Apologetics 315

Weekly Apologetics Bonus Links (01/20 - 01/27)

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Auten) — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 09:00:04 PST

Here are this week's recommended apologetics links. Enjoy.
• Who Made God?
• "Like" Ratio Christi
• Faith and Evolution Events
• On Guard DVD promo video
• What Genre are the Gospels?
• The Finely Tuned Genetic Code
• The Case for the Empty Tomb
• Ours is a historical religion
• 8 Profitable Ways to Read the Bible
• Christianity As Science-Starter: Kepler
• Come Reason's Apologetics Missions Trip
• Ask Them What They Mean by “Choice” Day
• Word of the Week: Existential Instantiation
• The Principle of Sufficient Reason Revisited
• Ten Crucial Turning Points: Created In His Image
• New Books in Philosophy, Theology, and Apologetics
• Just downloaded: 'Mere Apologetics' by Alister E. McGrath
• Lee Strobel: We're on Cusp of Golden Era of Apologetics
• Ancient and Modern Historiography: What Are The Gospels?
• The Great Debate: Is the Resurrection of Jesus Fact or Fiction?

• 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 while we wait for our 501c3 approval.

Get these sorts of links and more by following on Twitter.
Or just add this feed to your RSS reader.
For daily post links, please follow on Facebook.

Read Along: Christian Apologetics Ch20

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Auten) — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 23:30:00 PST

Today we continue with chapter twenty of Read Along with Apologetics315, a weekly chapter-by-chapter study through Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Christianity by Douglas Groothuis. Please leave a comment on your reading below. This is where you can interact with others reading the book, ask questions, or add your own thoughts. Series index here. Click below for the audio intro, chapter 20 study questions PDF, and summary:

[Audio Intro] - Dr. Groothuis introduces this chapter.
[Chapter 20 Study Questions] (with kindle locations) - PDF study guide.
[Podcast Feed RSS | Podcast in iTunes] - Click to subscribe to the audio.

Summary
Chapter Twenty: The Claims, Credentials and Achievements of Jesus Christ
(pages 475-506)
Chapter twenty is all about Jesus. Although a case can be made for the divinity of Jesus using only a small number of historically attested "facts," Groothuis uses a fuller approach that takes the entirety of the Gospel accounts and New Testament letters into consideration. What did Jesus do, say, teach, believe, and achieve?

This chapter presents a full picture of Jesus (though not comprehensive) and shows how his life, claims, and deeds themselves make a case for the his divine identity. This is a full walk through the life and person of Jesus, powerful and profound. Groothuis then compares Jesus with the leaders of other world religions. They fall into the categories of sages, avatars, or prophets. Yet none of these other religious figures compare to the unique person of Jesus. The author also shows that a case can be made for the inspiration of the Old and New Testaments that is based upon the authority of Jesus himself.

Notable quotes:

Pascal succinctly describes the genius of Jesus' teaching: "Jesus said great things so simply that he seems not to have thought about them, and yet so clearly that it is obvious what he thought about them. Such clarity together with such simplicity is wonderful." (Christian Apologetics, p. 482)

Whether a religious leader is considered a prophet, sage or avatar, his (or her) status differs radically from what is ascribed to Jesus in the Bible. No other religion so highly esteems its founder or makes such titanic claims about him. Away, then, with all baseless claims about Jesus being reducible to some general religious category along with Buddha, Muhammad and so on. He did not present us with that pallid option. (Christian Apologetics, pp. 502-203)

The cumulative evidence singles Jesus out from all other religious figures.6' He entered the world supernaturally, accredited himself with unparalleled signs and wonders, possessed an impeccable character, made claims only befitting God himself, and died with the purpose of redeeming humanity. The best account of the historical facts is that he was who he said he was. If this is so, we should respond to him on his terms. (Christian Apologetics, p. 503)

Discuss

What effect did this chapter have on you as you read it?
How is Jesus different than any other religious figure in history?
In what ways (implicit and explicit) did Jesus show that he was divine?

Next week
Chapter Twenty-One: Defending the Incarnation

Ehrman's Problem: A Critique by Clay Jones

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Auten) — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 14:29:14 PST

In his book, God’s Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question—Why We Suffer, Bart Ehrman makes the case that neither Christians nor the Bible can answer why God, if He were to exist, would allow “the cesspool of misery and suffering” that many people endure. Ehrman says he couldn’t reconcile his faith with horrendous evils, and his book presents the reasons why.

Clay Jones, Associate Professor of Christian Apologetics at Biola University, offers a multi-part critique of Ehrman's book. Find links to the "Ehrman's Problem" posts here:

• Problem 1: He Misreads the Bible and Impugns God’s Fairness
• Problem 2: Free Will and Natural Evil
• Problem 3: God Could Have Made Us So We'd Always Do Right
• Problem 4: Why Won't We Abuse Free Will In Heaven?
• Problem 5: God Should Intervene More To Prevent Free Will's Evil Use
• Problem 6: He’s Confused About the Free Will Defense

Enjoy.

Michael Licona vs Shane Puckett Debate: Did Jesus Really Rise from the Dead?

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Auten) — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 14:30:01 PST

On January 11, 2012, Mike Licona debated agnostic Shane Puckett on the topic "Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?" Shane was ranked #32 in the world as a collegiate debater in 2000 and has trained 3 national debate champions. The debate was held at the First Baptist Church of West Monroe. Original video can be found here on vimeo. Includes Q&A.

Full Debate MP3 Audio here (1hr 45min)
Enjoy.

Terminology Tuesday: Foundationalism

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Auten) — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 14:30:17 PST

Foundationalism: A term referring to any theory of knowledge that looks for a starting point or "foundation" on which to build knowledge. This foundation may take the form of an indisputable proposition or set of propositions on which knowledge can be constructed through the use of logical reasoning from the first propositions. Historically, René Descartes is credited with being one of the greatest foundationalist philosophers. Descartes begins his whole system of knowledge by affirming the now-famous dictum cogito ergo sum (I think, therefore I am). Alternatively, some foundationalists (e.g., Friedrich Schleiermacher) have sought to construct knowledge on the basis of some supposedly universal human experience.1

1. Stanley J. Grenz, David Guretzki & Cherith Fee Nordling, Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1999), p. 53.

Interview with Apologetics UK

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Auten) — Sun, 22 Jan 2012 23:30:00 PST

Today's interview is with Daniel Rodger and Calum Miller, founders of the Apologetics UK Blog and UK Apologetics Facebook group. They talk about the state of apologetics in the United Kingdom, unique cultural challenges, the goal of the Apologetics UK blog, blogging as an apologetic/evangelistic tool, the growing UK Apologetics Facebook group, and the future of apologetics in the UK.

Full MP3 Audio here (25 min)

Enjoy.
Subscribe to the Apologetics 315 Interviews podcast here or in iTunes.

J.P. Moreland on the Testimony of the Disciples

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Auten) — Sat, 21 Jan 2012 23:30:02 PST

"The disciples had nothing to gain by lying and starting a new religion. They faced hardship, ridicule, hostility, and martyr's deaths. In light of this, they could never have sustained such unwavering motivation if they knew what they were preaching was a lie. The disciples were not fools and Paul was a cool-headed intellectual of the first rank. There would have been several opportunities over three to four decades of ministry to reconsider and renounce a lie."

- J.P. Moreland
Scaling the Secular City, pp. 171-172.

Book Review: Fabricating Jesus by Craig Evans

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Auten) — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 10:32:35 PST

For the average layperson, modern New Testament scholarship can seem a bit like alchemy. With strange nomenclature like P.Oxy. 840, and tales of lost Gospels written in Coptic, most just don’t know what to say when asked about it. Throw in a good conspiracy theory about secret agents from the Vatican stealing a manuscript which tells of a letter written by Jesus Christ to the Pharisees in 45 AD, years after he’d been crucified1, and any reasonable person just gives up and goes home. This is a problem because New Testament scholarship has been one of the most vocal challenges against the existing canon in present day. From the popularized Holy Blood, Holy Grail, to the prolific Bart Ehrman, everybody seems to be taking a shot at re-creating Jesus as someone different than man portrayed in the four Gospels. For the Christian who wants to respond intelligently, wrapping one’s hands around this esoteric and specialized field can seem impossible. Craig Evans wrote Fabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospel to provide readers with a place to start understanding these claims and a means to respond.

Dr. Evans is Payzant Distinguished Professor of New Testament at Acadia Divinity College in Nova Scotia. He has a robust résumé, which is summarized in the preface, although his experience with some relevant texts is mentioned later in the book.2 It is clear that Evans is well acquainted with the issues and people he discusses. The years Evans has spent with the New Testament community has left him exasperated at the poor scholarship being presented to the general public. In the introduction Evans writes, “Fabricating Jesus is a book that takes a hard look at some of the sloppy scholarship and misguided theories that have advanced in recent years. I am appalled at much of this work. Some of it, frankly, is embarrassing.”3 Evans is confident that the layperson can respond to the popular level claims made by these scholars. And, in this book, Evans outlines three areas of criticism that are easy for the layperson to grasp and communicate.

Evans begins by describing the baggage that most New Testament scholars carry with them into their work. While modern scholarship often portrays itself as “impartial,” Evans shows that it’s quite the opposite in the first two chapters. In Chapter 1, he focuses on four prominent New Testament scholars (he classifies them as “old school”4 or “new school”5) whose work is being used as a “litmus test” to determine which scholarship is acceptable to the New Testament community. Evans finds that the work of these men has led to the incorrect assumption that the manuscripts we have are not reliable because they are not without error. Evans responds to this idea, stating “The truth of the Christian message hinges not on inerrancy of Scripture or on our ability to harmonize the four Gospels but on the resurrection of Jesus. And the historical reliability of the Gospels does not hinge on the inerrancy of Scripture or on proof that no mistake of any kind can be detected in them.”6 Evans does a good job of briefly addressing textual errors (which are minor) and shows how they have no bearing on the meaning of the text—especially in regard to the reliability of the canonical Gospels’ report of Jesus’ resurrection.

In Chapter 2, Evans shows how scholars establish the “authenticity” of a document and what preconceptions they use in this determination. Most scholars cannot consider the Gospels authentic because of how they portray Christ. Their assumptions about who Jesus could be dictate their conclusion about the reliability of the Gospels’ portrayal of Jesus. Evans highlights this in regard to scholars’ doubts about Jesus’ literacy:

Accordingly, we hear comments from them to the effect: “Given that Jesus probably could not read…had no interest in scripture…this saying does not go back to him.” Given such cramped starting points, which often are little more than presuppositions and not documented and argued conclusions, it is not wonder that much of the material in the New Testament Gospels is regarded as inauthentic and unhistorical.7

As well as addressing the popular claim that Jesus was illiterate, Evans corrects the notions that Jesus had no interest in eschatology or that he did not consider himself divine.

As well as discussing the false contexts created by modern New Testament Scholars, Evans also does a wonderful job of introducing the reader to the important extra-biblical texts which have influenced modern New Testament scholarship. This area seems the strongest for Evans. He takes the reader through the Gnostic Gospels of Thomas, Peter, Mary, the Secret Gospel of Mark, and the Egerton Gospel as case studies on how to approach non-canonical texts. Chapter 3 is an extended look at the Gospel of Thomas, in which Evans discusses how to accurately arrive at the gospel’s date. By showing various texts common to Matthew, Luke, John, and Thomas8, Evans makes a very convincing case that the Gospel of Thomas was written later than the Gospels, thus negating it use as an interpretive lens for the canonical Gospels.

Then, in Chapter 4, Evans covers the balance of the non-canonical Gospels and analyzes their content. It quickly becomes clear that the difference between the messages found in both types of Gospels is vastly different. He writes, “When students ask me why certain Gospels were omitted from the canon of the New Testament and whether some of them ought to be included, I tell them to read these Gospels. They do, and that answers their questions.”9 Because this book is an overview, it makes sense that too much time is not spent on excessive detail for each document. But, even the brief look at the non-canonical Gospels gives good explanations of the issues so that a layperson can engage his or her neighbors and give them positive reasons to re-examine any conclusions they have made about the canonicity of the Gnostic Gospels..

Other historic texts that Evans interacts with are the writings of Josephus. In Chapter 8, he resolves some tensions that exist between the historian’s work and the Gospel narratives. Chapter 9 addresses the claim that the diverse types of Christianities which existed at the outset of its establishment were winnowed down to what we know today. Evans does not deny that early Christianity was without conflict, quite the contrary. His analysis of the Jerusalem Council helps the reader better understand that the disagreements in the early church were mostly about practice, not about what the church actually agreed upon—namely, the Christ presented in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

Another major section of the book, comprised of Chapters 5 through 7, highlight all of the foreign elements scholars impose on Jesus himself. Whether it is altering the context of Jesus’ time and ministry10, or altering the greater context of Jesus’ sayings11, or even by stripping his miracles of their reality and eschatological purpose12, modern scholars just can’t seem to let the Jesus of scripture speak for himself. It seems that there is something about Jesus, as he presented in the Gospels, that is just too dangerous for some people to accept at face value, so he must be altered so that he is safe.

Chapter 10 ends his analysis with a brief overview of some of the stranger ideas which have made their way into popular discourse. Evans makes quick work of dismissing the work of Dan Brown, Barbara Thiering, Michael Baigent, and other irrational claims regarding the New Testament. Evans sums this work up well:

Some of these writers treat ancient documents as coded material that must be unpacked of its “true meaning.” Others accept legends, hoaxes, and forged documents as fact, and are quite ready to draw conclusions from unsubstantiated rumors. Still others blend together legitimate archaeology with highly speculative guesswork. It is no wonder that nonexperts today are bewildered and would like to know what’s going on.13

Given how mass media has popularized most of these claims (especially those from Dan Brown and Michael Bagient) it’s nice to see Evans show how baseless they are. The claims truly are indefensible, and Evans’ impatience with the unscholarly approach to sacred text is fairly clear.

The criticisms of the book are minor. First, in an attempt to make the book more readable, the author chose to use endnotes rather than footnotes. While this does unclutter the page, finding endnotes is a cumbersome process. If you are a person who follows the citations, flipping to the back can be bit frustrating. Second, there are many helpful insets with interesting information like a list of “The Oldest Greek Manuscripts of John’s Gospel” or “The Pilate Inscription” showing the text of a dedication to Pontius Pilate scattered throughout the book. They are, however, placed in locations which have minimal relevance to the point of the insert. Third, Evans becomes caustic near the end as he addresses the “non-scholarship” of Dan Brown, Barbara Thiering, and others. While his exasperation is understandable given the unbelievable claims made, it can be a little harsh. Keep that in mind as you share the book.

Evans addresses a lot of information in this book, and he moves through information rather quickly. There is a sacrifice of depth for breadth here, but given the popular-level nature of the book it’s appropriate. This the kind of book you want to read so that you know what’s in it, and then buy a copy for your neighbor next time they bring up The Da Vinci Code. This is the true strength of the book: it’s meant to be given out. The last chapter, “Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up”, is makes a positive case for what we do know about Christ. It’s very even-minded, and while he doesn’t overstate his case, it leaves very little doubt that the canonical Gospels, as we have received them, are reliable.

Apologetics 315 Book Reviewer David Field is an architect who specializes in construction defect analysis for buildings that are in litigation. He is also Acting Campus Director for Ratio Christi at UC Berkeley. For more information, visit http://ratiochristi.org/berkeley.

Michael Baigent claims this to be true. See p. 213-14.
Specifically, Dr. Evans was on the team assembled to assist with the interpretation of the Gospel of Judas. See Appendix 2, page 241.
p. 14
Robert Funk and James Washington. See p. 22-24. Note that James Washington was a professor of Evans during his graduate work.
Robert Price and Bart Ehrman. See p. 24-31.
p. 31
p. 34. The ellipses are from Evans and are part of the text. The reviewer has not removed any text in this citation.
See table on p. 60
p. 98-99
Usually by casting Jesus as a Cynic, see Chapter 5
“I am inclined to think that those whom Jesus taught…had a better sense of the original context and meaning of Jesus’ sayings than many scholars do today.” P. 125
Chapter 7. This section includes helpful commentary on the role of the historian in scholarship.
P. 205

Weekly Apologetics Bonus Links (01/13 - 01/20)

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Auten) — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 09:00:03 PST

Here are this week's recommended apologetics links. Enjoy.
• Did Jesus Say He Was God?
• William Dembski Interview
• The Bahnsen Stein debate
• 30 Units, 30 Lessons
• Bertrand Russell’s Search for God
• Resurrection and Historical Inquiry
• Was Jesus Seen Alive After His Death?
• Ten Crucial Turning Points—1: The Creation
• Did Jesus Never Say Anything about Homosexuality?
• London Apologetics Training: Has Science buried God?
• Mormonism and God: A Philosophical Challenge to Mormonism
• The Authentic Gospels - day conference this Saturday
• Are the New Testament Gospels Reliable? by Mark D. Roberts
• “The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Bible” by James C. VanderKam
• 84 Confirmed Facts in the Last 16 Chapters of the Book of Acts
• Mark Nowacki’s “Assessing the Kalam Cosmological Argument”–A Review
• Bart Ehrman to Debate Craig Evans at Acadia University today
• 5 Book Recommendations for Better Speaking, Listening, and Communication
• Four reasons why positing the resurrection best explains the historical data
• Cherry Picking the Bible? Are Christians Expected to Follow the Levitical Laws?
• The Questions Christians Hope No One Will Ask (with Strobel and Mittelberg) March 10
• Modern Myth: All but 11 verses of the NT could be constructed from the writings of the early church fathers

• 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 while we wait for our 501c3 approval.

Get these sorts of links and more by following on Twitter.
Or just add this feed to your RSS reader.
For daily post links, please follow on Facebook.

Read Along: Christian Apologetics Ch19

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Auten) — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 23:30:01 PST

Today we continue with chapter nineteen of Read Along with Apologetics315, a weekly chapter-by-chapter study through Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Christianity by Douglas Groothuis. Please leave a comment on your reading below. This is where you can interact with others reading the book, ask questions, or add your own thoughts. Series index here. Click below for the audio intro, chapter 19 study questions PDF, and summary:

[Audio Intro] - Dr. Groothuis introduces this chapter.
[Chapter 19 Study Questions] (with kindle locations) - PDF study guide.
[Podcast Feed RSS | Podcast in iTunes] - Click to subscribe to the audio.

Summary
Chapter Nineteen: Jesus of Nazareth: How Historians Can Know Him and Why It Matters
(pages 438-474)
Chapter nineteen is written by Craig Blomberg, Distinguished Professor of New Testament at Denver Seminary. Blomberg's contribution makes a case for the reliability of the Gospel accounts, which are able to provide an accurate portrait of historical Jesus. He explains the historical sources that are available, shows what they contribute to the portrait, and how historians evaluate these sources for credibility.

Blomberg compares the Synoptic Gospels with the Gospel of John, noting differences and similarities. He explores authorship and date, literary genre, authorial intent, compositional procedures, and apparent contradictions. In addition, Blomberg takes a look at texts such as the so-called Gnostic Gospels, and other non-canonical gospels, comparing their content to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Finally, Blomberg discusses the formation of the cano, translation issues, and how historians deal with supernatural events.

Notable quotes:

An inordinate number of websites and blogs make the wholly unjustified claim that Jesus never existed. Biblical scholars and historians who have investigated this issue in detail are virtually unanimous today in rejecting this view, regardless of their theological or ideological perspectives. (Craig Blomberg, in Christian Apologetics, p. 439)

In sum, we may affirm that the Synoptic Gospel writers would have wanted to preserve accurate history according to the standards of their day, that they had every likelihood of being able to do so, and that the overall pattern of widespread agreement on the essential contours of Jesus' life and ministry coupled with enough variation of detail to demonstrate at least some independent sources and tradents on which each drew makes it very probable that they did in fact compose trustworthy historical and biographical documents. Certainly no insoluble contradictions appear. (Craig Blomberg, in Christian Apologetics, p. 456)

If the canonical Gospels remain our only source for more than just a barebones outline of the life and work of Jesus of Nazareth as a truly human figure, and if there are good reasons on sheer historical grounds apart from any religious faith to accept the main contours of their portraits of Jesus as historically trustworthy, then the "step of faith" involved in acknowledging Jesus as Lord and Savior and committing one's life in allegiance to him becomes the most reasonable response a person can make to his ministry. (Craig Blomberg, in Christian Apologetics, p. 473)

Discuss

Do you observe and prejudices or double-standards when historians assess the Gospels?
Why are the canonical Gospels the best sources of information for the historical Jesus?
Does the inclusion of miracles and supernatural events present a stumbling block to our historical assessment of the New Testament Gospels?

Next week
Chapter Twenty: The Claims, Credentials and Achievements of Jesus Christ

William Lane Craig's Cambridge Union Society Debate

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Auten) — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 05:28:21 PST

Christian philosophers William Lane Craig and Peter S. Williams debate atheists Arif Ahmed and Andrew Copson on the topic: This House Believes That God is Not a Delusion. It took place before a packed house at the Cambridge Union Society on 20th October 2011, as a part of William Lane Craig's Reasonable Faith Tour 2011. Want to hear every audio debate by William Lane Craig? Check out the audio debate feed here.

Full Debate MP3 Audio here. (1hr 30min)
Enjoy.

Is What We Have Now What They Wrote Then? Audio and Video by Daniel B. Wallace

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Auten) — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 23:30:00 PST

Does the Bible we have today reflect what was originally written, or has it been substantially changed since it was first written? If you had subscribed to Biola University's Chapel video channel on Youtube, you would already know the answer. Dr. Daniel B. Wallace, professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary, answers this question in (part 1 and part 2) a lecture entitled: Is What We Have Now What They Wrote Then? Check out the originals on Biola's Youtube channel. Audio below.

Full MP3 Audio here (1hr)

Enjoy.

Terminology Tuesday: Divine Action

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Auten) — Mon, 16 Jan 2012 23:30:01 PST

Divine Action: Events brought about by God understood as an intentional agent. It is characteristic both of the biblical narrative and of classical theism to see God as a being who acts. Traditional theologians have distinguished between God's actions in creating and conserving the world and its general providential ordering and God's actions in special or particular providence and miracles at particular points in history. Some contemporary theologians do not think of God as an intentional agent and so regard all talk of divine action as metaphorical. Others are willing to accept God's activity in creation but regard "special acts" as events that are brought about through the normal natural order yet have a special revelatory function. Philosophical debates continue about the implications of divine action for God's relation to time and space.1

1. C.Stephen Evans, Pocket Dictionary of Apologetics & Philosophy of Religion (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002), p. 35.

Interview on Intelligent Design: Casey Luskin

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Auten) — Mon, 16 Jan 2012 11:03:56 PST

Today's interview is with Casey Luskin, Research Coordinator for the Discovery Center's Center for Science and Culture. In this interview Casey talks about his background and interest in Intelligent Design, defining terms (ID, evolution, creationism, Darwinism), common objections to ID as a scientific endeavor, some milestones in the history of the ID movement, the Dover trial, responding to critics who say "ID is dead," "not science," and more. This is a good overall introduction to Intelligent Design.

Full Interview MP3 Audio here (1hr)

• Check out Evolution News here.
• Subscribe to the ID the Future Podcast here.
• Check out the IDEA Center here.
• Discovery Institute's Summer Seminars here.

Enjoy.
Subscribe to the Apologetics 315 Interviews podcast here or in iTunes.

William Lane Craig on Results

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Auten) — Sat, 14 Jan 2012 23:30:03 PST

"Success in witnessing is simply communicating Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit and leaving the results to God. Similarly, effectiveness in apologetics is presenting cogent and persuasive arguments for the Gospel in the power of the Holy Spirit, and leaving the results to God."

- William Lane Craig
Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, p. 50.

Book Review: Christian Ethics by Norman Geisler

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Auten) — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 23:30:01 PST

Christian Ethics: Options and Issues by Norman Geisler is quite a read. Like Giesler's other books, this one is divided and outlined very clearly. It is easy to follow, but has lots of stimulating content. It is broken into two different parts with 310 pages.

Part 1
Chapter 1: All the Options
In Chapter 1 Geisler introduces the philosophical topic of ethics. He quickly summarizes ten different proposed foundations for ethics (including power, pleasure, human survival, and God's will). He then examines five unique attributes of Christian ethics and concludes by providing examples (using lying) of the different views of ethics.

Chapter 2: Antinomianism
Chapter 2 begins Geisler's more detailed examination of the different views of ethics. He provides a history of the antinomian view; he covers the time from the ancient beginnings to contemporary influences. In the process he looks at twelve different ethical philosophies that fall under the broad umbrella of antinomianism. He points out what they have in common and provides what he believes are the good influences of antinomianism, including the fact that it stresses individual responsibility. He then offers a critique of each individual system, then provides the issues with antinomianism in general -- the major ones would be that it is self-defeating, and it is too subjective to be of value to the whole of humanity.

Chapter 3: Situationism
Chapter 3 deals with Joseph Fletcher's Situationism. Geisler begins this examination by explaining that the purpose of this ethical model was to avoid the pitfalls of legalism and antinomianism. He describes the "single-norm" ethic that is put forth by Fletcher. Basically the ethical thing to do in any situation is determined by the single absolute norm: love. Geisler states that Situationism does have its advantages over legalism (it is sensitive to circumstances, it stresses love over other possible norms, and others) and antinomianism (it does have an absolute and is a normative position). However, he does point out that the "love" does not really have a foundation -- it is determined by the situation. The fact that the "absolute" is actually relative makes it a form of the antinomian view. He also points out that the end result of a decision is that the most love be accomplished -- a form of utilitarianism (the subject of Chapter 4).

Chapter 4: Generalism
In Chapter 4 Geisler discusses what is more commonly called utilitarianism. The general idea of this ethical model is that any behavior may be justified if it will achieve the most good for the most people. Popularly, it is summed up as "the ends justify the means". Geisler points out that there are a few different positions within this view that distinguishes what "good" means (if it is based on quality or quantity) and how exceptions are handled. He mentions that in general utilitarianism does affirm the need for a norm or standard and provides a way to deal with conflicting norms. However, he does state that its weakness falls in the need for "good" to have an objective standard (a norm of its own) and the fact that the "end" is ambiguous (due to lack of omniscience of humans). The responsibility to determine both of these then falls back on the individual making the decision. The individual would then need to appeal to another ethical system of his choice, which ultimately defeats the need for this one and leads back to the first system described: antinomianism.

Chapter 5: Unqualified Absolutism
Chapter 5 begins looking at the alternatives to the relativistic systems discussed in the previous chapters. The first (unqualified absolutism) holds that all ethical rules are absolute and should not be broken for any reason (hence "unqualified"). According to this view, there is no true ethical dilemmas -- there is either a third way out or the dilemma was caused by some sin in the person's life, and they must live with the consequences of either sin committed. Geisler describes three forms of unqualified absolutism from St. Augustine, Immanuel Kant, and John Murray. Like with the other systems, he offers pros and cons. Pros would be that it offers an absolute ethic and relies on God's nature and providence for identifying morals and dealing with dilemmas. Geisler then looks at how many adherents must appeal to God's providence to resolve dilemmas and points out that that appeal is in fact a qualification. He ends the chapter noting that we do live in a world full of sin, and that moral dilemmas are real, and people are faced with them all the time.

Chapter 6: Conflicting Absolutism
In Chapter 6 Geisler looks at the second option for the absolutist. Conflicting Absolutism, like Unqualified Absolutism, affirms that there are absolute moral duties. However, it recognizes that genuine conflicts do exist, and that they cannot be avoided. He explains that when such a conflict arises, the duty is to choose the "less evil". Unfortunately, even though there was really was no option to not commit a sin, the person will still be held accountable for sinning. Geisler points out that many of the good things about Unqualified Absolutism follow into Conflicting Absolutism. However, he did mention a couple negatives. Geisler points out that the duty to do the "lesser sin" is actually a duty to sin. He shows how an ethical dilemma would turn the duty "to do the right thing" into the duty to do "the wrong thing" (since there is no alternative). But, Geisler's main argument against Conflicting Absolutism is that if this is true then it follows that any time Jesus had an ethic dilemma, He sinned. However Scripture states that Jesus never sinned. Because of this, Geisler holds that Conflicting Absolutism is not a viable option for the Christian.

Chapter 7: Graded Absolutism
After providing several ethical options and critiquing them, GeislerGeisler spends several pages responding to challenges that this system is actually one of the others already described. He concludes by giving some of the values of Graded Absolutism, including that he believes that it is the only system that can make sense of the Cross.

Part 2
Having established the system of ethics that he will be using, Geisler now moves on to Part 2, where he looks at specific ethical challenges. The space provided to discuss the different ethical issues is limited, so his treatment is not thorough or as technical as some may like. However, this section will introduce the reader to the complexity of the issues, address the issues, and prepare the reader for more in-depth material. In all the following chapters, Geisler distinguishes among specific positions and lays out the debate clearly. The following chapter reviews will be shorter than in Part 1.

Chapter 8: Abortion
Geisler begins his investigation of abortion by pointing out that the whole debate centers on the humanity of the fetus. From this he establishes that there are three different positions on abortion: Abortion anytime, abortion sometimes, and no abortions at all. He lays out the biblical, scientific, philosophical, and emotional arguments for each position, then offers critique for the first two options and answers objections to the third (the one he holds).

Chapter 9: Euthanasia
Geisler's treatment of euthanasia follows the same pattern as his chapter on abortion. He points out that euthanasia can fall into several categories: active or passive; voluntary or involuntary; and self-causes or caused by someone else. He provides the arguments for each and critiques the views opposed to his. He then gives a defense for his own view.

Chapter 10: Biomedical Issues
In chapter 10 Geisler attempts to cover a host of biomedical issues at the same time by looking at the foundations of the different views. He establishes what the humanistic view entails: man is responsible for human value, individuals have sovereignty over life, the duty to create a superior race, and the ends justify the means. He evaluates these foundations then provides the Christian alternatives: God is responsible for human value, God is sovereign over life, there is no duty to create a "superior" race, and the ends do not always justify the means.

Chapter 11: Capital Punishment
Chapter 11 covers three different views on the issue of capital punishment: rehabilitationism (no capital punishment at all), reconstructionism (capital punishment for all crimes originally punished this way in Scripture), and retributionism (limited capital punishment). He provides the philosophical, social, and biblical arguments for each position, then provides a critique of each one.

Chapter 12: War
Chapter 12 tackles the ethics of war. Geisler presents the two extremes: Activism and Pacifism. Activism being the view that one should engage in all wars commanded by his government. Pacifism being the view that no war should ever be engaged in. Geisler presents the biblical and philosophical arguments for each view then analyzes them. He puts forth the strengths and weaknesses of each view and show where each view is right. He then provides a balanced view: Selectivism. This view holds that some wars are just but not all. He provides the arguments for it then offers the its weaknesses.

Chapter 13: Civil Disobedience
Related to the ethical question of war is the justification of civil disobedience. Geisler begins this chapter by explaining that the ethical rightness or wrongness of the American Revolution is at stake with this question. As with the other ethical issues, he provides both sides from the secular and biblical perspectives. He provides counter-points and shows the strengths and weaknesses of each view. He takes the reader through the logical struggle and eventually gives his view on the American Revolution.

Chapter 14: Homosexuality
Along side abortion the issue of homosexuality is one of the most heated and debated ethical issues today. In Chapter 14 Geisler looks at it from both sides. He provides arguments for and against homosexuality being ethical from both a biblical and secular perspective. He offers counter-arguments for both sides (sometimes in the context of the argument for the other side; others are more direct and explicit). He takes the position that homosexuality is ethically wrong. However, he ends the chapter discussing how Christians should approach the topic and people who are homosexual. He is adamant that the debate be focused on the behavior rather than the individual.

Chapter 15: Marriage and Divorce
In this chapter Geisler looks at marriage, divorce, and remarriage. He describes the Christian view of marriage, then goes into the differing views on divorce and remarriage. The three views that he evaluates are: divorce in never permissible, divorce is permissible only in the case of adultery, and divorce is permissible for multiple reasons. He looks at the merits of each view and the arguments for each position. He offers his critique of them and provides a conclusion that takes the biblically sound portions of each and combines it into one coherent view.

Chapter 16: Ecology
In the final chapter of Christian Ethics Geisler tackles the proper treatment of the environment. Geisler describes two extreme positions: materialism and pantheism. The former sees man as dominator of nature and can exploit it however seen fit. The latter sees man as a part of and servant to nature, thus no benefit may be derived from nature at the cost of nature. Geisler points out the value of each position, although he is more critical of the materialistic position. He describes the Christian view as being between the two and having its foundation in the doctrine of creation. He concludes that Christians are to be good stewards of the environment, while using its resources. Christians must be careful to not overuse the resources because it is the home that God created for and entrusted to him.

Conclusion
Christian Ethics was quite an interesting and enjoyable read. It helps the reader to think more clearly about the different ethical systems proposed by Christians. He guides the Christian though a thoughtful evaluation of several ethical debates and provides conclusions that are soundly based on scripture. This book is recommended as an introductory book for Christian Ethics; so, those interested in particular systems or specific debates should not rely solely on this resource. Geisler wrote this book with the beginner in mind and takes care to clearly articulate difficult concepts. His inclusion of a glossary also helps with those not as familiar with the more technical terms.

The only criticisms that this reviewer wishes to offer is that a few of the arguments and counter-arguments from Part 2 seemed awfully weak and unpersuasive; however, those did not tip the scales against Geisler's overall cumulative case against or for certain conclusions. The lack of a summarizing chapter at the end also leaves the reader without the sense of a "wrap up" of the content of the book. Overall it is well-written and a recommended read.

Apologetics 315 Book Reviewer Luke Nix is a Computer Systems Administrator in Oklahoma, USA. He has a beautiful and supportive wife, but no kids yet. In his spare time he enjoys studying theology, philosophy, biology, astronomy, psychology and apologetics. If you liked this review, more of his writing can be enjoyed at lukenixblog.blogspot.com.

Weekly Apologetics Bonus Links (01/06 - 01/13)

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Auten) — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 09:00:01 PST

Here are this week's recommended apologetics links. Enjoy.
• Biomimicry
• Q&A with Lee Strobel
• Think Christianly Videos
• Word of the Week Quantum-Logic
• When Were The Gospels Written?
• Book Review: God Behaving Badly
• Interview with Daniel B. Wallace on Vimeo
• Crucifixion - Could Jesus have survived?
• How To Disagree Online Without Being A Total Jerk
• An Outline of Tegmark’s Four Levels of the Multiverse
• What is Apologetics? MP3 Series by Francis Schaeffer
• Coffee with Scholars – Mike Licona Interview, Part 2
• The Moral Argument: Mistakes to Avoid and Practical Advice
• Did Jesus Even Exist?-The Problematic Argument from Silence
• Does the Bible teach that faith is opposed to logic and evidence?
• A Defense of the Historicity of Jesus' Divine Self-Understanding
• Has The New Testament Been Substantially Edited Since It Was First Penned?
• Renaissance Christians: 12 Tips for Pursuing Knowledge and Wisdom in Daily Life

• Shopping via Amazon this year? 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 while we wait for our 501c3 approval.

Get these sorts of links and more by following on Twitter.
Or just add this feed to your RSS reader.
For daily post links, please follow on Facebook.

Read Along: Christian Apologetics Ch18

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Auten) — Thu, 12 Jan 2012 23:30:02 PST

Today we continue with chapter eighteen of Read Along with Apologetics315, a weekly chapter-by-chapter study through Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Christianity by Douglas Groothuis. Please leave a comment on your reading below. This is where you can interact with others reading the book, ask questions, or add your own thoughts. Series index here. Click below for the audio intro, chapter 18 study questions PDF, and summary:

[Audio Intro] - Dr. Groothuis introduces this chapter.
[Chapter 18 Study Questions] (with kindle locations) - PDF study guide.
[Podcast Feed RSS | Podcast in iTunes] - Click to subscribe to the audio.

Summary
Chapter Eighteen: Deposed Royalty: Pascal's Anthropological Argument
(pages 418-437)
Chapter eighteen digs into an argument developed by Blaise Pascal: the anthropological argument. This is the argument from the human condition, which attempts to explain both the wretchedness and the greatness of man. Pascal argues that the doctrine of the fall of man is the best explanation for the riddle of human nature. Man is great, but he is also wretched; he is "deposed royalty," having the marks of former greatness.

Groothuis, an authority on Pascal, unpacks the multiple layers of Pascal's argument. He shows how this is an abductive argument; an argument to the best explanation. As he has done throughout the book, the author also shows just what role this argument plays in a cumulative case for the Christian worldview.

Notable quotes:

Man's greatness and wretchedness are so evident that the true religion must necessarily teach us that there is in man some great principle of greatness and some great principle of wretchedness. (Blaise Pascal, Pensées 149/430, ed. and trans. A. J. Krailshaimer [New York: Penguin, 1966], p. 76., quoted in Christian Apologetics, pp. 420-421)

The case for human fallenness [...] cannot be verified historically (apart from the biblical texts). It is, rather, a theological postulate used to explain historical phenomena. Pascal stipulates that the true religion must explain human nature if it is to be credible. (Christian Apologetics, p. 428)

The fall of humanity is admittedly difficult to fathom; however, once it is admitted into our worldview, the enigmas of the human condition are explained and the human landscape is illuminated as never before. (Christian Apologetics, p. 434)

When combined with a robust natural theology, the anthropological argument further strengthens the Christian apologetic by helping to explain human beings to themselves and to others. (Christian Apologetics, p. 437)

Discuss

Why do you think the anthropological argument may be compelling?
What examples does Pascal give that show man's greatness and fallenness?
How would you weave this argument into your overall apologetic?

Next week
Chapter Nineteen: Jesus of Nazareth: How Historians Can Know Him and Why It Matters

Can Science Inform Our Understanding of God? MP3 Series

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Auten) — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 23:30:01 PST

Here is a series of lectures given at the Science and Faith Conference on December 2, 2011, entitled Can Science Inform Our Understanding of God? There is a pretty good lineup of speakers, each covering a topic pertinent to the science/faith issue. Each talk is followed by a response from another speaker. Original audio can be found here at the Conference Website (but the audio files are huge there). See website for videos of each lecture as well. Click to download smaller MP3 files here, or use this RSS feed to get the whole batch in your iTunes or RSS reader.

Dr. Michael Behe - MP3
"The Modern Scientific Theory of Intelligent Design: Strengths and Limitations”
Dr. Stephen Barr - MP3
"Physics, the Nature of Time and Theology”
Dr. Jay W. Richards - MP3
"Signs of Design from Physics and Astronomy”
Dr. Edward Feser - MP3
“Natural Theology Must Be Grounded in the Philosophy of Nature, Not Natural Science”
Dr. Benjamin Wiker - MP3
“Can Science Demonstrate the Existence of God?”
Dr. Alvin Plantinga - MP3
"Science and Religion: Where the Conflict Really Lies”

Enjoy.

Best Selling Apologetics Books of 2011

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Auten) — Tue, 10 Jan 2012 23:30:02 PST

In reviewing some statistics from last year's Amazon affiliate links, a top-10 post came together. The best-selling book of 2011 by far was Doug Groothuis' excellent book Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith. It is also the focus of Ap315's first Read Along project, so that could play a part in its popularity (at least through this site). Others on the list are perennial best-sellers (see #2), and others are especially suitable for group study (see #3). Koukl's Tactics, of course, is essential reading (#4). So here's the list of the top-selling books through Apologetics 315 in 2011, based upon those purchased through Ap315's affiliate links:

Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith by Douglas Groothuis
Know Why You Believe by Paul Little
On Guard: Defending Your Faith with Reason and Precision by William Lane Craig
Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions by Greg Koukl
The Universe Next Door: A Basic Worldview Catalog by James Sire
When Skeptics Ask: A Handbook on Christian Evidences by Norman Geisler
Seven Days That Divide the World: The Beginning According to Genesis and Science by John Lennox
Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics by William Lane Craig
Is God a Moral Monster?: Making Sense of the Old Testament God by Paul Copan
Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts by Craig S. Keener

What was your favorite book of 2011?

Terminology Tuesday: Necessary Truths

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Auten) — Mon, 09 Jan 2012 23:30:01 PST

Necessary Truths: Those propositions whose falsehood is logically impossible. A necessary truth can be understood (following Gottfried Leibniz) as one that is true in every possible world. (Similarly, contingent propositions are true in at least one possible world; necessarily false propositions are true in no possible world.1

1. C.Stephen Evans, Pocket Dictionary of Apologetics & Philosophy of Religion (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002), pp. 79-80.

New Testament Scholar Interview: Daniel B. Wallace

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Auten) — Sun, 08 Jan 2012 23:30:01 PST

Today's interview is with Dr. Daniel B. Wallace, professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary and an authority on Koine Greek grammar and New Testament textual criticism. He is founder of the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts. He talks about his background and current work, photographing NT manuscripts, the current number of manuscripts, some of the most important manuscripts (and some great stories), his testimony journey into textual criticism, the trustworthiness of the Bible, the meaning of textual variants (how they are really counted, and what they affect), how he approaches apparent Bible contradictions, the doctrine of inerrancy, his interactions and debates with Bart Ehrman, comparing the popular vs. the scholarly Ehrman, "we don't have the originals!", determining the authorship of the Gospels, advice for apologists (great stuff), and do's and don'ts for defending the Bible. Visit CSNTM.org to assist his work.

Full Interview MP3 Audio here (64 min)

Check out Wallace's debates with Ehrman:

• Greer-Heard Forum debate (book)

• SMU Debate (on DVD)

• Debate at University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, Feb. 1, 2012

Books by Daniel B. Wallace include:

• Dethroning Jesus (with Darrell Bock)
• The Basics of New Testament Syntax

• Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics

• Revisiting the Corruption of the New Testament

Wallace's recommended books to get started:

• The New Testament Documents: Are they Reliable? by F.F. Bruce

• The Historical Reliability of the Gospels by Craig Blomberg

• Reinventing Jesus by Komoszewski, Sawyer, and Wallace

Enjoy.

Subscribe to the Apologetics 315 Interviews podcast here or in iTunes.

Darrell Bock on the Bible

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Auten) — Sat, 07 Jan 2012 23:30:00 PST

"The Bible is not a book like any other. It makes a claim that God spoke and speaks through its message. It argues that as his creatures, we are accountable to him for what he has revealed. The trustworthiness of Scripture points to its authority as well. Scripture is far more than a history book, as good and trustworthy as that history is. It is a book that calls us to examine our lives and relationship to God. Beyond the fascinating history, it contains vital and life-transforming truths about God and us."

- Darrell Bock
Can I Trust the Bible, p. 52.

Book Review: Is God Just a Human Invention? And Seventeen Other Questions Raised by the New Atheists

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Auten) — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 23:30:01 PST

One of the brashest challenges that religious truth has experienced over the past several decades is the remarkable rise of the pugnacious New Atheists. Sean McDowell and Jonathan Marrow, new generation Christian apologists, have undertaken the task of contesting this anti-theistic upsurge. And in Is God Just a Human Invention? And Seventeen Other Questions Raised by the New Atheists the authors have pulled together a wide range of research that powerfully critiques the arguments from the combative non-theists.

Worldviews are in dispute: Christian theism vs. modern atheism. There are powerful and compelling arguments for the existence of God, but one wouldn’t know it if one only read the works of Hitchens, Harris, and Dawkins. They assert numerous fallacious and deceptive arguments as they often erect the frailest of straw men in order to push them down with the greatest of rhetorical ease.

You would think that atheism is a forceful challenger to Christianity. But McDowell and Morrow argue that the New Atheism, as aggressive as it is, does not provide the evidential or philosophical truth. The more important consideration, they advocate, is what worldview has the preeminent rational arguments and historical facts on its side.
They proceed to make the case that Christian theism, categorically, provides the finest evidence and makes the most sense.

The authors deal with the scientific and philosophical challenges to Christian theism in a reasoned and respectful manner.
In Is God Just a Human Invention? topics include:

The relationship between reason and faith
A defense of miracles
The origin of the cosmos
The reality of soul/body dualism
Flaws in Darwinian thought
The biblical view of slavery and genocide
The remarkable rise and impact of a new generation of Christian philosophers
The exclusivity of Jesus Christ
And much more.

The apologists begin with an examination and refutation of the atheist accusation that “faith … is belief without supportive evidence” (atheist Victor Stenger, p. 19). “The idea that faith is opposed to reason permeates the writings of the New Atheists.” This allegation is erroneous inasmuch as Christianity doesn’t value blind faith and irrationality since biblical faith is “belief in the light of the evidence” (pp. 19-21). They make it clear that Christianity is not to be lumped together with irrational religions because it “values the role of the mind which includes the proper use of reasoning and argumentation” (p. 22). A list of supporting quotes by Christian thinkers across time is posited as one of many helpful tools within this essay. The reader then learns that all men, even atheists, have faith in their daily lives. One trusts the unfamiliar pilot of a plane one boards; one has faith that the electrician properly wires your house; one trusts the cook at the restaurant where one eats, etc. (p. 24). Thus religious followers are not the only people with faith; all men have faith in things they have not seen, often this faith is not based on evidence. Moreover, atheists have blind faith in the idea that the universe “came into existence from nothing,” that life emerged from non-life, and the mind arose from mere matter (p. 25).

This section ends with brief expositions of the classic proofs for God’s existence presented in a clear and persuasive manner, but too diminutive to be useful standing alone (p. 28-29, the remainder of the book supplements and defends their claims nicely).

The writers in the next chapter tackle the alleged conflict between science and religion. “There is no inherent conflict between Christianity and science” (although there is antagonism at times), since most of the early pioneering scientists were theists. Furthermore, the universe was created by God; Galileo’s new theories (he remained a theist) were not handled wisely, but the skeptics exaggerate the conflict; and naturalism fails to supply the underlying ontological (the nature of matter) and epistemic (ground for knowledge) resources required and presupposed by science. Naturalism is defined by Dawkins as the view that nothing exists “beyond the natural, physical world” (p. 37). The problem is naturalism “ultimately undermines any basis for confidence” in nature’s order and the powers of reason (p. 37). Likewise, naturalism leads to skepticism regarding our senses and rational notions forasmuch as men are mere products of blind evolutionary processes. Thus, under a naturalistic worldview, there’s no reason to trust our reason or our senses; they were merely the result of blind Darwinian accidents.

If the mind has developed through blind, irrational, and material processes of Darwinian evolution, then why should we trust it at all? Why should we believe that the human brain—outcome of an accidental process—actually puts us in touch with reality? Science cannot be used as an answer to this question, because science itself relies upon these very assumptions (p. 39).

The section ends with a very succinct essay by John W. Montgomery that presses the truth that Christianity has the necessary explanatory power required for science and intelligibility; what's more, it alone offers a Saving Redeemer. This essay would make a fine pamphlet to print as a witnessing tract (pp. 42-43).

Chapter Three offers a defense of miracles as the authors challenge many assumptions and proposed methodology posited by naturalists who oppose the possibility of miracles; after all, “if a transcendent God exists, then it seems eminently possible that He has acted in the universe” (p. 46). So combating the faulty presuppositions of the naturalist is an important aspect of an evenhanded defense of miracles. The authors rest their case for miracles on all the cumulative evidence for God’s existence: Cosmological, Design, and Moral arguments as well as the evidence for the human soul and Christ’s Resurrection. Thus there is a large amount of compelling evidence for God and God has the ability to perform miracles, and miracles “seem quite probable” (p. 46).

The chapter proceeds to directly contest Hume’s case against miracles. First they counter Hume’s underlying ideas because many of the New Atheists employ Hume’s longstanding arguments. The authors expose Hume’s circular reasoning:

Hume presumes to know the uniformity of human experience prior to considering the evidence. To assert that uniform experience counts against miracles is to assume that all miracle claims are false. But how can he make such a claim before examining the facts? Well, he simply assumes it (pp. 47-48).

Since vicious circular arguments are fallacious, this part of Hume’s case fails before it can get off the ground.

Second they successfully attack Hume’s theory that one should never believe the improbable. If one must view all life this way, one can never see anyone win the lottery or draw a royal flush since it’s very improbable (p. 48). But we observe royal flush winners even though it is very improbable that one can hold such a hand. Under Hume’s critique of miracles, one “would not be justified in believing” that improbable winning hands occur. “But surely it is perfectly reasonable to believe that an improbable event can occasionally occur” (p. 48). Thus Hume’s improbability critique against miracles misses the mark.

The rest of the chapter delivers some credible counters vis-à-vis the remainder of Hume’s case against supernatural marvels, including a concise defense of the majestic miracle of the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth (pp. 47-54).

The New Atheists boldly claim that miracles are impossible. Yet, as we have seen, this denial is not based on any scientific or historical evidence, but rather comes out of a philosophical commitment to naturalism (p. 54).

The subsequent chapter focuses on Darwinian evolution as anti-Darwinian quotes from non-theistic and theistic scientists are brought to bear upon this highly favored theory. Added to this is the case of Intelligent Design. Rational design of biological life is the case since many pursuits of truth seek evidence for design (or information) as evidence for the agency of intelligence; this includes SETI research, forensic science, and archeological examination (p. 59). If it’s a suitable scientific tool in those cases, it can be in the analysis of biological design.

Additionally, Morrow and McDowell highlight the distinction between macroevolution (changes from one species into another different species) and microevolution (small changes within a kind) as a way to clarify the dispute between Divine creation and Darwinian evolution:

If you’ve only read the New Atheists, then you may think evolution is the only game in town. … But that is not the whole story. When examined closely, their most compelling examples turn out to be (at best) evidence for microevolution. Not only is the evidence for Darwinian evolution lacking, compelling evidence for design can be found from the tiniest cell to the origin and structure of the universe (p. 67).

The Kalam argument comes next. They define it via William Lane Craig:

Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause (p. 74).

A lucid exposition defending the argument follows as they discuss the Big Bang theory, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and some of Stephen Hawking’s ideas (they didn’t interact with Hawking’s latest theory: one aspect of his new view is that nothing could have created everything, Hawking: The Grand Design, 2010).

The volume adds essays about how life began (pp. 71-82) and the Fine Tuning argument (everything is just right for life, pp. 95-107) as they stack up their imposing cumulative case for Christian theism.

Chapter eight contends that a purely material reality cannot produce consciousness.1 They argue for an immaterial aspect of the mind using:

The New Atheists’ words against them
Documented Near Death Experiences
Intention and free choice
The need of an enduring personhood over time (a person is more than the sum of one’s physical parts)2
Mental states which “cannot be described in physical terms” (“how much a thought weighs, or how long your beliefs could be stretched out,” pp. 109-115).

It’s difficult to see how a mind could arise from nonmind through the purposeless, material, mindless process of evolution. It’s much easier to see how a Conscious Mind could produce the human consciousness (p. 116).

McDowell and Morrow go on to rebut various atheistic notions such as: theism is a mere product of wishful thinking, Dawkins’ Meme theory, and blind natural selection (Chapter 9). Thus it is “reasonable to conclude that God exists” which means that it is “also possible to infer that the reason so many humans have desires for and beliefs in the divine points to God’s desire to be known” (p. 129).

The authors then defend Christianity against the unfair charge that it is dangerous as they expose the massive death toll that political atheism racked up by atheists Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot. These anti-theistic leaders murdered tens of millions of innocent people (pp. 135-147).

The next section gives a brief but suitable explanation of Old Testament ethics by means of the employment of context, proper hermeneutical applications, and cultural veracities to make their case. Moreover, they press the moral truths that Jesus lived out (accepting the needy, healing, and His vicarious atonement) and commanded (turn the other cheek, give, seek peace, love, and forgive) as the most profound moral standard ever offered (pp. 148-155). Additionally they provide fine essays concerning the doctrine of eternal punishment, God’s command to go to war, and the appropriate view of sexual morality (pp. 159-196). They add: “True freedom is found not in throwing off Christian morality, but in embracing it wholeheartedly” p. 194).

The succeeding portion seeks to demonstrate that atheism lacks the ontic grounding for objective moral truths. Atheists can know what is moral (epistemic explanation); they can know right from wrong. Nonetheless, atheism lacks an objective and perfect ontic ground to issue objective moral commandments as well as the means to hold all moral lawbreakers to an account.

“In the theistic view, objective moral laws are grounded in the reality of a Moral Lawgiver. So what grounds morality in a world without God? (p. 198).” Without theism nothing has the ontic stature to ground objective moral truths.

Their chapter regarding the most perplexing problem: Why does an all-good and omnipotent God allow evil (theodicy) and suffering? This segment is short but convincing. Still, the authors know that the problem of evil has no easy solution when it comes to real pain.

They rightly profess: “According to the Bible, a day will come when every broken heart will be mended, every illness healed. God will set the world right. Death will not have the final word—Jesus Christ made certain of that” (p. 219).

Chapter seventeen is a fascinating look at the innumerable things modern men take for granted that resulted from the application of the Christian worldview or its extension and influence. This includes charity, hospitals, orphanages, rights for infants and women, and the ending of culturally mandated abuse of people across the globe. Hence, Christianity has been and continues to be good for the world: “Christianity has been a force for good in the past, continues to be so today, and will be tomorrow as long as Christians pay close attention to the teaching and example of Jesus” (p. 233).

As they cross home plate the two apologists forward a critique of the dreamt up religion of the Flying Spaghetti Monster; in contrast to this puerile invention, they offer a superb apologia for the wonder of Christ. At that juncture they bless the reader with their personal testimonies (pp. 237-264).

Is God Just a Human Invention? is loaded with exceptional quotes from Christian and non-Christian thinkers. Additionally, the book furnishes very short essays at the back of each chapter from various erudite Christian scholars that augment the thesis of what was advanced by the authors.

This volume combines simplicity and applicability without forfeiting precision. The authors lead the reader into the full girth of the many contemporary discussions concerning the defense of Christianity. They offer several of the leading arguments for Christian theism while toppling some of the most belligerent of the objections promoted by the New Atheists. They have written, with abundant care, to attain a thoroughness that is not often established in popular books. The wisdom and excellence with which each chapter is written makes this a crucial volume for the budding apologist’s library.

Apologetics 315 Book Reviewer Mike A. Robinson is an avid reader and reviewer; he has authored 14 books using leading-edge apologetics that make an impact on average people. More of his work can be found at http://theLordGodExists.com.

The atheist who maintains that only the physical world exists is claiming that nothing spiritual or nonmaterial exists; this includes an enduring immaterial soul. Without an ongoing immaterial apsect of personhood, after seven years, everyone is a different person. So the atheist cannot account for personal identity. By his standard of a physical-only world, everyone is a different person after seven years because every physical atom has been swapped for new ones. If we consist of only physical matter, and are devoid of a nonmaterial soul, under the atheist physical-only view, after our bodily atoms were completely exchanged for new ones, we would be different people. The atheist, under his worldview, is not married to the woman he married nine years ago. They are totally different physically, due to the complete exchange of bodily atoms after seven years. If he has a child over the age of seven, by the atheist’s standard, the kid is not the same child that was born to them. Therefore, if he wanted to be consistent in his worldview, he should throw away all his baby pictures and their wedding album. The atheist husband still hugs his wife without being unfaithful to her, since people have souls. He will still take his kid to the park and buy him a balloon. But he will not buy the unknown kid who is next to him a balloon. The atheist knows that his child is the same child who was born to him years before because he has an enduring immaterial soul. Can the information in one’s DNA be the basis for personal identity? No, since twins have the same DNA but they are two different individuals (http://thelordgodexists.com/2011/05/enduring-personal-identity-presupposes-god-part-i/).
For more on the “problem of enduring personal identity” see: Keith Ward: More Than Matter, pp. 64-80; J.P. Moreland: Scaling the Secular City, pp. 88-89; and for a Thomistic view see: Edward Feser: The Last Superstition, pp. 203-208).

Weekly Apologetics Bonus Links (12/30 - 01/06)

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Auten) — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 09:32:45 PST

Here are this week's recommended apologetics links. Enjoy.
• Absence of Evidence
• Did Jesus even exist?
• Is fine-tuning a fallacy?
• Minds Are Part of Reality
• Blaise Pascal – God and Reason
• Manuscript Evidence for the Bible
• What Bible Should I Own (by Dan Wallace)
• Free Audiobook: Knowing God by J.I. Packer
• New year's resolutions for the mind
• How to Boost Your Reading Comprehension
• How to Start an Apologetics Ministry in Your Church
• Some Tips in Sharing the Messiah with Jewish People
• The Top 10 Graduate Programs in Christian Apologetics
• Undesigned Scriptural Coincidences: The Ring Of Truth
• Coffee with Scholars - Interview with Mike Licona (MP3)
• Is Allah the Same As Yahweh? Skype interview with Jay Smith
• Saving Leonardo by Nancy Pearcey on Kindle for only $2.69!
• Book Review: Revisiting the Corruption of the New Testament
• MIT physicist explains the challenge of cosmic fine-tuning for naturalism
• What if God Were Really Bad? (Glenn Peoples responds to the evil God challenge) MP3

• Shopping via Amazon this year? 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 while we wait for our 501c3 approval.

Get these sorts of links and more by following on Twitter.
Or just add this feed to your RSS reader.
For daily post links, please follow on Facebook.