.” I spent many years as a professed agnostic before the “problem of evil” began to make me realize that Christianity was really the only worldview that lined up with what I knew of reality. I became a recommitted follower of Christ in my mid-thirties and decided that if I was going to be a Christian—and I sincerely wanted to know if its truth claims could stand up to the closest scrutiny. I began studying apologetics before I even really knew what apologetics was. I ran across Lee Strobel’s, The Case for Christ, and after that I was hooked and read everything apologetics related that I could get my hands on. I’ve been studying apologetics ever since.

The Poached Egg has posted countless resources about various topics concerning atheism, cults, and false religions; additionally, you have an avid interest in confronting secularism. What are some of the reasons for your apologetic attention regarding worldview issues?

Like I said earlier, I believe that Christianity is the only worldview that provides sufficient answers to worldview questions—such as, “Why are we here?” “Where did we come from?’” and “Where are we going?” As far as secularism goes, I think that it’s a worldview ultimately driven by selfishness, and when is selfishness ever a good thing?

Why do you believe so passionately in absolute truth?

First, because Jesus seemed to hold truth in such high regard that as I mentioned before he gave it as the reason why he came—he even claimed to be the embodiment of truth itself. And second, if there is no absolute truth then absolutely nothing matters—and if nothing matters—well, that’s a recipe that leads to anarchy, chaos… this list could go on, but ultimately to utter despair.

What are the most troubling religions that require greater Christian apologetic outreach?

I really don’t think I can single out any particular one because while some may have more followers than others, I think that any religion that is false needs to be exposed as so.

Do Christians, Mormons, and Muslims worship the same God?

No. This is the case because any religion that does not express God as he truly is in reality is presenting a false god, or a “manmade” god. That’s one thing I appreciate about Christianity—as C.S. Lewis observed: “It’s not one that anyone could or would make up.” Our God is a God of perfect righteousness and judgment. Who wants that? But he’s also a God who is perfect in mercy and grace. No god of any other religion has all the attributes of the God of the Bible.

What are some things the anti-religious misunderstand about apologetics? And Evangelicals?

I could go on for a while on this one, but I’ll just stick with what jumps out at me the most: that we’re out to rain on everyone’s parade or that we have some kind of political agenda to turn the world into a theocracy. I have no delusions about the latter until Christ returns. The fact that we’re motivated by love (in sharing the Gospel) seems to go over many people’s head, but that doesn’t mean that I’m not going to let my values determine how I vote—which is just as true of any person of any religion or no religion.

What are some ideas, arguments, or topics a Christian might want to explore when witnessing to false religionists?

I would first ask how they came to believe that their religion is true—is it because they just accepted what something or someone said, or because they’ve investigated how their beliefs line up with what we know of reality. Christianity is the only religion that claims to have multiple eyewitnesses from start to finish; most other religions can only claim one and others just simply accepted what they said as being true.

What is the proper tone or attitude Christians should have when witnessing to cultists?

We should realize that we were once deceived just as they are and that God wants them to know the truth just as much as he does us. We should always remember that it’s not about proving that we’re right or winning arguments: it’s about sharing Christ.

Please name any leading-edge apologetic advances, evidence, and arguments that help the apologist reveal the weakness of the secular worldview.

I think the argument from moral absolutes is irrefutable. That along with the various versions of the cosmological argument, the case for the resurrection, and the historical reliability of the Bible makes a cumulative case that Christianity is true beyond a reasonable doubt. This is why hyper-skeptics continue to make logic defying arguments that Jesus never even existed as an historical person. Do away with Jesus and there’s no need to worry about the rest.

The fact that the Bible is a collection of 66 books written over a period of 1500 or so years by around 40 different authors from many different regions and from all walks of life—from shepherds to prophets and kings, and that it is one grand story is remarkable in itself. No other book, religious or secular, fiction or non-fiction, can even come close to making that claim. Furthermore, we keep discovering manuscripts older than we had previously—and they continue to confirm that what we have today is what was written back then.

What do you recommend for a budding apologist who is considering focusing his ministry on apologetics?

First of all, study the Bible. Read it from start to finish then read it again. Read different versions—study its historical context and dig into challenging passages. You’ll be amazed at what you learn. Second, read, read, read, and never stop reading. Read things that are in opposition to your own beliefs. Start with introductory books and then work your way up to higher levels of difficulty and understanding. Pick one to three main subjects of interest and focus mainly on those, remember, you’re never going to learn everything or be an expert at everything. It’s better to learn a lot about a little as opposed to a little about a lot. Third, you don’t have to be William Lane Craig or even need to have a degree to be an effective apologist (although I would like to see more students pursuing degrees in apologetics). The church needs laypeople to volunteer to teach apologetics at their churches and make themselves available to people who have questions. If you want to be an apologist as a career, there are more options today than ever. Ratio Christi will likely never run out of positions for full time and tent-maker apologists—and it won’t break your bank or take years of college to become trained and certified to fill these positions.

With the rise of the militant atheists, are you concerned about the aggression and the influence of the New Atheists and combative Online-atheism?

I’m actually thankful for the New Atheists. It’s partly thanks to them that apologetics is experiencing a resurgence like never before in recent history. What disturbs me is when people who are experiencing doubt will see something online as awful as the Zeitgeist movie and take it on complete faith that the information given is true without looking into their claims and then think of themselves as being “intellectually enlightened.” Most of the attacks made against Christianity are either arguments from emotion, ignorance, or a combination of both. I think there are very few true atheists. Most of them are really just misotheists (God haters) trying to pass themselves off as atheists.

What do you think are some of the best ways to minister and reply to them?

If you’re not spending as much time praying for them (specific people you are reaching out to) as you are presenting your arguments, you’re not going to get very far. We have to pray that God will send his Spirit to prepare them to be open to what we have to say. The mistake many young apologists to be make is to think that it’s all about winning arguments or proving yourself right. If that’s your approach, then please just stop doing apologetics because you’re only hindering the Gospel and not helping anyone.

How essential is defending Christian truth against Islamic claims?

I’m so thankful that there are apologists who specialize in reaching out to Muslims, Mormons, JWs, and many other particular religions. I think that it’s essential to be able to reach out to everyone, regardless of their worldview or religion. Islam, being the 2^nd largest religion in the world, might require more people to step up and specialize in reaching out to them—especially former Muslims.

With all the innovation and the rise of technology, what do you see as some of the biggest challenges for the Christian apologist in the coming years?

I think some of the biggest challenges lie in Christians learning how to utilize that technology for the cause of Christ. Christians always seem to be a more than a few steps behind on this… but I think that’s beginning to change. I think another challenge is in the area of bioethics. It seems we are slow to learn from the past. Most people will condemn Hitler as a moral monster without reservation, but we (as a society) seem to be committing the sins of the past with barely a second thought. Today we have advocates for sex selective abortions and getting rid of the “imperfect” or “unwanted.” We need moral apologists to help defend the defenseless.

What apologists or teachers have influenced your work the most?

Lee Strobel has been a huge influence on me. My pastor calls him “America’s Apologist” and rightly so. He was the first in quite some time to make apologetics accessible to the layman- to show that apologetics is for everyone and not just for academians—and others are following his lead. People like J. Warner Wallace, Greg Koukl, Paul Copan, Sean McDowell, and a growing list of others, are writing apologetics books, articles, and blogs that are equipping lay people (such as myself) to be more confident Christians. This helps make more confident evangelists. With today’s widespread skepticism and relativism—at least in spiritual matters—it’s nearly impossible to effectively witness to your average co-worker without knowing some basic apologetic arguments.

Do you think that there are any non-Christian scholars worth reading?

Absolutely! Today there are quite a few agnostics and even atheists who are writing books that are critical of the secular worldview or are at least asking good questions. One book I really like in particular is God and the Astronomers by the late astronomer, Robert Jastrow, an agnostic, who realized that the big bang and other recent discoveries in cosmology have huge implications and raises a lot of problems for atheism.

Describe your apologetic approach you most often employ.

I’m mainly an evidentialist, but I think that just about all approaches have their value. It all depends on what approach works best for the person you’re trying to reach. The presuppositional approach may work well for some, while with others, you may need to use a more historical or scientific approach.

Is there solid proof or powerful evidence for the existence of God? If so, what is it?

I think the Cosmological argument is a great argument for the existence of God, and some argue that can only get you to theism, but it just so happens that the Bible is the only holy book that describes a God with the necessary attributes to be the uncaused first cause. The more I ponder the cosmological argument, the more I see that it’s highly improbable for God not to exist. And again, the argument from the existence of moral absolutes is a huge problem for skeptics—although there are honest atheists out there who agree that without God there are no moral absolutes.

The Poached Egg recently has teamed-up the Ratio Christi—how has that changed the ministry? What are some of the benefits from this joint effort?

Well, as Ratio Christi operations manager, Blake Anderson put it, TPE and RC are two eggs from the same chicken! Alluding to the fact that we both share many common goals—the biggest of which is to make disciples, which, bottom line, is what apologetics is all about. I’d had a great working relationship with RC almost from the beginning of TPE. I was always eager and happy to promote what they’re doing, and they like what I’m doing. I was originally going to be a chapter director, but with the workload of TPE, it would be nearly impossible to do both and be effective at either and still maintain any kind of family life. The benefit of our partnership for them is that it gives them a larger platform to bang the drum for student apologetics on campuses, which is something I’ve always been passionate about. The main benefit for me (and my family) is that as an RC supported missionary, I’m able to raise funds to help expand TPE while providing for my family at the same time—without the headaches of trying to run TPE as a separate not for profit organization. It really hasn’t changed the ministry of TPE other than integrating it into the RC family and stepping up promotion of RC.

People will be noticing more of this in the near future as we continue to develop our focus and direction. It’s really a win-win situation for both parties and I’m so thankful to RC for enabling me to take TPE to the next level and beyond. Another thing which I’ve mentioned briefly already is that RC really opens a lot of doors for those who wish to pursue apologetics ministry as a career. RC president Rick Schenker calls it a grassroots movement and I wholeheartedly agree and I’m thrilled to be on board!

What are some of your future plans for your ministry? Do you have any projects underway?

I really want to bring a major apologetics conference to my area—that’s one goal I have and another reason that our partnership with RC is beneficial because they have a lot more experience in that area than I do. I’m also going to be traveling and speaking more. I have one local speaking engagement next month and later this month I’ll be a presenter for the Online Apologetics Conference. I’m very excited about that!

Many Christians are not able to be Christian apologists; they do not have the time or ability to devote many years to study. What would you recommend for these average Christians?

First, one could learn apologetics by spending a few minutes a day or week visiting TPE and reading the articles featured there. They might even run across some written by you!

Also, make an effort to read books like The Case for Christ or Cold-Case Christianity. It doesn’t have to take years to learn apologetics, although to be a specialist it does.

Another thing Christians can do is attend a weekend apologetics conference which are popping up everywhere with more frequency. Encourage the leadership at your church to offer apologetics related classes and small groups is another thing they can do.

Last and definitely not least, support apologetics ministries with prayer and financial support. I can’t begin to tell you how important this is!

Are there things, good or bad, that you wish you understood better before you began your apologetics ministry that you now know?

This is another question I could spend quite a bit of time on- but I’ll try to keep it brief. When I started out, I naively thought that all you had to do was just make good arguments and you would be making converts left and right. I know now that the best arguments in the world will not change most people’s minds… but as Greg Koukl puts it, the task of the apologist is to put a stone in someone’s shoe. You might speak to someone and never see them again, but what you say might open the door for them later on down the road. The fact that life is ultimately meaningless without God, and that without God there is no solution to the problem of evil, gnawed at me for quite some time before I came to the decision that it was with either all in or all out for Christ.

Are there any ways our readers can support your ministry?

Yes, help us spread the word about Ratio Christi: share TPE articles on their social networks—and please pray for me and my family as we continue to expand our reach. We also are in great need of financial support. As Hank Hanegraaff puts it, the Gospel is free but someone has to pay for the plumbing. To donate, one can go to the “donate” page on TPE to make a special or ongoing monthly donation online.

My readers and I thank you for your time and we pray for God’s blessing upon your work and outreach.

Mike, thank you so much for the opportunity to be interviewed here, and I thank you and pray for God’s blessing on your ministry as well!

_________________________________________

The Poached Egg Christian Worldview and Apologetics Journal is a website founded and edited by Greg West. Greg is passionately committed to the cause of Christian apologetics; providing an adequate and reasonable defense of the Christian faith. The Poached Egg is a large and continually expanding virtual library of articles and essays compiled from all over the World Wide Web. Noted apologists, biblical scholars, philosophers, scientists, historians, students, and laymen all come together under this one site.

The Poached Egg derives its name from the famous C.S. Lewis quote from, Mere Christianity. “A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse.”

I encourage readers to support The Poached Egg’s apologetic ministry; they are ever-active resource providers and they boldly contend for the Christian Worldview against the errors of atheism, cults, Islam and false religions.

Donate HERE

Website Home is Here

Subscribe to their potent e-daily here

Follow them on Twitter here

Filed Under: Apologetics, Classical Apologetics, Evangelical Theology Tagged With: apologetics interview, greg west, greg west apologist, poached egg, Ratio Christi, Ratio Christi poached egg, the poached egg

Jackie Robinson’s Faith in God: Following Christ – WSJ

April 13, 2013 By Mike Robinson Leave a Comment

By CHRIS LAMB

Brooklyn Dodgers President Branch Rickey first met Jackie Robinson on Aug. 28, 1945. Rickey told Robinson that he wanted to sign the 26-year-old ballplayer and break the national pastime’s color barrier. But for him to succeed, Rickey said, Robinson couldn’t respond to the indignities that would be piled on him: “I’m looking for a ballplayer with guts enough not to fight back.”

Rickey then opened a book published in the 1920s, Giovanni Papini’s “Life of Christ,” and read Jesus’ words: “But whoever shall smite thee on the cheek, turn to him the other also.” Robinson knew the Gospel and knew what was required of him. He replied, “I have two cheeks, Mr. Rickey. Is that it?” This meeting between the two Methodists, Rickey and Robinson, ultimately transformed baseball and America itself.

The exchange is depicted in “42,” the biographical movie opening this weekend with Chadwick Boseman as Jackie Robinson and Harrison Ford as Branch Rickey. But then the movie turns to the familiar, inspiring saga of Robinson’s courageous fight against racism in baseball and society.

What is often overlooked in accounts of Robinson’s life is that it is also a religious story. His faith in God, as he often attested, carried him through the torment and abuse of integrating the major leagues….

In a 1950 newspaper interview, he emphasized his faith in God and his nightly ritual of kneeling at bedside to pray. “It’s the best way to get closer to God,” Robinson said, and then the second baseman added with a smile, “and a hard-hit ground ball.”

After Robinson retired from baseball, he wrote newspaper columns for the New York Post and the Amsterdam News in New York. Many of the columns are collected in a new book, “Beyond Home Plate,” edited by Michael G. Long. Writing for the Post in 1960, Robinson compared his own experience with “turning the other cheek” with the nonviolent confrontation of the civil-rights movement espoused by his friend, Martin Luther King Jr….

Read full WSJ article HERE

————————————

see my new eBook that contends for Moral Absolutes and the Existence of God Here

Filed Under: Apologetics, Classical Apologetics Tagged With: jackie robinson Christian, jackie robinson God, jackie robinson religion, moral absolutes sports

Logic, Aristotle, and God

March 12, 2013 By Mike Robinson 7 Comments

Logic, Aristotle, and the Necessity of Theism

Mike Robinson Granbury, Texas

Introduction

Aristotle was one of the world’s great philosophers and his work offers vital truths utilized by Christian scholars. This is the case since Aristotle largely discovered the laws of logic and brought forth numerous philosophical advancements. Many of the finest Christian thinkers have utilized Aristotle’s work on logic and his first principles. God is the foundation for the laws of logic—the immaterial, transcendent, and immutable God supplies the indispensable pre-environment for the use of immaterial, transcendent, universal, and immutable laws of logic (law of identity: A = A; law of non-contradiction: A~~A). Atheistic thought cannot provide the necessary a priori truth conditions for the immutable universal laws of logic; therefore it rationally fails because of this core flaw.

—————————————————————————————————————-

Aristotle (384–322 B.C.E.) numbers among the greatest philosophers of all time. Judged solely in terms of his philosophical influence, only Plato is his peer: Aristotle’s works shaped centuries of philosophy from Late Antiquity through the Renaissance, and even today continue to be studied with keen, non-antiquarian interest.[1]

Aristotle was born in Greece, he entered Plato’s academy in 367 B.C., and he later taught Alexander the Great. Many scholars believe that Aristotle holds enormous significance for the Christian apologetic system considering that he discovered and disclosed the laws of logic. Furthermore, he taught that they were necessary in all thought and action. Most of history’s best Christian thinkers and apologists studied and utilized Aristotle’s work on logic, metaphysics, and his first principles.

Aristotle’s Epistemology: How We Know What We Know

Aristotle, contrary to Plato’s limited rationalism, chiefly took an empirical approach to epistemology (he believed knowledge starts and is based on man’s sensual experience). As an object is perceived by one’s sense perception, the mind by abstraction starts to rationally organize and discern objects. Aristotle declared that the rational mind comes to apprehension, predication, and reasoning through dependence of empirical means.

This essay is not intended to be a treatise concerning the majority of Aristotle’s “logic” (his theory of the syllogism, analytics, etc.). Aristotle’s work on general logic is vast and makes one marvel. Many philosophers until the nineteenth century thought that Aristotle had discovered everything there was to know about logic. The diverse schools of formal logic did not arrive on the historic scene until 2000 years after Aristotle with Boole, Frege, and Pierce (men who finally made significant advancements from Aristotle). Hitherto time has revealed the incredible genius of Aristotle.

Aristotle’s Organon

The ancient commentators grouped together several of Aristotle’s treatises under the title Organon (Instrument) and regarded them as comprising his logical work.[2]

A large amount of Aristotle’s discourses comprising his logical works are found in the Organon. Including the following:

• Categories

• On Interpretation

• On Sophistical Refutations

• Prior Analytics

• Posterior Analytics.

Aristotle and Plato

Truth, according to his [Plato] view, being an ultimate Form, defies definition …[3]

After his [Aristotle] death it was two thousand years before the world produced any philosopher who could be regarded as approximately his equal.[4]

Even though Plato was his instructor, Aristotle rejected Plato’s Theory of Forms (Ideas). Aristotle asserted that the existence of Ideas contradicts itself by denying the possibility of negations; Plato’s notion that forms are thus perfect entities, intangible to subjective human experience, is meaningless since for Aristotle all standards are based somewhere in ordinary human activity and perception. However one can think of and stipulate perfect ideals. How can an imperfect human ponder perfect forms or notions? The theistic worldview alone has the solution: a perfect God has perfect ideals and forms in His mind and man is created in His image, thus man has some knowledge of perfect things. Nonetheless, Aristotle discards Plato’s notions of perfect forms. The idea of Beauty is a good example. Plato considered Beauty to be an eternal perfect form represented on earth in an imperfect fading capacity. Aristotle denied that abstractions like Beauty are unchanging absolutes and not just a part of human experience; the Idea of Beauty is mutable and is not an unchanging eternal truth. Beauty changes with time and human opinions, thus it cannot be an eternal form. Aristotle rejected Plato’s notion of changeless and eternal forms and embraced a more empiricist outlook.

When a question arises on an unusually obscure subject, on which no assistance can be rendered by clear and certain proofs of the Holy Scriptures, the presumption of man ought to restrain itself; nor should it attempt anything definite by leaning to either side.[5]

The great Christian sage Augustine looked at Plato’s idea of a moral hierarchy through Christian eyes and believed that rational ideas of truth and moral goodness are embodied in their highest form by the triune God. In opposition to Plato, Augustine believed that God and goodness are one and the same; Plato does not believe that God is the same thing as goodness, but that God defines and exhibits goodness better than any other thing or being. In Plato’s scheme God becomes subordinate to the universal forms; this facet of Plato’s thought is self-defeating and impossible since God must be all-powerful and beneath naught. What’s more, Plato’s God is good but He is not all-powerful.

Wonder is where philosophy begins, and nowhere else.[6]

Plato (428-347 B.C) has been rightly lionized as an enormously important philosopher. The oft repeated hyperbolic quip by Whitehead that philosophy consists of “a series of footnotes to Plato” makes the point well. Plato gave the world a large body of groundbreaking work. One interesting fact: much of Plato’s writings were not written in his own voice. The most frequent speaker in Plato’s work is Socrates. In fact, most scholars are of the opinion that the great majority of the views imputed to Socrates are the views of Plato. The middle period dialogues provide the main thrust of historical Platonism. Other critical aspects of Plato’s views are recorded in The Republic. In it Plato asserts that humans hold three types of mental states: ignorance, knowledge, and belief. Many of Plato’s notions are interesting, original, and revolutionary, yet many of his ideas are arbitrary. Moreover they lack a foundation inasmuch as he did not begin the knowing process with God and the biblical worldview.

Aristotle writes at times as a type of deist (perhaps similar to an open-theist) even though he asserts that God has an active role in the cosmos and that the material world depends upon the non-material God. For example, he claims God is the prime-mover as a self-sufficient, driving mover for both nature and man. Motion has started and continues because the Supreme Being is the prime-mover. He asserts that all good things, and goodness itself, is a product of God including the goodness in mankind.

Aristotle on the Law of Non-contradiction Utilized in Individual Motion

Aristotle observes that men must act in a definite way. This demonstrates that men think that things in reality are one way rather than another. The Law of Non-contradiction (LNC) compels one action over another. That is why people do not aim to walk into holes in the ground or fall over balconies; this reveals that in one’s actions one cannot avoid the actuality of the LNC. Their actions illustrate that they have an a posteriori notion that they (A) are not the sidewalk (non-A) on the bottom of the balcony drop. Thus, if they want to avoid a painful collision with the sidewalk at the bottom, they must avoid falling from a balcony; the truth of the LNC cannot be avoided in human experience. The LNC is true and if one verbally disagrees with such, one must depend on the LNC in one’s disagreement. This indicates that the LNC is indubitable; it’s pragmatically necessary and rationally certain.

Action is the spot where our beliefs collide with the truth. If a skeptic attempts to be skeptical concerning the LNC, he still must depend on it to avoid getting hit by a car or tripping over a curb (pedestrian = A, and car = non-A). It is obvious that a skeptic must depend on and presuppose the LNC even in one’s effort to be skeptical regarding its ever-persisting necessity. “Let this then suffice to show that the firmest belief is that opposite assertions are not true at the same time.”[7]

With the exception of God, the firmest principle is a belief in the LNC forasmuch as it bears with it the presupposition that the LNC is necessary; a presupposition that is presupposed and required for any venture into human experience.

The Law of Non-Contraction: A Logical and Practical Necessity

For though we love both the truth and our friends, piety requires us to honor the truth first (Aristotle).
Aristotle’s logic will concern itself … [with] either the universal or the particular…[8]

Devoid of the LNC, men could not know anything. One could not demarcate anything within science, philosophy, or theology; all distinctions between all particulars would be impossible to draw, and the incapacity of making distinctions would make rational argument impossible. Aristotle noted that the LNC is an obligatory principle of empirical observation, rational inquiry, analysis, and interpretation that men cannot do without. Aristotle discusses the LNC in Metaphysics IV and in chapter 11 of Posterior Analytics I. No one in the ancient world rivaled Aristotle’s exposition of the LNC. He wrote: “It is impossible for the same thing to belong and not to belong at the same time to the same thing and in the same respect” (Metaphysics IV 3). Additionally: “It is impossible to hold (suppose) the same thing to be and not to be (Metaphysics IV 3).” Thus it is impossible to hold the same thing to be “A” and “non-A.” He later noted that the “opposite assertions cannot be true at the same time” (Metaphysics IV 6). Aristotle says that the LNC is an all-inclusive axiom, a universal axiom to all human endeavors. In of itself it lacks tangible subject matter, but applies to everything. The LNC is a first principle and is the most unyielding principle. Aristotle states that the LNC “is necessary for anyone to know any of the things that are” (Metaphysics IV 3).

The LNC is a truth condition that makes human experience and thinking possible; the world must adhere to it. Since human experience and rational thinking presuppose the LNC (it is the case that reality and humanity have an unyielding dependence on its truth) it is a universal. Human experience is rational which accounts for these aspects of our experience and not the converse. Human experience conforms to the LNC forasmuch as it is presupposed by intelligibility.

Augustine: Christian Scholar Influenced by Plato and Aristotle

Plato saw that God is not any bodily thing, but that all things have their being from God, and from something immutable… He [Augustine] found in the Platonists the metaphysical doctrine of the Logos, but not the doctrine of the Incarnation and the consequent doctrine of human salvation.[9]

Augustine connects God with human reason and supposes that human epistemic truth comes from man’s relationship to God’s revelation as well as God’s relationship to man. Augustine’s argument moves him from existence of the self to the objectivity of truth and finally to God’s reality. Augustine assumes that God is a rational being and that the rational and the good are identical. God is truth and He looms over all human truth. God must be the ultimate good; therefore, truth and goodness are united in God. His argument seems fairly perspicuous and rational. He works toward that end (telos) by the evaluation of the rationality of truth and goodness, and he casts God in that role as the ultimate embodiment of both. In contrast, Aristotle agreed with Plato’s notion that the immaterial (ideas, forms) and the material (matter, concrete things) were distinct (almost separate in Plato) things; however, he did not share Plato’s belief that all forms were unceasingly unchanging truths that exist independently of anything else; he felt that form was related to the properties of the given matter. Aristotle denies Plato’s immaterial universal immutable forms because the universal definitions for things depend too much on the material substance.

Truth is the telos of a theoretical enquiry (Metaphysics, II).

One time Plato was reciting the story of Socrates’ final day before his execution. The dialogue was touching and somber. Nonetheless as the great Plato was reciting Socrates’ martyrdom, the listeners gradually went away; at the conclusion Aristotle alone was left. The three greatest thinkers of ancient Greece, perhaps all pagan history, were left alone together: Socrates through the reading, his student Plato reading the story, and Plato’s student Aristotle, who was listening. One interesting question an observer could ask: during that reading, who do you call the Philosopher? While Aristotle’s work on logic, metaphysics, ethics, politics, and poetics had a weighty influence on philosophy, many of his conjectures about nature and human experience are odd and unsound. Aristotle taught that the sun orbits the earth and that a newborn’s sex is determined by the direction of prevailing wind. One can always find, even in the greatest thinkers, errors in their philosophy. Yet he also stated that to “avoid criticism say nothing, do nothing, be nothing.”

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it (Aristotle).

Worldview Interpretive Necessities

Aristotle’s theory of universals … is certainly an advance on the theory of ideas, and is certainly concerned with a genuine and very important problem.[10]

All worldviews are open to charge on particular claims as well as individual assessments of specific evidence (disagreement over interpretation of particular evidence is often the case among interlocutors—while both are susceptible to confirmation bias). Apologists for a specific worldview have answers pre-formulated for particular issues, so trading brute evidence (or swapping uninterpreted facts) is not the chief means of finding truth apropos worldview analysis.

What are the required rational and ethical a priori conditions necessary to ground immutable universals (including LNC/LOI) required for intelligibility? Answer: countless finite and contingent things along with universal operational aspects essential to rationality. Christian Theism furnishes these universal functioning features; atheism fails. Atheism is fully deficient an accounting of immutable universals required to even begin an inquiry concerning the truth of worldviews. To examine, analyze, and discern proper particulars, one needs a worldview that supplies immutable universals. Materialistic atheism believes that only the cosmos exists; the matter and motion within the universe is all there is. Does the cosmos have the capacity to ground immutable universals? No. The material cosmos comes up infinitely short since it is a particular mutable (changing) thing; it lacks universal reach (it is not omnipresent) and it is always in a shifting and variable flux. Thus the material cosmos as well as the matter and motion within fail to ground the immutable operational features of human experience. Since immutable universals exist, strict materialistic atheism cannot be true.

Christian Theism posits things, forms, entities, norms, concepts, laws that are immutable, universal, and non-physical, but the atheistic materialist denies this at his own peril and self-stultification. Christian Theism brings with it the ability for coherence, moral law, inductive truths and all the a prior rational requirements for intelligibility.

The Laws of Logic and Thought

The fundamental laws, the laws of thought, [are] those operations of the mind by which reasoning is performed.[11]

Aristotle … observe[s], in the Metaphysics, that “the fact that a thing is itself is [the only] answer to all such questions as why the man is man, or the musician musical.”[12]

The laws of truth are not psychologistic, but are necessities of logic; they are objectively true and in force.[13] These laws are not bound to the fleeting subjective opinions or thoughts of men. They are necessarily utilized by all men, but a particular man or set of men (and their particular brains) lack the ontic capacity to ground these laws. I draw from this that only an immutable and universal power source can ground the laws of truth and this is God. The always-in-flux cosmos lacks an unchanging nature to ground the laws of logic. Nonetheless, many modern atheists assert that these laws are not laws; they are not fixed and universal. Nevertheless, Frege was correct; these laws are surely fixed and universal. The laws of logic are not material laws that may change forasmuch as truth must utilize these principles. Posit them as mere brain accessories or cerebral tools and this will place them in the subjective psychologistic realm. This cannot be true because these laws are objective and necessary. Thus the principles of logic are not mere human conventions or limited to subjective governance. One must be antecedently committed to their independence from the human brain (and the cosmos) and their absolute normative governance—they are transcendent. John Frame observes: “People may very well interpret the expression ‘law of thought’ by analogy with the ‘law of nature’ and then have in their mind features of thinking as mental occurrence. A law of thought in this sense would be a psychological law. … That would be a misunderstanding regarding the task of logic, for truth has not been given its proper place.” That is one reason it is proper to refer to these laws as the “laws of truth.”

The True God Exists

There is present in us the light of eternal reason, in which light the immutable truths are seen (Augustine).

Charles Spurgeon observed that “change is the condition of life. … But the unchangeableness of God is the negation of all imperfection, it is the negation of all dependence on circumstances, it is the negation of all possibility of decay or exhaustion.” God has the ontological heft to account for everything. God, as the One who provides the a priori truth conditions for all things, has the ontic capacity to account for immutable universals (laws of logic, moral law, etc.). Mutable and non-universal entities are devoid of the sufficient attributes that are required, so they are ontologically undersupplied to account for the laws of logic. These laws are invariant universals and are required for communication and knowledge.

Come let us reason together (God: Isaiah 1:17).

God furnishes all the a priori essentials; the necessary epistemic equipment utilized in all thoughts and achievements. God has the ontic attributes of omniscience, immutability, and omnipotence (He has universal reach) enabling Him to be the ground for the universal and immutable laws of truth and ethical necessities (moral law) that are utilized in all thought and action. Any position that rejects the true God as the epistemic (knowledge) base not only leaves an unnerving fissure, but hopelessly fails. Consequently, whatever evidence one discovers must be discerned and processed with the rational implements that arise from Christian theism and the worldview that springs from the true God. The true God is the primordial requirement for all knowledge, proof, evidence, and logic. He is the a priori verity condition for the intelligibility of reality. The immaterial, transcendent, and immutable God supplies the indispensable pre-environment for the use of immaterial, transcendent, universal, and immutable laws of logic (law of identity: A = A; law of non-contradiction: A~~A). Atheistic thought cannot furnish the necessary preconditions for the immutable universal laws of logic; therefore it results in futility because of its internal weakness.

Conclusion

Van Til warns that “the only alternative to thinking of God as the ultimate source of unity in human experience as it is furnished by laws or universals is to think that the unity rests in a void. Every object of knowledge must, therefore, be thought of as being surrounded by ultimate irrationality.”[14] Deny God as the highest mind, the source for human reason, one impales the reason one can trust human reason. The laws of logic are potent apologetic tools. However, the Great Logos, Jesus Christ, came to speak and provide the greatest good news: Christ’s death and resurrection atones for the sins of His people. May the reader cast himself upon Christ in faith and find truth, forgiveness, acceptance, and mercy (Romans 4:1-5).

——————————————————————————————–

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle/
Ibid.
Michael Grant: The Classical Greeks, Macmillan.
Bertrand Russell: History of Western Philosophy, Psychology Press.
Augustine: On Merit and the Forgiveness of Sin. Google Books.
Plato: Theaetetus, trans. M.J. Levitt, Hackett.
Aristotle: Metaphysics, trans. W.D. Ross.
Barnes, Jonathan: A Very Short Introduction of Aristotle, Oxford.
Russell.
Ibid.
George Boole: The Laws of Thought, Open Court Publishing.
Aristotle: Metaphysics, trans. Ross. Oxford.
Mario Livio: Is God a Mathematician? Simon & Schuster.
Cornelius Van Til: Survey of Christian Epistemology. P & R.

see my new apologetics E-book God and Logic: Proof, Reason, and Theism HERE

Suggested Reading

• Aristotle, Metaphysics (1972). Oxford.

• Aristotle, I & II, Great Books (1952). Britannica.

• Augustine, Aurelius (Saint) (2010). The Works of Augustine. Amazon Kindle.

• Bahnsen (1998). Van Til’s Apologetic, P & R.

• Bambrough, Renford (1963). The Philosophy of Aristotle, Mentor.

• Barnes, Jonathan (2012). A Very Short Introduction of Aristotle, Oxford.

• Burt, Donald (1996). Augustine’s World, University Press.

• Carroll, Lewis (1989). Best of Lewis Carroll, Castle.

• Charnock, Stephen. ([1684], 2000), The Existence and Attributes of God, Baker Books.

• Frame, John (1994). Apologetics to the Glory of God, P & R.

• Frame, John (1987). The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God, P & R.

• Frege, G.F. (1967). Basic Laws of Arithmetic. University of California Press; Second Printing.

• Garson, James (2006). Modal Logic for Philosophers. Cambridge.

• Girle, Rod (2000). Modal Logic and Philosophy, McGill.

• Goble, Lou (2001). The Blackwell Guide to Philosophical Logic, Blackwell.

• Grant, Michael (1989). TheClassical Greeks, Scribners.

• Hughes, G.E. (1995). A new Introduction to Modal Logic, Routledge.

• Hunter, Geoffrey (1973). Metalogic, Campus.

• Konyndyk, Kenneth (1986). Introductory Modal Logic, ND Press.

• Lambert, Karel (1991). Philosophical Applications of Free Logic, Oxford.

• Lewis, C.I. (1946). An Analysis of Knowledge and Valuation., Open Court.

• Lewis, C.I. (1969). Values and Imperatives, ed. by J. Lange, Stanford University Press.

• O’Connor, Timothy (2008). Theism and Ultimate Explanation, Blackwell.

• Plato, John Cooper, Ed., (1997). Complete Works, Hackett.

• Quine, W.V.O. (1993). Pursuit of Truth, Harvard University Press.

• Stern, Robert (2000). Transcendental Arguments and Skepticism, Oxford University Press.

• Strawson, P.F. (1963). Introduction to Logical Theory, Methuen & Co.

• Stroud, Barry (1968). “Transcendental Arguments,” Journal of Philosophy 65.

• Tarski, Alfred (1961). Introduction to Logic. Dover.

• Van Til, (1980). Survey of Christian Epistemology, P & R.

• Van Til, (2007). Introduction to Systematic Theology, P & R.

Filed Under: Apologetics, Christian Philosophy, Classical Apologetics Tagged With: God and logic, law of non-contradiction God aristotle, logic apologetics, logic aristotle religion, logic God aristotle, reason revelation

New Apologetics eBook – “Christianity Supreme—Defeating Non-Christian Worldviews”

March 12, 2013 By Mike Robinson 2 Comments

In a culture captivated by spirituality, committed to religious pluralism, and challenged by hostile New Atheists, the Christian worldview faces widespread and forceful opposition. A rational commitment to anti-Christian worldviews, with their required openness and relativistic viewpoint, must be challenged and defeated at their root level.

Mike Robinson in Christianity Supreme—Defeating Non-Christian Worldviews, outlines the Christian worldview: How it understands truth, morality, mankind, and the world. He maintains that the Christian worldview not only passes the tests of reason, logic, and experience—but it alone supplies the foundation needed for reason and logic. He demonstrates that the Christian worldview is true and assured as he equips the reader to intellectually defend the faith on the intellectual (and spiritual) battleground. He particularly hits the attractions of our generation: naturalism, atheism, cults, and Eastern Religions, pointing out their weaknesses and drawbacks.
In a world progressively unsympathetic to the Christian worldview, followers of Christ need to be trained to communicate with those who do not speak the same language or accept the authority of scripture. Robinson demonstrates how to lead the non-Christian to truth, leading conversations toward thoughtful and profound ideas—drawing them to the truth in Christ. You’ll learn how to move easily and graciously through the obstacles, halt opponents in their tracks, and demonstrate the truth of the Christian worldview as you learn lead them to the Lord.

In this innovative work you will discover how to:

Initiate discussions smoothly
Present the Christian worldview clearly, capably, and persuasively
Civilly and effectively expose flawed thinking
Skillfully lead the direction of the dialogue
Keep up an appealing, captivating style even under aggressive counterpoints

What is needed in this postmodern era is a commanding, wide-ranging Christian response. In Christianity Supreme—Defeating Non-Christian Worldviews, point by point, argument by argument, the Christian worldview is successfully presented and defended.

Christianity Supreme: Defeating Non-Christian Worldviews

Defending The Christian Worldview Against Its Rivals purchase HERE

Filed Under: Apologetics, Christian Philosophy, Classical Apologetics Tagged With: christian apologetics worldviews, christian worldview, Christianity Supreme: Defeating Non-Christian Worldviews Defending The Christian Worldview, Francis Schaeffer, Francis Schaeffer worldviews, village atheist, world views, worldview apologetics, worldview ebook

A Christian Argument for Purpose and Significance

February 11, 2013 By Mike Robinson 6 Comments

A Christian Argument for Purpose and Significance

Under Non-theism: There is No Lasting Purpose, No Ultimate Meaning, and No Hope

By Mike Robinson

Introduction

Without God, all the ideas, objectives, and achievements of mankind will collapse, fade, and vanish as they ultimately dissolve into the desolation of inoperative energy. All human experience and existence will be as though it had never been. Devoid of God, the cosmos will end in futility and extinction as it subsides into the nethermost mode of heat energy. The Second Law of Thermodynamics insures that without God, in the end, one is left with no lasting purpose, no ultimate meaning, and no hope. Moreover, reject the Christian worldview and one lacks a ground for purpose as well as the analysis and evaluation of purpose. To account for the notion of purpose, all men depend on the Christian worldview as it supplies the necessary functioning features of the analysis of purpose. Studying purpose and meaning, gathering knowledge regarding such matters, and offering claims concerning such—these actions require the use of universal operating features that the brute material cosmos cannot ontologically underwrite. Purpose is not intelligible apart from the biblical God.

—————————————————————

Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God (1 Corinthians 10:31).

Man’s chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever (Westminster Standards).¹

Everything has been figured out, except how to live (Jean-Paul Sartre).

In the West it used to be considered the realm of the churches to solve the problems regarding the point of existence, but these days the question “What is the meaning of life?” is included in many exams for sociology, psychology, and philosophy degrees. However, the issue also arises in a very real form in contemporary ethics, particularly with the cases of the terminally ill, abortion, and the treatment of the elderly. It seems ironic that for too many people, the only time the question of the meaning of life is pondered deeply is when it is almost over.

Boundaries and Meaninglessness

A life without boundaries is a meaningless existence (Josh McDowell).

So what’s the point of it all anyway? There are numerous alternatives, some very hedonistic, some slightly epicurean, and some idealistic, some morally principled, and some very virtuous. The later type may live a life that is about truth, beauty, and honor—learning and growing in Christian virtue.² Many people seek fulfillment of the self-gratifying kind—pursuits along the lines of: to seek personal comfort and pleasure, to get wealthy, or to gain power or fame. But if life is merely about the “pursuit of happiness”—what if that doesn’t satisfy? What if my happiness pursuit conflicts with another person’s happiness? Or what If I’m not very good at pursuing happiness? Many people in modern societies are not good at pursuing happiness; just look at the alcoholism, illegal drug use, and violence in contemporary societies.

An Incoherent Noble Truth

Does Buddhism have a coherent and satisfying solution? For Buddhists in selected sects, the answer to questions about the purpose of life, the universe and everything, is that the point of life is to put off desire. All men suffer because we lack that which we want—we receive the trouble, which we do not desire. This desire to possess things is the cause of our suffering(dukkha). This means that the soul is out of harmony and seeks after the wrong things, and thus perpetuates the suffering. An important part of enlightenment is the understanding that suffering is just an illusion, like desire, and one escapes this desire through following the Dharma (the law of life, one’s duty within cultural norms or the basic philosophical principals of one’s life in the world).

In contrast, Van Til observed that “when apples are shaken off a tree, one can ask whether there must not have been some sort of something that is higher than the apples in order to account for the fruit. Similarly, not looking for the meaning of man in the light of the revelation that comes from Christ revealed in the Bible is even more absurd. He who does not look for the meaning of humanity in the light of the revelation that comes from God revealed in Scripture is like one who shakes off all the apples of the apple tree, grubs out the tree, and then asks whether there must not have been some sort of something that is higher than the apples in order to account for them. This ‘some sort of something’ or at most some sort of tree may, possibly or probably, tell us that it is an apple tree.”³

The Buddha taught that one should strive to remove desire, and affirm that everything that seems real—things we seek—are all just illusions.

• If all desire is error and increases suffering

• Then the desire to rid myself of desire is an error and actually increases suffering

• I should not desire to completely stifle desire

A goal to extinguish desire, as asserted above, is self-impaling. On this crucial issue—the diagnosis of the human problem—Christianity and Buddhism are infinitely different. Buddha teaches that our desires need to be subdued and annihilated, but Jesus presses men to cultivate passionate desires to please God and follow after love. Buddha attempts to rid men of suffering by denying one’s aspirations and in promulgating the notion that desires are part of the vast illusion of life. This reveals that the real need that Buddhists have is for the forgiveness of sins and acceptance by God. Only Jesus can provide this solution. The Buddhist is taught to resolve to follow Dharma with precision so one can find Nirvana. By contrast, the Christian, by grace, obtains salvation as a gift from God through the person and work of Christ.

The concept of “God” invented as the antithetical concept in life–everything harmful, noxious, slanderous, the whole mortal enmity against life brought into terrible unity! The concept the life beyond … invented to deprive of value the only world which exists (Nietzsche).⁴

Some cultists advance the idea that life is about knocking on enough doors to sell magazines or to participate in enough temple occultic rituals to please God. Selected Hindus suggest that one needs to stay pure in order to escape the Karmic cycle. The Prussian born Friedrich Nietzsche advanced the idea that life was about attaining power. Nietzsche wrote of the will of power, the Superman, and magnificent destinies. Yet Nietzsche was a physically and emotionally weak man: headaches, unattractive, bad eyesight—a tragic figure. He ironically asserted: “A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything.”⁵ A few years later he fell into insanity and repeatedly declared that he was Jesus Christ.⁶ Nietzsche stated that the goal of humanity is to rise atop nature’s power-seeking—untrammeled by Christian notions of justice and compassion. There is no meaning to life except that which individuals create for themselves. The only way out of this meaninglessness is through the exercise of power. Whereas Christianity teaches that men ought to glorify God, aim to do good, love your neighbor, Nietzsche argues that this is slave morality and is born out of weakness.

God the Foundation for Purpose

F–k damnation, man! F–k redemption! We are God’s unwanted children? So be it! (Fight Club).⁷

I am absolutely convinced that the gas chambers … were ultimately prepared not in some ministry or other in Berlin, but rather at the desks and lecture halls of nihilistic scientists and philosophers (Viktor Frankl; italics mine).

O LORD, You have searched me and known me. You know my sitting down and my rising up; You understand my thought afar off. You comprehend my path and my lying down, and are acquainted with all my ways. For there is not a word on my tongue, but behold, O LORD, You know it altogether. You have hedged me behind and before, and laid Your hand upon me. Such knowledge is too wonderful … You formed my inward parts; You covered me in my mother’s womb. I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; marvelous are Your works, And that my soul knows very well. My frame was not hidden from You, when I was made in secret, and skillfully wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed. And in Your book they all were written, the days fashioned for me, when as yet there were none of them. How precious also are Your thoughts to me, O God! How great is the sum of them! If I should count them, they would be more in number than the sand; when I awake, I am still with You (Psalms 139:1-18).

The Christian worldview supplies hope. The proper application of science is a wonderful tool to advance aspects of human life. Nevertheless, the “religion” of science cannot provide enduring hope or purpose. Mathematics and scientific observation have demonstrated that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is a fundamental truth (all things are running down). And without God, this law of physics leaves man without a future and a hope. This principle reveals that the universe is running down like a clock. One day in the distant future the whole universe will die in the whimper of an eternal heat-death. The sun, the starry hosts, and all the galaxies will be extinguished in a humming red flash. The pop-atheist Rosenberg observes that “the second law of thermodynamics tells us that the universe is headed for complete disorder—no purpose or goal can be secured permanently under such circumstances (Alex Rosenberg: The Atheist’s Guide to Reality).

An Argument for Purpose

[1] Without an everlasting existence, men have no enduring purpose.

[2] God supplies everlasting existence for men.

[3] There is an enduring purpose.

[4] Therefore God exists.

One may extend this argument to an antithesis:

[5] Non-theism cannot supply an everlasting existence.

[6] Under non-theism men have no enduring purpose.

[7] Without enduring purpose men have no ultimate meaning.

[8] Non-theism offers no ultimate meaning

[9] There is ultimate meaning.

[10] Therefore non-theism is false.

This argument places most its weight on [3]. It does not stand as an assured argument. If the non-theist denies that there is an enduring purpose, he can evade the weight of its vigor. But the denial is very telling. Under non-theism there is no enduring purpose.

A Transcendental Proposal for Purpose

Nothing really matters; nothing really matters to me (Queen: Bohemian Rhapsody).

To fashion the truth of purpose in an assured argument—a transcendental form is much preferred since a transcendental inference is not governed by the truth value of its antecedent premise, regardless of whether this premise affirms purpose or not. This is the case since a transcendental supposition constitutes the very ground for the proof of that premise.

Deny the Christian worldview and one lacks a foundation for purpose as well as the investigation and evaluation of purpose, meaning, and hope. To account for the notion of purpose, all men depend on the Christian worldview since it furnishes the obligatory functioning features required for the analysis of purpose. Investigating purpose and meaning, gathering knowledge regarding such matters, and offering assertions concerning such—these actions require the use (and presupposition) of universal operating features that the mere cosmos cannot ontologically fund. Purpose, not merely eternal purpose, is not intelligible apart from the biblical God.

The Distressing Reality of Purposelessness

Without God, all the schemes, dreams, monuments, and attainments of mankind will be like a “cosmic sand sculpture” which will be toppled, subdued, despoiled, dissolved, and swept off into the sea of nothingness (unusable energy). All reality and existence will be as though it had never been and the whole universe will wear the final mark of purposelessness and oblivion, as it ebbs into the lowest vocation of soft heat energy. The Second Law of Thermodynamics demonstrates that without God, in the end, one is left with no lasting purpose, no ultimate meaning, and no hope.

God announces to His people that He is with them everywhere, at all times. God’s will is to be our delight and purpose. The universe and our individual lives are part of the culmination of a prefigured design.

Sagacious But Illegitimate

Socrates believed that the best life, in part, is realized when the soul ponders ultimate beauty in its pure form and when it pursues knowledge of ultimate forms. This and many other theories (by Socrates as well as other philosophers) have no ultimate footing to ground their claims. They are just empty claims by individual men—though many times from very brilliant men—nevertheless, just men. Those, who believe that human existence and our universe are just “accidental afterthoughts,” leave souls in despair, immersed in purposelessness. When one reads Bertrand Russell summing up life as “unyielding despair,” one starts to ache for meaning and purpose. To find meaning in life, one has to look to the true and living God. He is the God of the living and He gives life purpose and meaning.

The inward area is the first place of loss of true Christian life, of true spirituality, and the outward sinful act is the result (Francis Schaeffer).⁸

The Bible instructs people to do “all things for the glory of God.” Holy writ notifies the world that in our life, we can have the supreme joy of knowing the Father in a loving, covenant relationship. One cannot have real meaning in this life without the Lord Jesus Christ. Emptiness, loneliness, purposelessness, and despair are the companions of those who do not seek God in Christ. A covenant life with God Almighty brings daily enrichment, enchantment, and a wonder-filled life. Doing all things for the glory of God and enjoying Him brings a splendor-filled zest to the daily delights of nature, employment, motherhood, children, friends, God’s Word, prayer, and a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

God is The God of Hope

He who has a why to live can bear almost any how (Friedrich Nietzsche).⁹

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He has made us accepted in the Beloved. In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins… having made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure which He purposed in Himself (Ephesians 1:3-9).

Hungering for the world’s disjointed abstract knowledge will only lead to struggle and despair. Real purpose and meaning are pursued, attained, and sustained by a hot-blooded, passionate pursuit of Jesus. The non-Christian worldview leads to Heidegger’s ultimate, yet empty, answer to the problem of the meaninglessness of life “is to stand on deck and salute” as the ocean liner sinks. He tells us to do this because it is more visually appealing than doing nothing. That is real despair. That is depressing. Thank God it is false. Following Jesus lifts one up into a wonderful, enthralling life in the Spirit.

Overlooking or rejecting God’s purpose in Jesus Christ is:

Unrewarding.
It leads to despair and desolation.
It is arrogant.
Ends in doom.

And may the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace as you trust in Him, that you may overflow with hope through the power of the Holy Spirit (Romans 15:13).

————————————————————————————————-

See Psalms 86:9, 16:5-11; 144:15; Isa. 60:21; Rom. 11:36; I Cor. 6:20; 10:31; Phil. 4:4; Rev. 4:11, 21:3.
Galatians 5:22-23.
Cornelius Van Til: Christian Theory of Knowledge, p. 348.
http://elearning.zaou.ac.zm:8060/PhilosophyPsychology/Nietzsche,%20Friedrich%20Wilhelm%201844-1900/Nietzsche,%20Philosopher%20of%20the%20Perilous%20Perhaps%20 %20Rebekah%20Peery%202008.pdf
Ibid.
One reaps what one sows. Nietzsche viciously attacked the truth of Christianity—even attacking Jesus Christ. But he, like all rebels, received what he deserved.
Tyler Durden: Fight Club, 20^th Century Fox, 1999.
Francis Schaeffer: True Spirituality, p. 12.
Friedrich Nietzsche: Twilight of the Idols.

See my New Apologetic Devotional eBook Reality and the Folly of Atheism HERE

Filed Under: Apologetics, Classical Apologetics Tagged With: atheism despair, bahnsen purpose, christian apologetics purpose, meaning and hope atheism, purpose hope Christianity, van til purpose

Interview with Christian apologist J.W. Wartick

February 11, 2013 By Mike Robinson 2 Comments

Christian apologist J.W. Wartick publishes the blog “Always have a Reason” that focuses on apologetic and philosophical issues. He attends Biola University and is working towards a Master’s Degree in Christian Apologetics. Additionally he is student member of the Evangelical Philosophical Society and the Evangelical Theological Society.

Information on his ministry and outreach are posted below the interview.

———————————————————————————

Interview Questions

J.W., greetings and welcome to our site! What part of the country were you raised and where do you now call home?

I grew up in rural Indiana, and I now live in the Twin Cities area in Minnesota.

You are a son of a preacher—what was that like? What were your expectations as you were growing up?

I think there’s this general notion that pastor’s kids are supposed to have tough childhoods or higher expectations. Some of that may be true, but I never felt as though I was being watched. I was in a loving household where commitment to God was primary. I’m so blessed to have been so deeply influenced by my childhood and the fact that I was raised with a trust in God.

Besides the Bible, what are a few of your favorite books and why?

I admit that this question is always very hard for me to answer. There are just so many fantastic books out there. I’ll just pick a few and hope that people realize there are plenty more where that came from. Reasonable Faith by William Lane Craig is definitely in the mix, as it was the book that really introduced to me the rational defense of the faith. Another favorite would be The Open Secret by Alister McGrath. He explores the method of apologetics and how we cannot only focus on the rational aspects, but need to also integrate the arts and aesthetics into a broad apologetic approach. Finally, I cannot answer this question without listing some fiction, and the Honor Harrington series by David Weber has to be on the list because he—a Methodist lay minister—uses science fiction to explore issues of faith, all while writing hard-hitting military sci-fi.

What prompted you to pursue philosophical facets within Christian apologetics?

When I was growing up my parents always said I should be a lawyer because I loved to argue. They were right: I love to debate. Using philosophy in Christian Apologetics provides a reason to do that debate: discussions of the essentials of the Christian faith. It basically combines everything I love into one thing.

However, the reason goes more deeply than that. Looking around at evangelicalism and Christianity today I have seen an unfortunate tendency towards anti-intellectualism which I would argue comes from the Protestant reaction against the Enlightenment. Utilizing solid philosophy in order to show the truths God has revealed to us is one way to combat this anti-intellectualism in the church at large.

You have written about numerous topics concerning atheism, cults, and false religions; additionally, you have an avid interest in “lost defenses in apologetics.” What are some of the reasons for your apologetic attention regarding past and almost forgotten work in apologetics?

I have to credit Dr. Tim McGrew over at Western Michigan University for awakening my interest in forgotten defenses of Christianity.

The reason I am so interested in this topic is because very often we moderns think that what is being written right now are the best writings to have ever been written. It is easy to fall into the trap of thinking that newer is better. We like new things. We like controversy. We love to think that the people who lived before us didn’t really know much; we think they weren’t very well informed.

Well, one day I got a taste of how wrong I was. Tim McGrew opened me up to his Library of Historical Apologetics and I started reading a few works he recommended from the 17-1800s. I was absolutely astounded! Here were lucid, thought-provoking answers to the very questions we continue to debate today. Very often, the answers that have been given in these books from centuries ago outshine modern defenses.

The problem is that each era has its own biases; we have our own worldviews and our own lenses through which we observe the same questions that have come up through the centuries. It is extremely difficult for us to get beyond those lenses and look outside of them. One way to do that is by looking at how people of past centuries with different lenses have examined the same questions. When I discovered works like George Campbell’s “Dissertation on Miracles” or Edmund Bennett’s “Four Gospels from a Lawyer’s Standpoint,” I was filled with joy and wonder. These authors—and others like them—think just as well as we do! Of course, this should be an obvious point, but getting beyond the bias towards modern writing is very difficult. Let me tell you: the writings of people in the past are fantastic. We simply must be reading them.

One of the things I like to tell people I interact with is this: “There is no question so unique that no one else has ever thought about it.” It’s very similar to the saying in Ecclesiastes: “There is nothing new under the sun.” No problem is so unique that no Christian thinker has ever thought on it before. We need to make use of these authors from our past in order to give us insight into the present and future.

What are some things secular Americans misunderstand about Christians? And Evangelicals?

One of the most common misconceptions about Christians is that if they sin, they aren’t Christians. People tend to think that Christians will automatically be morally better people, but that’s not the reality we find in the Bible. The Bible tells us we are all sinner-saints in the process of sanctification. We will not be perfect, but we are to strive towards being better people by the grace of God.

That said, another misunderstanding is that anyone who claims to be a Christian is one. I know this is a harsh word, but many people who say they are Christians simply are not. If someone denies the divinity of Christ, they are not Christian, period. Yet some people do this and still claim to be Christians. This is a distortion which has muddled the concept of “Christian.”

Considering general apologetics, what approach or approaches do you usually employ?

I think that there is no “one size fits all” approach to apologetics. I am very appreciative of evidentialists like Gary Habermas, classical apologists like William Lane Craig, and presuppositionalists like Cornelius Van Til. I realize that many people in any one of these camps tends to think that their method is the most effective, but I have found that in practice utilizing all of them seems to be most effective.

I favor the approach that Robert Bowman and Kenneth Boa outline in their magisterial book, Faith Has Its Reasons. In it, they argue that we need an integrative apologetic that meets people where they have needs. If their presuppositions are destroying their ability to be reached by the Gospel, we need to demolish those presuppositions. If they don’t think there is any evidence for believing in God, we need to give them evidence, etc.

Thus, I think that it is important to utilize many different approaches. I tend to favor an evidential approach, but I integrate presuppositionalism throughout my apologetic.

In the recent past there has been a lot of squabbling about apologetic methodology between different apologetic approaches—are there apologetic methods that you do not utilize but respect?

In the book I mentioned above, Faith Has Its Reasons, the authors point out that even fideism is a type of apologetic method. They cite people like Martin Luther and Kierkegaard as examples of this approach. I have respect for these men and their contributions, but I do not really utilize their approaches to apologetics.

I tend to view anyone who thinks only one approach is effective with great skepticism. Frankly, I don’t see that in the Bible. Christ himself utilized very different approaches when he interacted with the Pharisees, a Samaritan woman, and his disciples. That is because Christ, as a master intellectual, knew that people have different needs, and he met those needs.

In all of this, however, I think it is important to emphasize that every single individual is uniquely gifted to make disciples of all nations. Whether that means we are gifted in skillful arguments or simply great at being there for people, we are to utilize those approaches in our lives to bring people to Christ.

What are some ideas, arguments, or topics a Christian might want to explore when witnessing to an atheist?

One of the great contributions of presuppositional apologetics has been its focus on peoples dispositions towards truth. When Christians are interacting with atheists, if they intend to use arguments in their witness, they must be aware of the skeptics’ view of truth and reality. We cannot divorce truth claims from their contexts. We see evidence through a lens. Part of apologetics is getting people to reorient their lenses towards truth.

What is the proper tone or attitude Christians should have when witnessing to a militant atheist?

I found this to be a really tough question. I think it all depends on the context. Online, it is important to give an answer for the benefit of people who are looking on. In person, it is important to build a relationship. We do know there is a proper tone: “gentleness and respect” (1 Peter 3:15). We need to be gentle with those with whom we disagree, allowing our respectfulness to shame them when they are themselves disrespectful. We must present the faith in a winsome manner.

What are some of your favorite contemporary movies and why?

I think this is a great question. I have really enjoyed some movies of late. First, The Hobbit has to make this list. JRR Tolkien was a devout Christian and that shines through even in movie adaptations of his work. Les Misrables was also an extremely powerful film about the power of grace as well as several other Christian themes. I really enjoyed The Hunger Games for a very different reason: it demonstrates what humanity becomes without God. You’ll notice that nowhere in that series does it talk about God or a higher power. Well, when we remove God, we must deal with the consequences, and the society in The Hunger Games is a poignant image of what society could become if we move beyond the robust Christian worldview. It’s horrifying, and rightly so.

Please name any leading-edge apologetic advances, evidence, and arguments that help the apologist reveal the internal or external weakness of strict naturalism.

The works of JP Moreland have been particularly effective in this regard. If I may, I’d like to point out an upcoming book, The Knower and the Known by Stephen Parrish. He has written a very comprehensive book analyzing various reductive materialist positions, and with philosophical rigor he tears them apart. I helped edit the book and I have to say it is well worth the read.

You have engaged countless non-Christians in dialogue; are you concerned about the pugnacity of the New Atheists? Do you feel that E-Atheists are making a significant impact—is their work leading to a large expansion of atheism?

I admit that I have no statistics to answer this question in a more empirical fashion, but I do think that I’ve noticed a trend of militant atheism on the rise. However, God has done powerful work through this, and I think apologetics is on the rise as well. New apologetics programs are opening across the country, and the works on apologetics are expanding rapidly. It’s an exciting time to be a Christian, as we are really in the middle of a cultural war. We may lose in the short term, but we know that God is in control, so He will direct things according to His purpose.

What do you think are some of the best ways to philosophically respond to anti-theism?

I think that it really depends on the scenario. Is the anti-theist arguing that naturalism better explains reality? Point out that naturalism cannot ground morality or even the concept of a “self.” Is the anti-theist arguing that God doesn’t exist? Point them towards powerful evidence. So much of apologetics is the relationship and finding out what barriers people have erected to keep the Holy Spirit out. It is our job to tear down these barriers.

How essential is defending Christian truth against antagonistic secular as well as skeptical claims?

Christianity is a comprehensive look at reality. When a challenge is raised from a secular cultural standpoint, then that is just as much a threat as when a challenge to a truth claim is made. We must defend Christianity on the cultural as well as the intellectual front.

I know that Stephen Parrish’s work has edified you over the years—how has his worked informed and blessed you? What other apologists or philosophers have influenced your work the most?

Stephen Parrish has been a wonderful influence on my life. I did not really know what apologetics was until I took a few classes from him. I used to think philosophy was ridiculous, but he showed me the greatness of that field of study. He continues to be a blessing as we work together for the Kingdom.

Tim McGrew has been another great influence. He was the one who introduced me to historical apologetics and continues to be a fantastic resource.

Can you name any non-Christian philosophers worth reading?

Absolutely. First, it is important to read the classics. Reading people like Plato and Aristotle will advance your knowledge of the whole of philosophical thought.

There are other great philosophers working now who are non-Christians. Thomas Nagel is perhaps the most honest naturalist out there, and his recent book Mind and Cosmos has been causing quite a stir, for good reason. Saul Kripke is a phenomenal Jewish scholar whose works have been highly influential in modal logic.

How does your wife put up with your constant research and online outreach?

She’s also studying, so we consciously make an effort to interact with each other! It’s not always easy, but I think we’re very good at giving each other the time we need.

Are there any solid proofs for the existence of God? If so, what are they?

I think your own work has really demonstrated this quite a bit: pretty much all of reality is a solid proof for the existence of God, as we know from Romans. But as far as arguments are concerned, I am partial to the Kalam Cosmological Argument (Whatever begins to exist has a cause, the universe began to exist, therefore the universe has a cause) as well as the teleological/design argument. I think these are extremely powerful arguments from which we cannot escape.

The transcendental argument is another very powerful argument for the existence of God. Without God, we fail to make sense of reality. Stephen Parrish has written on this as well in God and Necessity, and presuppositionalists have made excellent contributions in this area.

What are some of your plans for your ministry? Do you have any projects underway?

I have projects underway, but nothing I can really announce yet. The plans are still forming. For now, follow my site and my Twitter/Facebook to get updates!

Many Christians are not able to be Christian apologists; they do not have the time or aptitude to devote many years to research. What would you recommend to these everyday Christians vis-à-vis apologetics?

Every Christian is called to be an apologist. Of course not every Christian has the time to memorize countless arguments. The most effective thing that these Christians can do is to realize the importance of a relationship. By building powerful relationships, they will be able to demonstrate with their lives the superiority of the Christian worldview.

Another extremely important thing for Christians to do is to ask perceptive questions. Very often, people will say things like “There is no truth” without even thinking about it. I can guarantee these people have stumped Christians with these sayings before. But even a simple question like “Is that statement true?” overthrows the objection entirely. Christians don’t need to spend hundreds of hours researching in order to learn to think clearly and ask questions like this. Greg Koukl’s book, Tactics presents a number of excellent ways the everyday Christian can become a powerful apologist simply by asking questions.

Are there things, good or bad, that you wish you understood better before you began your apologetics ministry that you now know?

Perhaps the most important thing I wish I’d known (and something I’m still learning) is how the gentleness and respect that the best Christian apologists have. Humility is a very important element of being a good Christian apologist. We need to acknowledge that we don’t have every answer and be willing to say so. When we are stumped, it is okay to say you are, and that you’ll get back to the question after you’ve researched it more.

Are there any ways our readers can support your ministry?

I would ask for their continuing prayers. Monetarily, it looks like you’ve already linked to my donation page, and another easy way to help would be to use amazon through the links on my site when they are shopping for other things. Most of all, though, prayers as well as any encouraging comments. It always makes my day when I get comments on the blog, and knowing it makes a difference is such a blessing.

Thank you so much for the opportunity to interact via your site!

My readers and I thank you for your time and we pray for God’s blessing upon your work and outreach.

_________________________________________

J.W. Wartick is an apologist and oversees the blog “Always Have a Reason.” He offers articles and posts that focus on apologetic and philosophical matters. J.W. is a student member of the Evangelical Philosophical Society and the Evangelical Theological Society. He makes a real and regular impact in Christian Apologetics through his blog, his ministry, and his apologetic relationships.

J.W. can be reached at J.W. Wartick Always have a Reason.I encourage readers to support J.W.’s apologetic ministry; he is active, upbeat, and confidently contends for the Christian Worldview against the errors of atheism, cults, and false religions.

Please make your donation to support J.W.’s ministry HERE

Join him on FaceBook at following the link Here

Filed Under: Apologetics, Classical Apologetics Tagged With: apologist J.W. Wartick, Interview with Christian apologist J.W. Wartick, J.W. Wartick, Wartick

G.K. Chesterton on the Ten Commandments

January 8, 2013 By Mike Robinson Leave a Comment

G.K. Chesterton

Chesterton on the benefits of the Ten Commandments: “The truth is, of course, that the curtness of the Ten Commandments is an evidence, not of the gloom and narrowness of a religion, but, on the contrary, of its liberality and humanity. It is shorter to state the things forbidden than the things permitted: precisely because most things are permitted, and only a few things are forbidden.”

Discover the reasons that the Ten Commandments are not only beneficial, but true and proof for the existence of God: see my eBook that employs an innovative approach There Are Objective Moral Values: Proof for Theism HERE

Filed Under: Apologetics, Classical Apologetics Tagged With: Chesterton on the benefits of Ten Commandment, G.K. Chesterton

Plato’s Forms and Atheism: an Implausible Union

Objective Moral Values or Mere Preferences?

God or Godless? by John Loftus & Randal Rauser: A Book Review

Interview with Greg West – The founder of the Apologetics blog: The Poached Egg

Jackie Robinson’s Faith in God: Following Christ – WSJ

By CHRIS LAMB

Logic, Aristotle, and God

Logic, Aristotle, and the Necessity of Theism

New Apologetics eBook – “Christianity Supreme—Defeating Non-Christian Worldviews”

A Christian Argument for Purpose and Significance

Interview with Christian apologist J.W. Wartick

G.K. Chesterton on the Ten Commandments

G.K. Chesterton

Checkout

Featured Book

Purchase Apologetic E-books

Latest Blog Post

Reason, Logic, and Faith