Apologetics 315

Randy Alcorn on Suffering

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Auten) — Sat, 18 May 2013 23:30:01 PDT

"While Western atheists turn from belief in God because a tsunami in another part of the world caused great suffering, many brokenhearted survivors of that same tsunami found faith in God. This is one of the great paradoxes of suffering. Those who don't suffer much think suffering should keep people from God, while many who suffer a great deal turn to God, not from him."

—Randy Alcorn
If God is Good, p. 102 [HT: Truthbomb]

Mind and Cosmos: Why the Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Surely False by Thomas Nagel

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Auten) — Fri, 17 May 2013 23:30:03 PDT

The central argument of Mind and Cosmos: Why the Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Surely False by Thomas Nagel seems[1] to be as follows.

There are three possible and mutually exclusive explanations for the world and its contents: materialistic naturalism[2], theism[3], or teleological naturalism[4].
The correct explanation of the world and its contents is not materialistic naturalism.
The correct explanation of the world and its contents is not theism.
Therefore, the correct explanation is teleological naturalism.

Now, already a possible terminological confusion looms: isn’t it the case that teleological arguments are inevitably arguments for theism? Well, no, as it turns out. It becomes apparent as the book progresses that what Nagel is arguing for is an Aristotelian type of natural teleology: an immanent, this-worldly type of tendency or bias on the part of nature to produce certain ends. Such teleology does not posit any transcendent Mind in which intentions or goals reside.

The argument seems valid, and perhaps the first premise is relatively inoffensive to naturalist and theist alike. Argument will thus center on premises 2 and 3.

The correct explanation of the world and its contents is not materialistic naturalism. Nagel makes some preliminary remarks regarding his skepticism about the ability of materialistic naturalism (henceforth MN) to explain the origin of life. He also thinks that MN has a further problem in explaining the DNA code and the complex forms of life we see in the estimated life span of the earth via random genetic mutation. He sees these as independent empirical reasons which buttress his philosophical arguments against MN as a satisfactory explanation of the cosmos. He notes his gratitude toward the intelligent design community in pointing out their critiques of MN, although he emphatically declines to endorse their conclusion that theism (henceforth T) is, given the failure of MN, the correct worldview.

Turning to the philosophical arguments regarding the failure of MN, Nagel claims that MN fails to explain three striking facts about the cosmos: consciousness[5], cognition[6], and values[7]. Nagel notes that MN does a pretty good job of explaining a lot of physical reality. He argues, however, MN has done so by following the recommendations of Descartes and others that science deal with spatio-temporal events and ignore mental events. However, this compromise could not be held forever. The apparently irresistible drive to construct a comprehensive worldview would eventually test the ability of MN to explain all of reality—including the mental.[8] Nagel then succinctly but powerfully outlines various attempts to reduce the mental to the physical (e.g., conceptual behaviorism, psychophysical identity, causal behaviorism, functionalism). He concludes that the failure of these attempts at psychophysical reduction support the conclusion that conscious events are aspects of reality not describable by physical science.

In discussing cognition, Nagel argues that because all cognition (even that of low-level, purely ‘sensory’ consciousness found in all animals) is inherently subjective in nature MN cannot account for it. However, the real thrust of the ‘problem of cognition’ involves what might be termed ‘higher’ functions of thought, reasoning, and evaluation. Here, he argues, humans (and perhaps other life forms) have managed to transcend our own senses and instincts and explore larger objective reality. This is not, as Nagel sees it, simply another version of the problem from consciousness. Briefly, we take ourselves when reasoning to be right or wrong in virtue of how the world really, objectively, actually (independent of opinion) is. We can form true beliefs, we think, of timeless domains like logic and mathematics. Contrast this with our basic sensory perceptions. There seems to be an easy way in which evolutionary explanations could account for these processes. Failure to perceive what is going on in the world around us (to be blind to the approach of a hungry tiger, for example) will tend to weed out certain individuals and groups. What Nagel wants to know is (a) is it credible that an evolutionary explanation can account for the astounding breakthroughs we make in science, logic, mathematics, and philosophy that go beyond mere ‘appearances’ and (b) the difficulty in formulating a satisfactory naturalistic[9] understanding of the faculty of reason. He examines and rejects a proposed naturalistic answer[10] to (a) and spends more time on (b), which he considers the more formidable problem. The problem in (b) is that reason is in many ways assumed to be our most fundamental faculty—the bar before which all conclusions and deliverances of other faculties stand.

Eventually the attempt to understand oneself in evolutionary, naturalistic terms must bottom out in something that is grasped as valid in itself—something without which evolutionary understanding would not be possible….It is not enough to be able to think that *if* there are logical truths, natural selection might very well have given me the capacity to recognize them. That cannot be my ground for trusting my reason, because even that thought implicitly relies on reason in a prior way. (p. 59, Kindle edition)

Nagel then turns to the ‘problem of value’ for MN. Nagel is here arguing for moral realism: the actual, objective existence of moral facts which exist independent of opinion. Nagel quickly discusses and then dismisses what he sees as the most plausible form of moral subjectivism (Humean ‘passions’). The core of the problem moral realism poses for MN, as Nagel sees it, is as follows: MN is bound up with Darwinian evolutionary explanations, and such explanations would undercut our belief in the reliability of our moral faculties. So even if moral facts existed, we would not be in a position to know that they existed. Nagel, citing Sharon Street[11], argues that while us acting in certain ways (e.g., protecting each other from danger) would lead to survival, those behaviors, even in the absence of any moral beliefs whatsoever, would be enough. And, even if us holding such beliefs was somehow necessitated by evolution, it would not follow that such beliefs must be true. [12] Rather, the holding of such beliefs would presumably serve to reinforce our acting in certain ways—ways that are in accord with the ‘useful fictions’ of holding to moral realism. So if one is to maintain moral realism, one should reject MN.

The correct explanation of the world and its contents is not theism. The bulk of the book—and hence this review—has focused on Nagel’s rejection of MN. The proponent of MN will part company with Nagel at the second premise. The theist can enthusiastically agree with Nagel until premise 3 arrives. The theist will thus want to know: why does Nagel reject theism?

Straightforward argument for premise 3 is disappointingly meager. Nagel has been often and famously quoted as saying that he prefers that there be no God. This attitude is also present in this book, as can be seen by referring to an ‘ungrounded assumption of my own…I lack the sensus divinitatis’[13] or an ‘ungrounded intellectual preference’[14] that leads him to reject theism. In the concluding chapter of the book, he argues that

Philosophy has to proceed comparatively. The best we can do is to develop the rival alternative conceptions in each important domain as fully and carefully as possible, depending on our antecedent sympathies, and see how they measure up. (p. 108, Kindle edition)

In this case, it seems that his antecedent sympathies prevent him from considering theism a serious option.

Therefore, the correct explanation of the world and its contents is teleological naturalism. Given the thin case Nagel makes against theism, one might hope that the case he makes for TN is fairly strong. Unfortunately, it isn’t. Nagel’s idea is that somehow there are fundamental ‘mentalistic’ principles that give rise to minds. Another way of saying this is that mind is not the radical newcomer, arriving late in the evolutionary process, that it seems to be given MN. But it is unclear how this is really helpful. What does it mean to say that a ‘mind like’ principle is present in the early stage of the universe when nothing physical but elementary particles exist? And, if simplicity (mentioned as a theoretical virtue in passing early in the book) really is to be pursued, is there not a simplicity in monotheism that is not present in inexplicable, multiple principles of different (i.e., mentalistic and physical) types?

Conclusion. Rather than raking Nagel over the coals for his arguably inadequate reasons for rejecting theism, and the ‘bare possibility’ of TN he floats as an alternative, the theist should feel ever more confident in the explanatory power of theism. The case against MN posed by Nagel is persuasive, his reasons for rejecting theism seem largely psychological rather than philosophical, and his teleological naturalism seems highly speculative and implausible.

The theist might also pray that Nagel comes to see that his assumptions are indeed ungrounded, and acknowledge He who is.

Apologetics 315 Book Reviewer Latter Day Inkling is a U.S.-based research psychologist for the military. He is especially interested in epistemology and natural theology.

[1] For the sake of brevity, I pose the argument in its clearest form sans all caveats. However, Nagel is much less confident in his proffered option, stressing that the best we can do at this point in our intellectual history is to posit some options with many details to be filled in. He says, for example, that “…I am certain that my own attempt to explore alternatives is far too unimaginative. An understanding of the universe will probably require a much more radical departure from the familiar forms of naturalistic explanation than I am at present able to conceive.” (p. 108, Kindle edition)

[2] MN is, briefly put, the idea that all that exists can be explained in terms of physical substances and their physical properties. At bottom, all can be explained by the physical sciences.

[3] Theism: the idea that there is a transcendent Mind that, through its volitions and causal powers, is the explanation for all else that exists.

[4] My term, not Nagel’s. I call it thus to underscore this: he does see his proffered option of ‘teleological naturalism’ as a type of naturalism. Sticking with my terminology, Nagel defines TN as an inherent tendency or bias in the natural world to produce consciousness, cognition, and values.

[5] Admittedly, the line between consciousness and cognition can be a bit blurry. However, from the examples Nagel gives in the chapter on consciousness it seems he is primarily thinking in terms of qualia—e.g., sounds, colors, and tastes.

[6] Defined, roughly, as thought, reasoning, and evaluation.

[7] More specifically, moral realism.

[8] Richard Swinburne makes a similar argument regarding the phenomenon of heat, which was originally defined in terms of the subjective, first person awareness of pain. See his The Existence of God, pp. 205-206.

[9] Nagel’s term in this context. Given his plumping for ‘teleological’ naturalism, it seems clear that what he is really critiquing is materialistic naturalism.

[10] The proposed ‘solution’ to (a) is to adopt anti-realism. Nagel rejects moral antirealism as well, as will be shown shortly. However, he notes that for the antirealist “solution” to work globally, scientific anti-realism must also be adopted. This, however, becomes self-refuting. The point of answering the problem of (a) was to save MN and evolutionary explanations. If one adopts scientific anti-realism, then one is no longer a realist about evolution!

[11] Mind and Cosmos, p. 91, footnote 6.

[12] This is brought out nicely by Mitch Stokes in his book Shot of Faith (to the Head): “ Notice something else. The atheist naturally thinks that our belief in God is false. Nevertheless, most human beings have believed in a god of some sort, or at least in a supernatural realm. But suppose, for argument’s sake, that this widespread belief really is false, and that it merely provides survival benefits for humans, a coping mechanism of sorts. If so, then we would have additional evidence—on the atheist’s own terms—that evolution is more interested in useful beliefs than in true ones. Or, alternatively, if evolution really is concerned with true beliefs, then maybe the widespread belief in God would be a kind of “evolutionary” evidence for his existence. You’ve got to wonder.” (Location 979, Kindle edition)

[13] p. 10, Kindle edition

[14] p. 23, Kindle edition

Weekly Apologetics Bonus Links (05/10 - 05/17)

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Auten) — Fri, 17 May 2013 09:00:10 PDT

Here are this week's recommended apologetics links. Enjoy.

• Good Question, Quick Answer

• Animating Bacterial DNA Replication

• Swinburne on Mind, Morality and Meaning

• What Kind Of Historical Sources Can Be Trusted?

• The Stuff We All Agree on When It Comes to Origins

• Worldview Definitions: The Problem with Postmodernism

• Advice to Christian Apologists from William Lane Craig

• Twelve Ways to Prepare Your Children for Times of Doubt

• Signature in the Cell by Stephen Meyer - $2.99 on Kindle

• Free E-book and Audio Book: Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis

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

• Dr. Fazale Rana debates Dr. Michael Ruse on evolution vs design

• The Reasonable Expectations That Cause Mythologies to Resemble Jesus

• What Every Christian Needs to Know About the Qur'an by James R. White

• New study: belief in God can significantly improve mental health outcomes

Apologetics 315 is a registered 501(c)(3) non-profit. Would you support us monthly?

• Shopping via Amazon? If you use this link, a bit of your purchase goes to fund Apologetics 315. Thanks for those of you using the link, as it helps Ap315.
Canada here. UK here.

• Would you like to help with interview transcription? If so, contact Ap315 here.

Get these sorts of links and more by following on Twitter.
For daily post links, please follow on Facebook.

Read Along: Chapter 6—How Did Life Begin?

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Auten) — Thu, 16 May 2013 23:30:03 PDT

Today we continue with Chapter Six in the Read Along with Apologetics 315 project. This is a chapter-by-chapter study through the book Is God Just a Human Invention? And Seventeen Other Questions Raised by the New Atheists by Sean McDowell and Jonathan Morrow. (Hear an interview about the book here.) Below you will find an audio intro for Chapter Six, a brief summary of the chapter, a PDF workbook with questions for the chapter, and some notable quotes. You're also encouraged to share your comments and feedback for each chapter in the comment section below. Feel free to interact!

[Audio Intro] - Jonathan Morrow introduces this chapter.
[Chapter 06 Study Questions] (with kindle locations) - PDF study guide.
[Podcast Feed RSS | Podcast in iTunes] - Click to subscribe to the audio.

Summary
Chapter Six: How Did Life Begin?
(pages 83-94)
Chapter six delves into the question of the origin of life. The authors discuss the current state of origin of life research, talk about the technology and complexity found in the cell, and survey the possible means by which the information in the cell came about. They show the shortcomings of naturalistic theories to account for the specified information in DNA, while showing that the best explanation for information is an intelligent source.

Biochemist Fazale Rana contributes an essay entitled, "My Most Important Discovery." Here he describes how the elegance, sophistication, and complexity of the cell's chemical systems, along with the inadequacies of evolutionary explanations for the origin of life, convinced him as a biochemistry graduate student that a Creator must exist.

Notable quotes:

A typical cell has roughly 100 million proteins of 20,000 different types, and yet the entire cell is so small that a few hundred cells could fit on the dot of this letter i. (p. 85)

Richard Dawkins writes, "Apart from differences in jargon, the pages of a molecular-biology journal might be interchanged with those of a computer-engineering journal."

(p. 85)

Paul Davies says, "Life is more than just complex chemical reactions. The cell is also an information storing, processing and replicating system. We need to explain the origin of this information, and the way in which the information processing machinery came to exist." (p. 86)

The probability of finding a functional protein through chance alone is a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion times smaller than the odds of finding a specific particle in a random search throughout the entire universe! (p. 87)

Any valid theory for how life began must be able to explain information's origin. (p. 89)

Former atheist Antony Flew put it best, "The only satisfactory explanation for the origin of such 'end-directed, self-replicating' life as we see on earth is an infinitely intelligent Mind." (p. 91)

Discuss

How would you describe the odds of a functional protein emerging by chance alone?
Why do you think Richard Dawkins' suggests that luck is enough to explain the origin of life?
What other explanations besides design could account for specified information in DNA?

Recommended Reading

Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design by Stephen C. Meyer
Origins of Life: Biblical and Evolutionary Models Face Off by Fazale Rana

Next Week: Chapter 7—Why Is the Universe Just Right for Life?

Free: Essential Apologetics PowerPoint Series

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Auten) — Wed, 15 May 2013 23:30:03 PDT

In partnership with The PowerPoint Apologist, Apologetics 315 is offering a series of 12 Free PowerPoint presentations, released monthly. These cover 12 essential topics in apologetics. These are free to download, modify, and use for your own apologetics presentations. (However, please retain the final two slides featuring the PowerPoint Apologist and Apologetics 315 resources.)

The third in the series is "Why God?"
Download it here.
Enjoy.

John Dickson Interview Transcript

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Auten) — Tue, 14 May 2013 23:30:00 PDT

The following transcript is from an Apologetics 315 interview with John Dickson. Original audio here. Transcript index here. If you enjoy transcripts, please consider supporting, which makes this possible.

BA: Hello, this is Brian Auten of Apologetics 315. Today, I’m speaking with John Dickson, director of the Centre for Public Christianity in Australia. He is also Senior Research Fellow in the Department of Ancient History in Macquarie University and Senior Minister at Saint Andrews, Roseville.

John is also author of a number of books including The Christ Files: How Historians Know What They Know About Jesus. That was also made into a major television documentary. In this interview I'll be asking John questions about historical Jesus Studies as well about his work with the Centre for Public Christianity and his advice for Christian apologists.

Alright well thanks for joining me from Australia today, John.

JD: Fantastic to be with you!

BA: Now are there any particular Aussie greetings our listeners should be aware of today?

JD: Well you need to be able to say G'day. I mean that’s basically compulsory. We don't let you into the country unless you can. And you basically got to do it as one syllable. It’s G'day!

BA: Okay.

JD: It’s not Good Day. It’s G’day!

BA: Well. I'll work on that privately and then I'll get back to you. Now John, you've got quite an eclectic background ranging from being a musician, an Australian rock band to having a PhD in Ancient History, being active in media production, writing books. Maybe first off I could ask you just to give our listeners an idea about you background.

JD: Well. I started out singing in a band when I was about 18 years of age and that became full time pretty quickly and so had a wonderful life with my best mates playing music around the world for about 5 or 6 years and at the end of that time because the guys in that band were Christian believers, people used to write to us all the time. We were known to be Christians as well as musos. People would write to us and ask us questions about the faith and then people would invite us to speak, not just sing, but you know, to give talks - to give talks in universities and prisons and schools and whatever.

And it dawned on us that we didn't really know all that much. We could be impressive if you turn the PA all the way up and we played our best songs, but depth of our knowledge was not really there, so we disbanded and went and first did a degree in Theology. So we went to a well-known theological college in Australia called Moore College and I completed that degree and to my surprise did reasonably well at it and loved it and became really fascinated in - not the theology as much as the history behind the New Testament and the birth of Early Christianity.

So after my degree, I went to Macquarie University which is a large state university here in Sydney and has the largest Ancient History department in our country and it is well-known for its Classics (actually its 3 subjects) including the origins of Christianity. So this is a totally secular Christian environment but they specialize in Early Judaism and Christianity in the Roman world. And I thought that would be the perfect place to go crazy with a sort of historical study and so I went there and my supervisor was Judith Lieu whom anyone involved in the New Testament will know. She is now at Cambridge University. And I studied how Early Christianity spread in antiquity against the background of what Greeks and Romans and Jews were doing to spread their philosophies and religions.

So it was a fascinating five year study of, I guess at one level you could call it evangelism but another you could call it propaganda. What were the missionary impulses in antiquity? What were the propaganda impulses in antiquity and how did the Christians compare and I guess ultimately try to contribute to the question of how on earth did Christianity expand so quickly, because this remains a puzzle. This tiny little group in the boondocks of the Roman Empire, within three centuries became a dominant social movement. So I am trying to plug into that question.

BA: One of the books that you have written is called The Christ Files: How Historians Know What They Know About Jesus. And that was made into a major TV documentary as I understand. How did that come about and what made that book into a documentary?

JD: Well as I looked around the scholarly scene, it seemed to me that there was no very straightforward account about how historians know what they know about Jesus. What are the sources for the study of Jesus and what are the methods employed by scholars?

It seemed to me that the only books you got on the popular market about this question were either way out on what you might call the left fringe of scholarship - skeptical scholarship, or way out on the right fringe of scholarship, what we sometimes think of as sort of fundamentalist apologetics. The left fringe tend to try and use the scholarly craft to disprove everything and the right fringe tend to use the scholarly craft to prove everything in the New Testament. And it sort of troubled me that mainstream scholarship was never represented in this popular literature and yet that is where the real action is.

So it troubled me that the general population, either America, UK or Australia had the impression either that we could prove everything in the New Testament or if you read the other stuff that no one believes anything in the New Testament and neither of those propositions is true and because of my years in an Ancient History department where I was well aware how seriously my colleagues who aren't Christians take the New Testament. It seemed that there needed to be a popular level book that fairly represented what mainstream scholars are saying about the Historical Jesus.

The book did pretty well and so it was picked up by a media group here in Australia who wanted to turn it into a documentary which was a dream come true for me because they let me host the thing and I got to play with some very precious ancient documents and got to interview twelve of the scholars whose works sit on my bookshelf and I thought I would never meet. People like Géza Vermes from Oxford University, the famous Jewish scholar. James Dunn at Durham University and very famous New Testament scholar and I got to play with the earliest copies of Paul's letters in a library in Dublin. One of the rare copies of Josephus, the 1st Century writer, whose works are in Cambridge and the Gnostic Gospels over in Cairo so we went to a beautiful little museum over there and I got to play with the Gospel of Philip and the Gospel of Thomas and so it really was a dream come true and it was just an extra bonus that I got to show it on Australian TV and now it’s a DVD.

BA: Well. Phenomenal! Now before we go on I want to ask you some more questions along those lines but where can people find that online if say they are in the States or in Europe whatever and they want to find this DVD or the book, what’s the best place that you would point them.

JD: Well. I am thrilled to say that Zondervan, many in America will know, has bought the rights to both, the book and the DVD of The Christ Files, so it’s all there. The beautiful thing about The Christ Files DVD, it that it not only has the four part documentary, but we have the full length interviews with all the scholars. Obviously in a documentary, you can only include about 5 minutes of each scholar but we have a whole extra DVD in the set that gives you the full 1/2 hour interviews that we did with these men, so including Martin Hengel, Richard Bauckham, James Charlesworth, Géza Vermes, Adolfo Roitman and so on - just a wonderful wonderful resource. So if you don’t like me in the documentary, just go to the second DVD and watch all the interviews with the great ones.

BA: Great. I am going to get my hands on that. Now, you mentioned there that there are these ones in the far side of the spectrum that denies anything in the New Testament and then there is the other side that says you know "We can prove everything." Well. Whereabouts in between those two points do you think that we actually land when we are talking about mainstream historical scholarship? What if it is possible, can you give us a nutshell version of what we know and how we know it about Jesus?

JD: Well, let me start with what we know. I think you will find that most mainstream scholars and perhaps I should stop there and try and define what I mean by mainstream scholars. I mean someone who is still publishing in the peer review literature. There are about a hundred journals you could get published in, in this area. And to get published of course, you need to write a piece that goes to objective referees and then its published. The referee system, the peer review system is a way of making sure that, you know shocks ?? (10:18) don't get published in a peer review literature.

And so my definition of a mainstream scholar is someone who is still part of that mainstream peer reviewed scholarly conversation. And there is quite a spectrum within that. There are some who are you know, top peer reviewed scholars who tend toward the skeptical spectrum and then there are others who tend toward the more evangelical or even fundamentalist spectrum, but at least they are all playing the same basic game. They are not trying to pull the wall over our eyes. They are not trying to bring theology or atheology - anti-theology - into the conversation. They are just trying to say, "Look. here is the data and here is where I think it points us."

So if you ask yourself the question, "Ok. Well given that there is still a spectrum within mainstream scholarship, what would most of them really agree are the facts about Jesus? And it would basically go like this. And I am taking my list from Ed Parrish Sanders, of Duke University, who no one could accuse of being a Christian apologist. He is a scholar who is quite happy to disagree with all sorts of things in the Gospels. He doesn't approach the Gospels at all as divine word. He treats it only as a human word, but even he would say “The facts about Jesus basically include the following: that he was a Galilean, that he lived during the time of Tiberius, and his ministry around the time when Pontius Pilate was governor, that he had quite a ministry in Galilee." And he would list the factors including things like, "He preached the Kingdom of God as a core part of his teaching."

Sanders would even say "Virtually everyone would agree that Jesus had a reputation as a healer.” Perhaps we can talk about that later. Basically everyone is happy to say, “We don't know what explains it, but He had a reputation as a healer." “He collected a group of 12 disciples around him who appeared to be a deliberate sign of the renewal of the 12 tribes of Israel. He was a friend of sinners and that was an accusation made constantly against him. He around the year 30 came to Jerusalem where after a significant dispute with the temple authorities in particular, He was arrested, tried and executed by Crucifixion.”

And then E.P. Sanders would also add the fact that shortly after the Crucifixion, those closest to him were claiming to have seen him alive again. Now Sanders doesn't say whether a resurrection could take place. He seems a little bit skeptical about the miraculous but he at least says it’s a historical fact we have to confront. That within a very short period of time, people were saying that they had seen Him alive.

So that’s the broad data set if you like, that virtually everyone dealing with this question would say, is historically more than plausible, is probable.

BA: Now maybe some people who are listening might get the wrong idea and say "Wait a minute. Are you saying that all the things that aren't on that list didn't happen or are you saying that these are, these are the, to borrow a phrase, the minimal facts so to speak that are historically substantiated that we can legitimately say, 'Hey. This is kind of the bedrock that we can stand on and build on.'" How would you put that?

JD: Yeah I'd put it just how you put it. Well done. Thank you! I don't mean to - I don't mean to say these are the only things that happened about the life of Jesus. I am just saying, if you take a mainstream scholarly approach that doesn’t assume the New Testament is in anyway a divine text - if you don't privilege the New Testament, you just come to it like any other text from the period, then you can be very confident about that data set that I just listed. We would say that those items are beyond reasonable doubt. Just approaching it with the tools we use to approach any other writing from antiquity whether its Josephus or Tacitus or whatever.

Now I walk a kind of funny line here and I am always asked the question that you just put to me because on the one hand I have am a firm evangelical believer but on the other, I want to be a professional historian and so what that means is when I am being asked historical questions as an historian, I have to leave to one side lots of stuff I believe about Jesus and just focus on the stuff that whether you believe that the New Testament is sacred or not you can arrive at the same conclusion as I do because the methods historians apply produce the result that this data set that I just listed is more than plausible, it’s improbable.

So I know it sounds a bit odd, perhaps to a Christian audience. You know why would a Christian say these are the facts of Jesus? I am simply saying, if you only want to apply historical method then these are the facts beyond reasonable doubt. Whether or not Jesus told the Parable of let’s just say, the Prodigal Son which is only found in Luke's Gospel - I don't think I with my historian cap on could say that we can be confident Jesus told that Parable.

Now I believe that Jesus told that Parable. I totally believe that Jesus told that Parable. But it’s a case of the Epistemological question, which way of knowing am I talking about? |If I am simply talking about Historical Epistemology using the methods that secular historians agree on, then there is some stuff that I can't include in my data set and expect everyone else to be able to agree with me, even though as I said, I accept these things as factual. If you ask me as a Christian believer what I believed then the data set becomes a whole lot larger, you might be happy to hear.

BA: Well what sort of evidence is taken into account when you are researching the Historical Jesus? You mentioned various documents and you know the New Testament, the letters and such but is there a broader scope of evidence that you are evaluating? Is there a larger data set that you are looking at?

JD: Yeah well, most historical Jesus scholars spend a little bit of time dealing with what you might call non-Christian references to Jesus. And these include Tacitus, Pliny, Josephus, Mara Bar-Serapion, Thallus, and these are not all of the same quality. For instance the reference to Pliny simply says that (and he is writing about 110). He writes to Trajan. Pliny is the governor of Bithynia. He writes to Emperor Trajan and says and "I am continuing the practice of killing Christians but I am just wondering if I should keep doing so because the only crime I can find about them is that they sing a hymn to Christ as if to a God."

Ok. Now what does that tell us? It doesn't tell us much. It is only 2nd Century. And it tells us that in Bithynia or what we call Turkey today, a Roman governor thought the Christians worshipped a man as if a god. So Pliny assumes there was man called Christ but he says they sing hymns to him as if he were a god and that’s the only crime I could find. Now all that tells us is that Christians in the Early 2nd Century were worshipping Jesus as God in a public enough fashion that we can say belief in Jesus' divinity was quite early. We can't say much more than that.

But if you go to the texts of say Josephus who is writing in the 1st Century, a few decades before Pliny. He on two occasions mentions Jesus. On one occasions simply in passing, when he is describing the death of James, a certain James of Jerusalem who was stoned to death by the high priest in Jerusalem.

And Josephus simply says in passing, "This is James, the brother of the so-called Christ" which is really interesting because Josephus isn’t making much of it. It is passing and it corresponds with what we know from the New Testament, that Jesus had a brother called James. Then there is another text in Josephus' writings that is the subject of much dispute. It’s a longer passage where Josephus says that around the time of Pontius Pilate, there was a man, Jesus who was a teacher, who performed baffling deeds, who was executed and whom some thought was the Christ.

Now this text is disputed. But it’s interesting - this text unfortunately is embroiled in such popular debate, that people have stopped listening to the middle of the debate. The popular debate basically says, "Ah. Here is proof of Jesus. One of the lines actually says that Jesus rose again in this Josephus text."

Now others on the other end of the spectrum say "Ah. This is proof that the whole thing is a forgery. That this passage in Antiquities book is I think really is just an entire invention, placed there by a Christian scribe who was copying out Josephus to try and make Jesus look like he existed when of course he didn’t."

Both of those have no currency in mainstream contemporary scholarship. The mainstream of scholarship whether Jewish scholarship, atheist scholarship, Christian scholarship - it doesn't matter. The mainstream says "There was an original passage in Book 18 of Antiquities in which Josephus described Jesus as a teacher, as a wonder-worker who was executed and whose followers are still known in Josephus' day toward the end of the 1st century.”

Virtually everyone agrees with that proposition and one of the reasons most scholars accept that there was a core statement by Josephus along these lines is that - I mean apart from the fact that the language and grammar is very Josephan - we know that in the ancient world, no one disputed the existence of Jesus. That is a totally modern phenomenon. So it’s a little bit anachronistic to suppose that sometime in the early Middle Ages a naughty Christian scribe invented a passage out of nowhere and placed it in Josephus to prove something that no one was disputing. It just doesn't make any sense.

In any case there are a couple of phrases in the paragraph that could not have been put together by a Christian scribe. For instance Jesus is described simply as a wise man. That’s a very Josephan statement but it’s not a very Christian statement. His wonders are described as paradoxa erga - paradox of works, baffling deeds, which is a very noncommittal way of saying "I don't understand what the deeds were, but they were bizarre." And again you have got to wonder would a Christian scribe really say that? If a Christian scribe had really invented this passage, you would expect, "He did miracles. He did wonders." or something like that.

And one of the other giveaways is that Josephus describes those responsible for the execution of Jesus as Jewish leaders of the highest standing amongst us. Now I really cannot fathom, how an early Middle Ages Christian scribe would describe the executors of Jesus as men of the highest standing amongst us. So for these reasons and a number of others, this text is accepted. But in saying all of this, these non-Christian references to Jesus would probably take up 20 maybe, 50 pages of a scholarly monographs on the life of Jesus, because they are not where the real interest is. The real interest is in the New Testament.

And these non-Christian documents are perhaps fun for popular debates about whether Jesus lived, but since no serious professional historian in any university in the world that I know of is saying Jesus didn't live, they are just not as interesting as the New Testament texts for our study of the life of Jesus.

BA: Well that’s helpful. You mentioned it not being a very popular view to say that Jesus never existed and from your perspective, I mean just how plausible is it to hold such a view and how can someone sustain that sort of view with so much of the mainstream saying "No. Look at all the evidence?”

JD: It’s not plausible at all. I put this question to three very well-known and respected Classicists in this country. These are full professors of Classics in Ancient History in secular universities in Australia. And I have asked them "Do they know of a single university professor in the world who - historical professor - who thinks Jesus didn't live?” And their response was overwhelming "No, of course not. It would be ridiculous to say that Jesus didn't live."

Now I know there are some theologians who argue this. I know you have good old Professor Price over there in the U.S. who tries to argue that Jesus didn't live, but that’s not a very good historical argument and it’s not surprising to me that he doesn't have any historical post in a university. It’s a theologically driven scenario that requires very strained attempt to do history - to look at the data and say "All of this is retrospective data. That Jesus is really just an amalgam of mythical figures that Jews and Greeks believed in” and then cast it in an historical garb.

I can understand how it is possible to craft an argument but it is an argument of avoidance - that is the entire premise of the argument is not positive evidence. The entire premise of the argument is how can we avoid the evidence that’s there and still with some intellectual credibility say Jesus didn't live. And that’s a very different thing from what historians generally do. Historians generally say "Let’s just look at the data and find the most plausible explanation" whereas the Jesus-Didn't-Live theological crowd are doing something very different. They are saying "Let’s see how we can maintain Jesus-Didn’t-Live despite the evidence. How can we get around the evidence that is there?"

And as soon as you spot that methodological step in the writings of Robert Price and so on, then I think it becomes - it appears just a little torturous to put it bluntly. I have often put this out to my skeptical friends, "You find me one professor of History in any university in the world who thinks Jesus didn't live - just one" and I have never had a reply to that. They all jump for either Price or over in the UK, they like to jump to G.A. Wells, who is a professor at London University, who has written a few books to say that Jesus didn't live.

What no one mentions is that Professor Wells is a professor of German language at London University. I mean Dawkins make this mistake in his book, The God Delusion. He says "A serious historical case can be made that Jesus never lived at all" and then he says "as has been made by G.A. Wells, Professor at London University." And to anyone who doesn't know the scene, he goes "Oh Wow. That sounds impressive. Well that one Professor thinks Jesus didn't live." Then you go and Google him and he is professor of German language. He doesn't have a History degree. He doesn't have a Theology degree. He doesn't have any Biblical Studies knowledge. I mean it’s just outrageous and I have often thought I would love to ask Professor Dawkins how he would respond if I made some scientific argument and quoted a Music professor as my sole authority. He would quickly point out that that’s what’s called an Avoidance argument. And he would be right.

BA: Great. I want to point people to all your books and stuff, because you have got a number of other books as well on the popular level and on more of a scholarly level. But I also want to ask you about your involve with CPX, The Centre for Public Christianity there in Australia. Tell us about that briefly and then I want to ask you a few questions beyond that.

JD: The Centre for Public Christianity is basically a media organization trying to offer sensible generous comment on the Christian faith for the secular square. So we are a group of scholar communicators who found an organization four, five years ago. Part of our work is a website, PublicChristianity.org where everything is free but we have print articles, podcasts and also videos dealing with just about any question, a skeptical or interested person could ask of the Christian faith, ranging from Environmentalism right through to the History stuff that we have been talking about today.

We have just an incredible library of scholars we have had the privilege of interviewing. Not just Biblical scholars but philosophers, scientists and so on, some of whom aren’t believers but make for fascinating interviews.

We have a - just a highlight for me is, we interviewed Michael Ruse, who is an atheist Professor of Philosophy of Science from Florida State University. We interviewed him. You can see the video there at CPX. We interviewed him on how he feels about Richard Dawkins and its quite funny to hear this atheist say that he is embarrassed to be an atheist when he reads Richard Dawkins material. So that’s a highlight. But the other thing we are trying to do at CPX is engage the secular media. So we recently regularly write for the broadsheet newspaper here in Australia and the online secular outlets.

We are just trying to keep a sensible, generous voice about the Christian faith in the Public Sphere, because Australia is pretty much post-Christian. It had a little bit of Christianity in its origins but basically it’s walked a long ways past that. We just want to keep a hand in the ring, seat of the table with big ideas and we seem to be having great fun doing it.

BA: Now one of the things that you know you have a background with working with multi-media and you see the importance of the production and propagation of quality Christian content. What areas do you see where followers of Christ can move forward in those realms, whether it be online media or as you have done making documentaries. Where do you see the need for Christians to get involved in and how would you want to encourage them to move forward.

JD: Yeah. Well I think there are a couple of things I would say to this. One is I think there needs to be a little bit of a mind-shift out of simply doing Apologetics to reinforce the faith of the faithful and trying to do well what we call Public Christianity which is related to Apologetics.

It really is trying to bring the best of scholarship into the public square - just talk about Christianity in the public square. And so that means not overstating things if we can't prove something, don't say that we can prove something - be a little more relaxed, a little more generous. So we often talk about the vibe being half of the difficulty - getting the vibe right. Where you are a confident, relaxed, well informed Christian rather than a nervous, trying to cross every 'T', dot every 'I', prove everything kind of Christian which I think is not very compelling to the general public. It maybe compelling to our Christian constituency, so that for me is very important - the vibe.

But then in terms of the engagement, I can't stress enough, the importance of getting involved in the mainstream print media, and I include online and print. It really is quite amazing to us that before the Centre of Public Christianity started, you hardly ever saw a Christian article in our Sydney Morning Herald or The Australian or The Age, these are the big broadsheet newspapers like the L.A. Times or the New York Times or whatever. But we - when we founded CPX, just started to send articles to these newspapers and say "Hey. We are this new organization and we are trying to get a balance view of things. See if you like this." And they started to publish us and we thought "Wow. Why hadn't someone done this before?"

I think a lot of Christians feel that all secular media is against them and they never have any hope so they never try their luck. I mean if you go through our media page at PublicChristianity.org you will just see how, how much we have had in the secular press so I urge American Christians to have a really thoughtful generous go at getting published in your major newspapers - just give it a go.

The other thing I say is if you don't have too much luck there, one thing that really disturbs us here in Australia is when you get published by these mainstream outlets, they do an online version as well as a print version. Of course you are allowed to comment. Viewers are allowed to comment. And what we find is the secularists take over the chat rooms and the comments functions and Christians never jump in to the argument. It’s like Christians just only want to play in the Christian literature. We are constantly urging Christians here in Australia, "Look if you see CPX has an article in the Herald and then you see the online version and the atheists come in saying 'You're idiots,' why don't you jump in and demonstrate generous thoughtfulness about the Christian faith."

So what I am saying is, even if you can't get published at the high level, jump into the comments function because thousands of people read these comments following articles and I reckon there is a real ministry and I hope some of your listeners will take this ministry up - a real ministry - having generous thoughtful comments in online articles. Not the nuttiness that we sometimes see but really thoughtful stuff. I reckon that’s – that’s one thing we should be doing.

BA: Well that’s good stuff. I want to ask you a couple more advice questions. I ask a lot of my guests what their advice would be for the next generation of Christian apologists and you have kind of offered some great insights there. I want to ask you along the lines of communication, how you think Christians can be better communicators and to develop that, but what other wisdom would you want to pass on to future apologists.

JD: Two things. One intellectual, one aesthetic. The intellectual thing, I'd say is I long for the brainiest of our Christian friends to go into secular universities and do their degrees right through their PhD's in secular disciplines and then use the best of the scholarship of that discipline for Christ, rather than jump into and I hope I am not going to get into trouble for saying this - jump into a master’s program in Apologetics at some seminary.

Now if you happen to run a master’s program in Apologetics at some seminary, I apologize. I think they are great. They serve a fantastic function. But what I am saying is I long for the brainiest of our kids to just get themselves into Harvard School of Philosophy and go right to the top of the tree and do it in the name of Christ.

Because when you do that - when your education is secular - (A) You are way more aware than any Apologetics student of where the current debates really are and where the mainstream is and (B) it just opens doors if your PhD is from Harvard or you know one of the other great schools in America, and there are so many of them - it really does open doors. You will be able to get published way more easily in the New York Times and so on than if your degree comes from a seminary. I realize how controversial that statement is but I am just sorry, I really feel that we need to be doing this.

The second thing is not intellectual but aesthetic. I can't get my head around the importance of gentleness and respect. And everyone involved in Apologetics knows the famous 1 Peter 3:15, "Always be prepared to give an answer" but then he says "but do this with - prautes kai phóbos -gentleness and respect." He is talking about how you talk to non-Christians. And I often find myself thinking what does that really mean to engage with Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Price, whoever with gentleness and respect?

I really think you can't defend Christ in a way that is not gentle or not respectful, because then you are defending a message about a Savior who is gentle and respectful without that same character and I think we lose something as a result of that. I mean I remember on one occasion, I was in a bar with friends, some non-Christian friends and I met this friend of a friend that night who is a very self-made wealthy businessman. And he was telling me all that was wrong with Christianity and I listened to him and I thought I was pretty gentle and respectful for the first half of the criticisms.

He said “Church leaders were all hypocrites." Yeah. Ok. I tried to talk with him about that. "Science had disproved the Bible." I tried to talk to him about that. And then he said "And Christianity only spread and became popular because of the violence in the armies that Christianity put into place around Europe." And I stopped him and said, "You are not serious are you?" And he said, "Oh. Yeah. It’s been proven." Of course this is the area of my doctoral work right so. At that point, some little thing snapped in my brain and I turned from gentle and respectful into plain arrogant and I raised my voice. I reminded him I had a couple of degrees in this. I quoted authors he had never heard of and I basically flattened him but as the words were leaving my mouth it was like I could hear Peter saying "gentleness and respect," "gentleness and respect".

And I thought to myself afterwards, you know I was making the fatal error of trying to win the argument instead of trying to win the person. And that is a really sad thing because you can really win the argument and lose the person and it means nothing. So I'd urge people to focus on the manner in which they speak as much as the content.

BA: Well John really enjoyed speaking with you today and really appreciate your insights. Thanks for taking the time to speak with me.

JD: Thank you Brian. Anytime.

Terminology Tuesday: Empiricism

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Auten) — Mon, 13 May 2013 23:30:00 PDT

Empiricism: A philosophical theory that assumes that all knowledge is gained through either internal experience (thoughts, emotions, etc.) or external experience (sight, smell, touch, hearing and taste). Empiricism is most closely associated with individuals such as Francis Bacon and John Locke, but the purest form of empiricism is found in the thought of David Hume. Hume took empiricism to its extreme, stating that a person can not really know if external things (objects) exist because all one can know for certain is one's own experience of those things.1

1. Stanley J. Grenz, David Guretzki & Cherith Fee Nordling, Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1999), p. 44.

What was last year's post? It was a great free ebook.

Unbelievable? The Conference 2013

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Auten) — Sun, 12 May 2013 23:30:02 PDT

Premier Christian Radio presents an apologetics day conference on Sat, 25 May 2013 in London. This year's conference will be marking 50 years of CS Lewis' legacy as well as training Christians to engage with today's ethical and scientific issues in a variety of seminars. Guest speakers include: Alister McGrath, Amy Orr-Ewing, Fazale Rana, Peter S. Williams, and more. Winner's of last week's FREE TICKETS were David and Hannah. Enjoy!

See a conference trailer here.

Sign up here.

J.P. Moreland on Intellectual Virtue

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Auten) — Sat, 11 May 2013 23:30:03 PDT

"There is absolutely nothing wrong with admitting you don't know something or that you're currently inadequately equipped to think a topic through. What is unacceptable, however, is running from this fact and thereby giving up on intellectual and spiritual growth in the interest of avoiding embarrassment or possible rejection. We all need help in this area, and we should care enough about truth and reason to give that help. Even if we agree with one another's conclusions, we need to dedicate ourselves for Christ's sake to refusing to allow each other to reach those conclusions with poor argumentation and sloppy treatment of data."

—J. P. Moreland

Love Your God with All Your Mind: The Role of Reason in the Life of the Soul (p. 97). Kindle Edition.

Review: Mind, Brain and Free Will by Richard Swinburne

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Auten) — Fri, 10 May 2013 23:30:00 PDT

Theologians and scientists seem blissfully unaware that that the soul is alive and well in contemporary philosophy of religion. JP Moreland, Dean Zimmerman, William Hasker, Charles Taliaferro, Stuart Goetz, Robin Collins and Alvin Plantinga have all produced novel and rigorous arguments in defence of dualism – that you are an immaterial self and not identical to your body. This must be gratifying for Richard Swinburne, who swam against the tides of philosophical fashion in 1986 with The Evolution of the Soul. Mind, Brain and Free Will updates his arguments for dualism. The book is refreshingly clear, rigorously argued and a joy to read.

Swinburne argues that physical events and conscious events – beliefs, desires, thoughts, purposes and sensations – are not identical. To put that another way, the terms we use to pick out physical events, and the terms we use to pick out mental events, never refer to the same thing. We need to think a little about words and concepts here – after all, we cannot say much about the world without them! Anyone who knows what terms like “red” or “pain” mean knows how to use them. They know exactly what it is to have a sensation of red or a pain. They know how when and how to apply the terms, and can make simple inferences using the terms. (For example we can infer “it is a sensation” and “it is unpleasant” from “it is a pain.”)

Some terms, however, do not get at the essence of what they designate; we don’t fully understand what is involved in their application. Early explorers could see a mountain from Tibet which they identified by its shape and called "Everest". At the same time, other explorers in Nepal could see a mountain with a different shape which they called "Gaurisanker". However, it soon became apparent that the two mountains were identical – it was the same mountain viewed from different perspectives. "Gaurisanker" and "Everest" actually referred to the same rocky matter. Of course, this did not surprise early geographers - after all, they were only referring to superficial appearances, and not what underlay those appearances.

Obviously, there are certain things that simply could not be identical. For example, explorers could never discover that the Nile and Everest referred to the same geographical features. It is also clear that mental properties and physical properties are not identical. “Reflecting light at such and such a wavelength” does not entail “red” or “blue” – that is, it does not logically entail how that reflected light will appear to observers.

Suppose I put my hand to close to a flame and receive a burn. I feel pain, referring to a particular unpleasant sensation. Such a feeling is uniform and simple, and it impresses itself directly on my consciousness. Observers could infer that I was in pain from my behaviour. However, I don't need to infer that I am in pain by observing my behaviour or brain states; I feel it directly. As Swinburne puts it, I have privileged access to mental events like pain. It is this mental property that I refer to when I say I feel “pain”. I am picking out an experience, describing the property as it appears “on the surface.” I am not picking out a physical event which causes that experience.

The criteria for being a “pain” and its underlying brain state are different. We know what the term "pain" refers to without any knowledge of the underlying brain state. "Pain" refers to a specific, simple sensation. The physical events associated with pain are anything but simple. If I describe the complex sequence of neurological events that accompanies that pain, and the specific function that the pain plays in moving my body away from harm, and even the set of physical events that the pain "represents", I leave something important out: that simple, specific sensation that makes pain what it is.

We can informatively designate the feelings of pain and heat without knowing anything about physics or biology. We can also informatively designate behaviour and brain states without knowing anything about the accompanying sensations (we do not know “what it is like” for rodents to feel fear or for sea snails to feel pain). It follows that mental states and physical states are not identical. It also seems that mental states do not necessitate particular physical states. There seems no reason to believe that a being with a different neuro-physiology or neuro-anatomy – like an artificially intelligent robot, or a silicon-based life form - could not feel sensations like pain.

Some properties of physical objects are entailed by their underlying physical structure. In these cases we can see how the properties of the whole follow from the properties of the parts. So if we had sufficient knowledge of its chemical structure and the underlying physics, we could predict that frozen water would float on liquid water. But nothing about a brain’s underlying physical properties seems to entail a particular conscious experience. In fact, the underlying physical structure of our bodies does not entail that we should feel anything at all. There is absolutely nothing about the interaction physical parts that would allow us to predict the emergence or character of a conscious experience. We rely on the testimony of subjects and our own experience to know what is occurring in other minds.

Swinburne goes on to argue for “substance dualism” - the unfashionable view that human beings are an immaterial soul or mind. The basis for substance dualism is surprisingly clear. Sometimes conscious events overlap. Consider the experience of being burned by a flame. If it is possible to experience heat, light and pain simultaneously, one subject must experience all three sensations. Furthermore, this one subject must persist through time. I can feel a pain that lasts for one second, and hear a noise that commences 0.5 seconds after I first felt the pain. This noise might continue for ten seconds, but overlap with an experience of a taste that endures for the last five seconds of the noise. Swinburne argues that "[w]hen two conscious events overlap, they are events of the same substance; the overlap entails this." It is evident, then, that we are mental substances who endure for longer than the specious present.

David Hume famously claimed that we have no idea of the self because, when we introspect, we do not have an impression of the self. All we find are perceptions and sensations. Hume claims "I never find myself at any time without a perception". Hume was correct. We never experience "ourselves" unless we are experiencing some conscious event or other. But that does not imply that all I can experience is disconnected conscious events! What I am aware of are numerous conscious events experienced in a common subject – me! I experience and think about everything from one point of view – my own.

Our theories about reality should be tested by experience. We should not begin with our theories and reject experiences that do not fit. Contemporary physicalists tend to reject mental phenomena because they do not fit with their materialistic metaphysics. Swinburne argues that “it is an unavoidable datum of experience” that we are immaterial selves who exercise causal influence on our bodies. He also argues that there is a fundamental epistemic Principle of Credulity foundational to all inquiry.

The Principle of Credulity simply states that we should believe that things are as they seem unless we have good evidence that they are not. If we can find no good reason to doubt that things are as they seem then we should accept it is probably so. Swinburne is not suggesting that we naively accept that the world is as it appears. A rational person critically examines the world; she does not assume that the world actually is as it appears, so she is open to evidence that things are not as they seem. In so doing, she moves from appearances to the truth. However, every inquiry has to start with some set of data, and has to assume some point of view.

If we cannot start our quest for truth by assuming that most of our ordinary beliefs - about the immediate past, our physical surroundings, the testimony of our neighbours - are probably true, we cannot start at all. Moreover, we cannot choose our beliefs at will, and we cannot force ourselves to believe that our most basic beliefs are false. With the principle of credulity, Swinburne is joining a philosophical tradition that goes back to Aristotle. Furthermore, science builds on this tradition. Scientists test theories by observation and measurement, and science is a communal project, each scientist relying on the findings of other researchers. The scientific enterprise collapses into a sceptical morass if we cannot believe what we observe and if we cannot trust what others tell us.

This book is important for apologists because in The Existence of God Swinburne argued that the existence of consciousness provides evidence for God’s existence. It seems to me that the discussion in Mind, Brain and Free Will certainly gives reason to prefer Theism to Physicalism. If physicalism is true, physics should have the potential to give us a complete description of reality. (The laws of genetics and natural selection will follow from the fundamental laws of physics and the initial state of our universe.) Physics describes a universe with ultimate and irreducible properties of things, like charge, mass, charge, motion and spin. These fundamental physical realities are governed by relatively simple mathematical laws.

But conscious states like "awareness" and "aboutness" are not the kinds of state that are described by physics. They arrive too late in the history of the universe to be fundamental; furthermore, it is impossible to see how they could be described mathematically. It is difficult enough to describe a specific feeling of "misery", " or "ecstasy" in poetry or painting. While the associated brain state can be measured in mathematical terms, the phenomenal feeling cannot. Physicalism cannot account for conscious states, whereas Theism, with its commitment to a personal creator, has no difficulty in explaining conscious experience. We think – therefore there is evidence that God is!

Apologetics 315 Book Reviewer Graham Veale is Head of Religious Education at City of Armagh High School. With David Glass, he runs the apologetics group Saints and Sceptics. Their articles can be read at www.saintsandsceptics.org

Weekly Apologetics Bonus Links (05/03 - 05/10)

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Auten) — Fri, 10 May 2013 09:00:04 PDT

Here are this week's recommended apologetics links. Enjoy.

• That’s Not Fair!

• Dallas Willard (1935—2013)

• Practicing Epistemic Humility

• Saints & Sceptics Facebook Page

• SES Apologetics App - Android App

• Five Challenges For Your Secular Friends

• Can We Know Moral Values Without Knowing God?

• What I Learned from Dallas Willard (1935-2013)

• Worldview Definitions: Rationalism and Naturalism

• “Detheologizing Christianity”: Review of Rob Bell’s New Book

• Stand to Reason's 20th Anniversary Conference (available online)

• Smart Faith apologetics conference coming to Phoenix, AZ in June 2013

• Featured: Sententias- Dialogues Concerning Philosophy, Theology and Science

Apologetics 315 is a registered 501(c)(3) non-profit. Would you support us monthly?

Get these sorts of links and more by following on Twitter.
For daily post links, please follow on Facebook.

Read Along: Chapter 5—How Did the Universe Begin?

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Auten) — Thu, 09 May 2013 23:30:05 PDT

Today we continue with Chapter Five in the Read Along with Apologetics 315 project. This is a chapter-by-chapter study through the book Is God Just a Human Invention? And Seventeen Other Questions Raised by the New Atheists by Sean McDowell and Jonathan Morrow. (Hear an interview about the book here.) Below you will find an audio intro for Chapter Five, a brief summary of the chapter, a PDF workbook with questions for the chapter, and some notable quotes. You're also encouraged to share your comments and feedback for each chapter in the comment section below. Feel free to interact!

[Audio Intro] - Sean McDowell introduces this chapter.
[Chapter 05 Study Questions] (with kindle locations) - PDF study guide.
[Podcast Feed RSS | Podcast in iTunes] - Click to subscribe to the audio.

Summary
Chapter Five: How Did the Universe Begin?
(pages 71-82)
Chapter five asks the fundamental question of the origin of the universe. The authors point to scientific and philosophical reasons to believe that the universe had a beginning. They introduce the kalam cosmological argument and unpack the premises. Alternate explanations of the origin of the universe that try to avoid an absolute beginning are assessed, and the authors provide an answer to the question, "who made God?" Finally, the implications of a the universe having a cause are explored, showing that the cause is most plausibly non-physical, spaceless, timeless, changeless and powerful.

Christian philosopher Doug Geivett contributes an essay entitled, "God, the Universe, and Me." Here he briefly looks at some implications of there being a Creator of the universe.

Notable quotes:

"It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning."' - Alexander Vilenkin. (p. 76)

The kalam argument cannot demonstrate that the Bible is reliable, that Jesus is God, or that Christianity is true. What the kalam reveals is that the universe was made and that someone made it. Further, the kalam helps narrow the range of possible causes to a being that is nonphysical, spaceless, timeless, changeless, and powerful. (p. 78)

The best explanation for the origin of the universe is that it was brought into existence through the free will of a personal Creator. Since the universe is the result of a creative act, it is best explained as the result of a mind. (p. 79)

Discuss

Why is the question of the origin of the universe important?
Can you give an example of something coming into existence without a cause?
Why might someone want to avoid the conclusion that the universe had a beginning?

Recommended Reading

Creation Out of Nothing: A Biblical, Philosophical, and Scientific Exploration by Paul Copan and William Lane Craig
Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics by William Lane Craig

Next Week: Chapter 6—How Did Life Begin?

How to Be a Morally Responsible Skeptic MP3 Audio by Dallas Willard

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Auten) — Wed, 08 May 2013 12:22:01 PDT

Philosopher Dallas Willard makes the case that disbelief is not a stance to be taken lightly. Individuals have a responsibility to assume the burden of proof for their disbelief. Dallas Willard died on May 8, 2013 and will be missed by many. Find his books here.

Full MP3 Audio here. (from Veritas)

Enjoy.

The Origin of Life Debate: May 16 in Riverside, CA

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Auten) — Tue, 07 May 2013 23:30:03 PDT

On May 16, 2013, Dr. Michael Ruse and Dr. Fazale Rana will debate the question: "Are natural processes sufficient to explain the origin and the complexity of the cell?" Sponsored by The Well Christian Club at UCR, this debate will be held at the UCR Gymnasium in Riverside, CA. Overflow crowds are expected, so get your tickets early.

Check it out here.

Terminology Tuesday: Gnosticism

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Auten) — Mon, 06 May 2013 23:30:02 PDT

Gnosticism: An early Greek religious movement of broad proportions that was particularly influential in the second-century church. Many biblical interpreters see in certain NT documents (such as 1 John) the attempt to answer or refute Gnostic teaching. The word gnosticism comes from the Greek term gnosis, meaning "knowledge." Gnostics believed that devotees had gained a special kind of spiritual enlightenment, through which they had attained a secret or higher level of knowledge not accessible to the uninitiated. Gnostics also tended to emphasize the spiritual realm over the material, often claiming that the material realm is evil and hence to be escaped.1

You may also be interested in this lecture: Gnosticism Past & Present.

1. Stanley J. Grenz, David Guretzki & Cherith Fee Nordling, Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1999), p. 56.

Ticket Giveaway: Unbelievable? The Conference 2013

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Auten) — Sun, 05 May 2013 23:30:05 PDT

Premier Christian Radio presents an apologetics day conference on Sat, 25 May 2013 in London. This year's conference will be marking 50 years of CS Lewis' legacy as well as training Christians to engage with today's ethical and scientific issues in a variety of seminars. Guest speakers include: Alister McGrath, Amy Orr-Ewing, Fazale Rana, Peter S. Williams, and more. Apologetics 315 is giving away a number of FREE TICKETS.

See a conference trailer here.

ENTER THE DRAWING HERE.

Sign up here.

John Stackhouse on the Centrality of Christ

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Auten) — Sat, 04 May 2013 23:30:02 PDT

“Since the heart of God’s revelation of himself is the figure of Jesus Christ, and since the heart of the Christian story of salvation is the career of Jesus Christ, Christian apologetics—like everything else in the Christian religion, from worship to mission, from prayer to almsgiving—rightly focuses on Jesus Christ.”

—John Stackhouse
Humble Apologetics, p. 189. [HT: Hope's Reason]

Book Review: A Basic Guide to Interpreting the Bible by Robert H. Stein

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Auten) — Fri, 03 May 2013 23:30:02 PDT

A Basic Guide to Interpreting the Bible comes to this reviewer as a recommendation by a friend and member of his Sunday School class. There was no expectation of a review, but the opportunity could not be passed considering the focus of the book: hermeneutics. Theology is an important aspect of the apologist's endeavor. The apologist defends what is true- what scripture teaches about the world. However, the apologist needs to make sure that they understand what scripture actually does teach about reality; otherwise, they may be wasting time defending something that is false. When something false is believed and defended, it can be easy to defeat and made the object of ridicule among skeptics. Correctly understanding what scripture teaches about reality requires that the reader understand how to interpret what is written in scripture. Dr. Robert Stein offers a basic overview of proper ways to interpret scripture that will be vital to the apologist's efforts.

Part 1: The General Rules of Interpretation

Chapter 1: Who Makes Up The Rules? An Introduction to Hermeneutics
In the first chapter, Stein sets the foundation for his overview. He explains that with any communication, there are three parts involved: the author, the message, and the reader. He explains the different views on where meaning is found. If meaning is determined by the reader, then any message (the biblical text, in our case) can mean anything- thus meaning nothing objectively. The text itself cannot convey meaning since mere symbols are inanimate objects incapable of intentionally communicating to the reader. Stein argues that only the author of the text determines what it means.

Stein examines arguments against his position- including the fact that the reader is incapable of entering into the mind of the author to fully understand his(her) thoughts and emotions. Stein points out that it is not the goal of the reader necessarily to experience the precise emotions of the author or even understand every minute detail of thought, but to understand what the author is consciously intending to communicate.

He then looks at the unique roles of each the author, text, and reader in properly interpreting the text. The author is the original communicator that the reader must attempt to understand via the text. Stein explains that it is important to distinguish between the specific meaning and the general meaning of the text. The specific meaning often takes the form of an example, while the general meaning is the pattern the example demonstrates. The pattern of meaning does not change, but it has multiple ways to be applied based on reader. What the author intends to communicate has both objective meaning and subjective significance.

Chapter 2: Defining The Rules: A Vocabulary for Interpretation
To help the beginner, in the second chapter Stein defines several different terms related to hermeneutics: meaning, implications, significance, subject matter, understanding, interpretation, mental acts, norms of language, norms of utterance, literary genre, and context. By clearly explaining the meaning of these and giving examples, Stein prepares the reader to not only understand the rest of the book more clearly, but to be able to get more out of personal or group Bible studies. Stein provides much more detail than what can be given here, but very quickly (and generally):

Meaning: The general idea that the author intends to convey to the reader
Implications: Specific examples that the author may not have had in mind when communicating the general idea, but do logically follow
Significance: How the meaning applies to specific people
Subject Matter: Anything that the text is talking "about" (be it incidental or intentional)
Understanding: This takes place when the reader mentally comprehends the general idea the author intends to convey
Interpretation: The communication of understanding from one person to another
Mental Acts: The precise mental state of the author at the time of writing- not required to be known to discover the author's general idea
Norms of Language: Culturally accepted range of meanings of words within the language the author is using to communicate
Norms of Utterance: The single correct meaning of a word within the norm of language that the author intended
Context: The overall general idea of the text surrounding the text the reader is attempting to understand

Chapter 3: Can Anyone Play This Game? The Spirit and Biblical Interpretation
In the third chapter Stein examines the role of the Holy Spirit in interpreting scripture. He explains that there is nothing special about discovering the meaning of an author of scripture. The unbeliever can discern what the author intended to communicate just as well as a Christian can. He proposes both a philosophical and scriptural argument for this position. However, he does not leave out the Holy Spirit- the role of the Holy Spirit is in recognizing the significance and implications in our lives of what the authors communicated. It is not the role of the Holy Spirit to help understand the meaning, but it IS the role of the Holy Spirit to see that what is meant applies to our lives and compels us to act upon it. Stein concludes the chapter by emphasizing that we should not "use" the Holy Spirit's "guidance" as an excuse to not consult those who've studied scripture and do understand its meaning, but it is imperative that we seek the Holy Spirit's guidance in the recognition of how the meaning applies to us.

Chapter 4: Different Games in the Same Book: Different Forms of Scripture
In Chapter 4 Stein introduces the reader to the concept of "genre". He makes the distinction between informative and emotive language and explains that the different books of the Bible were written using styles and norms of language that fit these styles. He uses a personal example to show how interpreting a passage with the misunderstanding of the incorrect genre can limit our understanding of the text, if we don't completely misunderstand it. He also cautions that there is not an exclusivity to these. Poetry can contain historical narrative, while historical narrative can contain poetry. This chapter sets the stage for the second part of the book where the rules of the different genres will be discussed.

Part 2: The Specific Rules for the Individual Games

Chapter 5: The Game of Wisdom- Proverbs
Stein begins his examination of the different genres of biblical literature with a short look at proverbs. He lists several proverbs that are commonly quoted and known, then makes note that they do have exceptions. He informs the reader that proverbs cannot be taken as rules that cannot be broken, rather they must be read in the context of being a general truth that is the result of general observation by the author. The author is saying that what they are writing is correct in the majority of cases in their observations of the world. If exceptions are noted, the author would point out that that is expected; their statements were not meant to be without exception.

Chapter 6: The Game of Prediction- Prophecy
In the sixth chapter prophecy is the focus. Stein points out at the beginning that prophecy does not always refer to predictions of future events, as is the common belief today. Rather the majority of the biblical prophetic literature speaks of judgment. Referring to the passages of judgment, Stein recognizes that there are some predictions that do not come true because of the repentance of the people the prophecy is speaking to. He, however, refers to Jeremiah 18:7-8 as the important context that all judgment passages must be interpreted through, when determining if they indeed took place. The passage states that all proclaimed judgments are "if...then" statements. So, if a nation does repent, then God will not bring judgment, thus the prophecy of judgment is fulfilled even when the nation repents.

Stein also looks at predictive prophecy. He notes the figurative, symbolic, and exaggerative language that is often used. He points out predictions of Pentacost that never took place, if they are interpreted to be like rolling video of the future event. However, if the prediction is interpreted as being figurative, there is no such failing of the prediction. He also refers to conflicting predictions of the time after Christ's return to show that a photographic interpretation cannot be what the author intended. Stein emphasizes that it is important that the interpreter understand prophetic literature as the hearers/readers would interpret such prophecy; otherwise, contradictions arise.

Chapter 7: The Game of Rhythm- Poetry
Regarding the genre of poetry, Stein explains the characteristics, the rules, and how to identify poetry. He points out that an author writing poetry is often appealing to the readers' emotions. Literal and objective language tends to be dry and appeal mainly to the mind, so the author uses figurative language in order to paint a vivid and emotional picture for the readers. He explains that since poetry contains so much figurative language, the reader must be careful to not necessarily interpret the words in a literal sense. This does not compromise the truth of the text because it is precisely how the author meant it to be understood. Of course, the reader must be able to identify poetry. This is where Stein discusses rhyme and rhythm. He shows that if these can be identified, then it is safe to conclude that the passage is poetry and interpret the passage through that lens.

Chapter 8: The Game of Jargon—Idioms
Idioms are a feature of all languages. Simply put, they are words (or phrases) that mean something other than what is found in normal language. A modern day example given by Stein is "bad". Often used to actually mean "good". The reader of scripture needs to be aware that idioms existed in biblical languages and must be able to identify them; otherwise, they can be interpreted to mean what the author did not intend them to mean.

Chapter 9: The Game of Exaggeration—Hyperbole
One of the often unrecognized characteristics of the biblical authors' writing is the use of hyperbole. As with idioms, every language has it, and people use it quite often. Stein points out that the authors of scripture used it quite a bit, and not recognizing such usage can yield incorrect, if not ridiculous, interpretations of the text. Stein lists and describes ten ways to identify hyperbole and provides several examples of each in scripture. He also uses hyperbole in his writing of the chapter, which emphasizes his point even further (it is unclear if this was intentional or not because he does not announce it beforehand or bring it to the reader's attention afterward).

Chapter 10: The Game of Comparison—Parables
Many parables exist in scripture. They are told in order to draw a comparison- often one that the audience is not expecting. Stein explains that it is important to recognize that parables have one primary point- this will prevent the temptation to allegorize every detail. Using several of Jesus' parables he shows why it is imperative that the reader recognize what the speaker's intention was in telling the parable. He also points out that even though Jesus told the stories, the writers of the gospels interpreted them- in some cases they applied the parables to a different audience, but still followed the principle described earlier in the book of "meaning". Stein also makes clear that the writers of the gospels were divinely inspired, so their drawing of implications was also inspired.

Chapter 11: The Game of Stories: Biblical Narrative
The genre of biblical narrative is used to record historical events. Stein begins by explaining attempts to naturalistically reconcile historical narratives that include miracles and why these attempts ultimately fail. He reminds the reader that one must look for what the author intended to communicate, and that the author intended to communicate historical events when they used this genre. Stein examines several principles for interpreting what the author intended in these passages. He covers context, the author's comments and commentary, repetitive material and phrases, whom the author tended to quote most often, and the distinction by the author between summaries of conversations and actual quotes. Stein concludes the chapter by explaining to the reader that the meaning cannot be changed, whether the events are historical or not, but if they are not historical, then they have no significance whatsoever.

Chapter 12: The Game of Correspondence—Epistles
Biblical epistles are a unique genre that tend to include more developed and nuanced statements in Scripture. Because of this, it is important that the reader understands the specifics of grammar and specific word meanings in order to understand what the author is attempting to communicate. Stein takes this time to look at some of the attributes of biblical Greek that makes it unique from English. He details several of the most commonly found causal relationships between phrases in the Epistles to help the reader understand properly. He also explains the importance of using texts by the same author to help understand the meanings of words. He points out that finding the root meaning of a word is rarely useful, due to the fact that language is dynamic and the author is who determines the meaning of a word in the sentence, not the words origins.

Chapter 13: The Game of Treaties, Laws, and Songs
The final chapter deals with covenants, The Law, and Psalms. Regarding covenants, Stein describes ancient suzerianty treaties and shows how the covenants that God made follow the same outline. He explains how understanding the ancient format helps us interpret the covenants properly. The covenants include stipulations that those under the covenant agree to keep. These laws also follow a unique format that was common in the ancient world. Stein touches a bit on the distinction between cultural and ethical laws, and emphasizes that the specific laws given often refer to a general meaning but have implications beyond what is specifically mentioned. In the section on the Psalms, Stein outlines several different types of psalms and explains how the ability to recognize them accurately helps us to understand what the psalmist wished to communicate.

Reviewer's Thoughts
A Basic Guide to Interpreting the Bible is a great introduction to scriptural hermeneutics. Without using too much technical language, Stein is able to present important information to the reader. He makes using the book for study more accessible by including a glossary, an index, and a list of scriptural references. Stein also encourages group discussion of his book by including a series of review and thought-provoking questions at the end of each chapter. BiblicalTraining.org has recently made available a series of lectures by Stein that follows his book.

Any Christian will benefit from reading this book; however, the apologist will get an extra benefit of being able to ensure that they are defending what scripture actually teaches. For those already quite familiar with interpretive methods, this book can serve as a good recommendation for those who are new to proper hermeneutics and may merely be curious, but don't want to get overwhelmed. This particular copy was lent to this reviewer, but his own copy will be purchased as this is one that needs to be on the shelf for future reference and lending out to other friends.

Weekly Apologetics Bonus Links (04/26 - 05/03)

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Auten) — Fri, 03 May 2013 09:00:08 PDT

Here are this week's recommended apologetics links. Enjoy.

• Stand to Reason's Brand New Website!

• Answering Atheist Arguments Against God

• Ward to head new C.S. Lewis Centre in Oxford

• Debate Review: Gordon Stein vs. Greg Bahnsen

• If God Does Not Exist Then Nothing is Wrong

• The Great God Debate II - The Origin of Life

• Science, Doubt and Miracles by Timothy McGrew

• The Ten Commandments of Apologetics (Revisited)

• Come to Unbelievable? The Conference 2013 (video)

• Relativism sinks into the quicksand of meaninglessness

• Marriage Minutes Videos by the Coalition For Marriage

• "Mere Apologetics" by Alister McGrath on $4.99 on Kindle

• Comparing Evolution to Empirical Observations Such as Gravity

• CS Lewis vs the New Atheists by Peter S. Williams now on Kindle

• Is Belief in the Supernatural Irrational? with John Lennox (Video)

• Book your Tickets now for London: Unbelievable? The Conference 2013

Apologetics 315 is a registered 501(c)(3) non-profit. Would you support us monthly?

Get these sorts of links and more by following on Twitter.
For daily post links, please follow on Facebook.

Read Along: Chapter 4—Is Darwinian Evolution the Only Game in Town?

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Auten) — Thu, 02 May 2013 23:30:04 PDT

Today we continue with Chapter Four in the Read Along with Apologetics 315 project. This is a chapter-by-chapter study through the book Is God Just a Human Invention? And Seventeen Other Questions Raised by the New Atheists by Sean McDowell and Jonathan Morrow. (Hear an interview about the book here.) Below you will find an audio intro for Chapter Four, a brief summary of the chapter, a PDF workbook with questions for the chapter, and some notable quotes. You're also encouraged to share your comments and feedback for each chapter in the comment section below. Feel free to interact!

[Audio Intro] - Jonathan Morrow introduces this chapter.
[Chapter 04 Study Questions] (with kindle locations) - PDF study guide.
[Podcast Feed RSS | Podcast in iTunes] - Click to subscribe to the audio.

Summary
Chapter Four: Is Darwinian Evolution the Only Game in Town?
(pages 57-70)
Chapter four explores the question of Darwinian evolution. The new atheists state that evolution is a fact, but is this true? The authors first define evolution, providing a number of ways the term can be used. They also describe the theory of intelligent design and what it claims. They offer reasons to doubt the strength of some of the main lines of evidence used in favor of Darwinian evolution, including HIV and bacterial resistance, homology, biogeography, "poor design," and pseudogenes. They conclude by underscoring the importance of the origins question and the implications of each theory for human value.

Intelligent Design advocate William Dembski contributes with an essay about the evidence for intelligent design, its implications, and value in making a case for Christian theism.

Notable quotes:

Intelligent design's main claim is that nature exhibits patterns that are best explained as the product of intelligent cause (design) rather than an undirected material process (chance and necessity). (p. 59)

The theory of intelligent design does not challenge the definition of evolution as change over time, or even common ancestry.* But it does challenge the Darwinian claim that all life's complexity and diversity can emerge through a blind, undirected process. (p. 60)

Living systems bear unmistakable signs of design, even if such design is, or appears to be, imperfect. Product designers and engineers know that perfect design does not exist. (p. 64)

Discuss

Why is the question of origins important?
What is the most common evidence for Darwinian evolution you have heard?
What are the implications of Darwinism vs Intelligent Design when it comes to human value?

Recommended Reading

Understanding Intelligent Design: Everything You Need to Know in Plain Language by Sean McDowell and William Dembski
Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? Why Much of What We Teach About Evolution Is Wrong by Jonathan Wells

Next Week: Chapter 5—How Did the Universe Begin?

Richard Dawkins Interviewed by Justin Brierley MP3 Audio

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Auten) — Wed, 01 May 2013 23:30:03 PDT

Atheist Richard Dawkins spoke to Premier’s Justin Brierley immediately after a debate he had with Christian Professor John Lennox on whether Science has disproved God.

The Oxford professor is most famous for his book The God Delusion. Surprisingly, Dawkins admits to Premier that there must have been some cause for the start of the universe.

Be sure to check out the upcoming Unbelievable Conference in May.
MP3 Audio here.

Found at Premier.org.

Keep Your Heart With All Diligence - MP3 Audio by Wayne Grudem

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Auten) — Tue, 30 Apr 2013 23:30:04 PDT

Wayne Grudem speaks on Keeping Your Heart with All Diligence. This is recommended listening for apologists and ministers as well as those who may be struggling with doubt or discouragement. Take some time and feed on some truth.

Full MP3 audio here.

Talk given at the European Leadership Forum.

Terminology Tuesday: Theistic Evolutionism

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Auten) — Mon, 29 Apr 2013 23:30:05 PDT

Theistic Evolutionism: An understanding of the development of life on earth that arose out of the attempt to relate the interpretation of Genesis to the scientific theory of organic evolution by taking a nonliteral view of the creation account while wholeheartedly trusting its truthfulness as the Word of God. Theistic evolution teaches that while the various species emerged throughout the evolutionary process, God superintended the development of life. That is, evolution was the means that God used in bringing about the divine purpose of creating life on this planet. Theistic evolutionists generally maintain the classical Christian doctrines of creation, original sin and human depravity in need need of redemption.1

1. Stanley J. Grenz, David Guretzki & Cherith Fee Nordling, Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1999), p. 112.

Interview Transcript Index

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Auten) — Sun, 28 Apr 2013 13:49:28 PDT

Apologetics 315 has begun transcription of its collection of ongoing interviews with Christian historians, scientists, evangelists, philosophers, pastors, authors, and other leading scholars in the area of Christian apologetics—some 125+ and counting. This page will serve as an index for the completed transcripts. (Click here for a message from me about this project.)

Please feel free to suggest the next interviews to transcribe from the growing master list of interviews.

INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPTS:
• Gary Habermas
• Craig Keener
• Lee Strobel
• Hugh Ross
• Former atheist Richard Morgan
• Michael J. Kruger
• Michael Patton
• David Instone-Brewer
• Paul L. Maier
• Norman Geisler
• Craig Blomberg
• John Warwick Montgomery
• Paul Copan
• Bruce Little
• Ellis Potter
• Casey Luskin
• Jeff Zweerink
• David Robertson
• Frank Turek
• J.P. Moreland
• Scott Oliphint
• Ravi Zacharias
• Robin Collins
• Mike Licona 1
• Mike Licona 2
• Scott Klusendorf

As always, you can help this project by funding it or volunteering your service to aid in the transcription. Thanks for your support!

Sunday Quote: C.S. Lewis on Philosophy

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Auten) — Sat, 27 Apr 2013 23:30:02 PDT

"Good philosophy must exist, if for no other reason, because bad philosophy must be answered... The learned life then, is for some, a duty."
- C.S. Lewis