As noted in the opening post in this series,  I believe Christianity offers compelling reasons to believe that truth is found most fully and consistently within the framework of a Christian worldview. The second post addressed the need for an objective foundation for morality. Of course, using the language of morality only makes sense if we are moral beings – that is, if we are significant moral agents who have an obligation to choose good and avoid evil.  This can only happen if we are free to make that choice, and therein lies another key question: Are we really free?

Generally, people believe that at some point everyone freely chooses  to make good and/or bad choices. Jaegwon Kim, philosopher at Brown University, has noted, “We commonly think that we, as persons, have a mental and bodily dimension….Something like this dualism of personhood, I believe, is common lore shared across most cultures and religious traditions.”¹  Mind and Language published a paper in 2010 entitled “Is Belief in Free Will a Cultural Universal?” After studying a broad sample of people in the United States, Hong Kong, India and Columbia,

“The results revealed a striking degree of cross-cultural convergence. In all four cultural groups, the majority of participants said that (a) our universe is indeterministic and (b) moral responsibility is not compatible with determinism.” 

Consensus is not an air-tight way to arrive at truth, of course, but it is an insightful way to see what experiences humanity in general share. Most people believe we exercise some form of free will.

Not everyone agrees. When Rodney Brooks and Rosalind Picard debated the question, “Can Robots Become Human?” at a Veritas Forum at MIT in 2007, the following exchange took place² :

Brooks: “ I think of myself as a robot, as a bag of skin full of biomolecules, and if I step back, that’s what [my wife] is, that’s what my kids are. But I have this completely different way of interacting with them, with unconditional love, which is not part of that scientific view. So I have multiple views I operate under every day.”

Picard: “I don’t just call those multiple views, I call those inconsistent views…so there’s no purpose, there’s no meaning, there’s no free will.”

Brooks: “That’s why I said I have a set of inconsistent views that I live under, because that’s really desolate, but it’s the truth.”

Picard: “Yeah, that does seem pretty desolate, and I wonder how you – why you care?”

Brooks: “I live in a fantasyland. That’s the fantasyland I’ve chosen to live in…”

So what is actually happening?

NATURALISM/ATHEISM

 For adherents to naturalistic or materialistic foundation of atheism, our choices are simply behaviors that inevitably arise from the impact of evolution, genetics and environment. The chemicals inside our body bag fire; our pre-programmed evolutionary urges surface; our families and communities mold us. As for free will?  Well… 

• Publishers Weekly began their review of philosopher John Gray’s book³ this way: “Humans think they are free, conscious beings, but they are deluded animals.”
• Alex Rosenberg writes: “”If the brain is nothing but a complex physical object whose states are as much governed by physical laws as any other physical object, then what goes on in our heads is as fixed and determined by prior events as what goes on when one domino topples another in a long row of them.”
• Psychology Today noted,⁴ ”Evolutionary psychologists see human nature as a collection of psychological adaptations that often operate beneath conscious thinking to solve problems of survival and reproduction by predisposing us to think or feel in certain ways. Our preference for sweets and fats is an evolved psychological mechanism. We do not consciously choose to like sweets and fats; they just taste good to us.”

If we are deluded animals whose thoughts topple like dominoes in our subconscious, then no, we are not free.  That’s fine when it comes to eating habits –  nothing of much import hangs in the balance if I eat Reece’s instead of Fritos. (Bacon is another matter, but I digress). What about more significant decisions in life?  Are all of our actions reducible to biological and psychological mechanisms? If  we live in a purely naturalistic, mechanical world, then perhaps they are.

• E.O Wilson believes that we are “puppet egos” with an illusion of free will that we should passionately believe in because the idea is helpful.
• Anthony Cashmore notes, ““The reality is, not only do we have no more free will than a fly or a bacterium, in actuality we have no more free will than a bowl of sugar.”  He goes on to argue that the justice system has it all wrong, since we are not actually guilty of making bad choices.
• Nicholas Humphrey goes even further. “The bottom line about how consciousness changes the human outlook — as deep an existential truth as anyone could ask for — is this: We do not want to be zombies. We like ‘being present,’ we like having it ‘be like something to be me.’ ” Alas, this “want” is a “benign evolutionary illusion.”
• Tom Clark writes, “Judged from a scientific and logical perspective, the belief that we stand outside the causal web in any respect is an absurdity, the height of human egoism and exceptionalism.”⁵

As interesting as the philosophical discussion may be, it faces a bumpy road when faced with the practical reality of every day life. French philosopher Luc Ferry provides a great summary of this tension:⁶

“The cross of materialism is that it never quite succeeds in believing what it preaches, in thinking its own thought. This may sound complicated, but is in fact simple: the materialist says, for example, that we are not free, though he is convinced, of course, that he asserts this freely…He says that we are wholly determined by our history, but never stops urging us to free ourselves, to change our destiny, to revolt where possible! He says that we must love the world as it is, turning our backs on past and future so as to live in the present, but he never stops trying, like you or me, when the present weights upon us, to change it in the hope of a better world. In brief, the materialist sets forth philosophical theses that are profound, but always for you and me, never for himself. Always he reintroduces transcendence – liberty, a vision for society, the ideal – because in truth he cannot not believe himself to be free…” 

We live as if our subjective experiences, consciousness, and choices matter. Our legal system is based on the premise that people choose to do things. How can we hold people accountable for something that is not their fault? If someone robs, or murders, rapes, or drives impaired, we expect the people involved to be treated as morally responsible people.  We certainly act as if people have libertarian agency  - the ability to rise above their influences, be they biological, societal, or chemical.

If the atrocities alleged to have recently taken place in Gosnell’s clinic  and Ariel Castro’s home are true, we face a choice:  will they be held accountable because they are morally significant people who chose to do terrible things, or must we absolve them of blame because they are no more free than any animal, operating beneath conscious thoughts that predispose them toward brute survival and reproduction?

CHRISTIANITY

Christianity offers a worldview in which free human beings make morally significant decisions.

Yes, we live in a universe comprised of material things that science studies with great vigor. It hardly follows that all that exists is therefore material.  Christians believe in substance dualism, claiming that both material and immaterial things make up the furniture of the universe. We are biological beings , but we are not merely biological.

James Oliver Buswell wrote,⁷ “We find in the created universe an important difference between beings which think, and being which are spatially extended, or spiritual beings and material beings… In the body and mind of man we see integrated interaction between the spiritual thinking being, and the material extended being.” Our physical nature interacts with our mind, our spirit, that part of us that interacts with but is not caused by our material bodies.

Christian philosopher J. P. Moreland offers the following argument:

(1) I am essentially indivisible, simple spiritual substance. I do not exist in degrees; my ongoing mental states and personal experiences are unified; I have a strong sense that “I” and my physical body have different persistence conditions, etc.

(2) My physical body is essentially a divisible or complex entity (like any physical body, it has spatial extension or separable parts).

(3) The Principle of Indiscernibility of Identicals says that if the mind has properties the body does not (or vice versa),they are not the same thing.

(4) Because they do not share all properties, I am not identical with my (or any) physical body.

Moreland has a lot more to say about the topic, but what he offers is a defense of substance dualism that confirms what we intuitively believe to be true about our consciousness and identity. Paul Copan⁸ takes a more specifically theological approach to show the stark contrast between the ability of Christianity vs. Naturalism/Atheism to explain what we experience as real:

• We experience self-consciousness. Christianity says this reflects the consciousness of the Creator (consciousness arises from consciousness); atheism says this may be an illusion. If there is consciousness, it has arisen from mindless non-consciousness.
• We believe personal beings exist. Christianity says this reflects the personal nature of a Creator; atheism says the personal has been produced by impersonal processes.
• We believe we make free personal choices. Christianity says our Creator freely chose to act, and we reflect His nature. Atheism says this may well be an illusion. If there is free personal choice, it arose from materialistic, deterministic processes.

Christianity claims that our ability to choose feels real because it is real. While we are influenced by many things, we are at the mercy of none of them. Because we can choose, our history is not our destiny. We can truly approbate those who do well, because their life reflects a conscious choice to be better than they once were. We can admonish and challenge those who choose poorly, because we know that they do not have to resign themselves to the cruel dictates of history.

If we are deluded in our belief about freedom, and everything we do is determined by genetics, environment, or the forces of the universe, then an atheistic view of the world explains reality better than Christianity.  But if our common human experience of freedom actually matches reality, then the Christian worldview explains reality better than atheism.

Alistair McGrath, a former atheist who now teaches at Oxford, has noted :

“Atheism just sees a meaningless world, devoid of purpose, as Richard Dawkins so often emphasizes. But faith goes deeper, and sees purpose and meaning beneath the surface. This sort of hope is not about running away from reality. It’s about going deeper than a purely surface reading of things. It’s a hope that is deeply grounded in the way things really are!”  ((as quoted in Socrates in the City))

1. from Bioethics, Substance Dualism and the Argument from Self-Awareness, by J.P. Moreland
2. as recorded in “Living Machines” and published in A Place For Truth
3. Straw Dogs: Thoughts on Humans and Other Animals
4. “Ten Politically Incorrect Truths About Human Nature
5. naturalism.org
6. a full account can be read  in his international bestseller A Brief History of Doubt
7. A Christian View of Being and Knowing
8. How Do You Know You’re Not Wrong?”

As noted in the opening post in this series,  I believe Christianity offers compelling reasons to believe that truth is found most fully and consistently within the framework of a Christian worldview. Considering some recent front page headlines, it seems appropriate to begin by looking specifically at ethics and morality.

In the aftermath of the Penn State scandal, everyone agreed that a long-standing taboo ought to remain: child molestation is not good. The recent case involving Dr. Gossnell’s butchery of newborn children, as well as the bombings at the Boston Marathon, have engendered an additional outcry against the presence of moral evil in the world.

People from all walks of life have found common ground in their stand against this type of injustice.  However, it is increasingly difficult to find a consistent explanation for why these are examples of objectively bad things – that is, actions that are wrong irregardless of individual feelings and preferences.

___________________________________________________________

NATURALISM/ATHEISM

• Michael Ruse has stated, “Morality is a collective illusion of humankind put in place by our genes in order to make us good cooperators.”
• Richard Dawkins wrote in The Blind Watchmaker: “In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect of there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.”
• In an interview with Skeptic, Frank Miele asked Mr. Dawkins, “How do you determine whether something is good or not, other than by just your personal choice?”  Dawkins responded, “I don’t even try.”
• The late Paul Kurtz wrote in The Humanist Alternative, “The humanist is faced with a crucial ethical problem: insofar as he has defended an ethic of freedom, can he develop a basis for moral responsibility? Regretfully, merely to liberate individuals from authoritarian social institutions, whether church or state, is no guarantee that they will be aware of their moral responsibility to others. The contrary is often the case…we may end up with [a man] concerned with his own personal lust for pleasure, ambition, and power, and impervious to moral constraints.”

In a naturalistic or atheistic worldview, there is no grounding for objectively evaluating good or evil, no claim of objective moral certainty, no ultimate right or wrong other than what we decide by personal choice or tribal agreement. This is not to say atheists have no sense of morality - that is clearly not the case. But if atheism is true, our apparently intuitive revulsion at child molestation, infanticide, and terrorist bombing seems to be no more than humanity’s collectively chosen illusion in a universe devoid of objective good, evil, and justice.

Perhaps this inability to define terms helps to explain why formerly taboo issues like infanticide are starting to gain a foothold in mainsteam conversation.  This is the abstract of an article entitled “After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?” in the Journal of Medical Ethics:

“Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus’ health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.”

I am not offering that quote to argue that a morality founded in naturalism or atheism leads to infanticide. I am simply noting that, if there is no such thing as “wrong” or “evil,” then nothing objectively bad is happening here. People might not like that doctors like Gosnell punctured the skulls of newborns and snipped their spines before collecting body parts on his shelf, but that’s about it.

In a world of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some kids will get molested and some won’t (and some psychologists will support child sexual assault).  Some marathon runners will get bombed and others won’t (and about 1/3 of the population will think that terrorism is justifiable). Some people will think that what Dr. Gosnell did was appalling (and some judges will  find no crime in cutting the spines of newborns with a scissors, while some eminent philosophers will defend its permissibility).  We dance to the music of our DNA, and if our DNA plays a discordant tune, that’s not our fault. Blame a pitiless universe devoid of justice and full of bad luck.

EASTERN RELIGIONS

While many adherents to Eastern religions (and the Westernized New Age movement) have a carefully defined commitment to the moral life, the religions themselves struggle to identify good and evil as well. If all is one – if a form of monism such as pantheism is true – then everything that exists, including good and evil, is part of  one unified reality. The lines of moral demarcation becomes blurry at best.

• Joseph Campbell records an interview with a Hindu guru who said, “There is no good; there is no bad.”
• Zen Master Yun-Men said, ‘’The conflict between right and wrong is sickness of the mind.”
• Herman Hess wrote in Siddhartha, “The world…is perfect at every moment…I see whatever exists as good, death is to me like life, sin like holiness, wisdom like foolishness, everything has to be as it is, everything only requires my consent, only my willingness, my loving agreement, to be good for me, to do nothing but work for my benefit, to be unable to ever harm me.”
• In The Aquarian Conspiracy, the late Marilyn Ferguson wrote that once people achieve a higher consciousness, “There is less certainty about what is right for others. With an awareness of multiple realities, we lose our dogmatic attachment  to a single point of view.”

I am not suggesting that adrents to Eastern religions are by definition immoral. That is clearly not the case. I am simply noting that it’s hard to see how they explain our instinctive sense of morality when the difference between good and evil exists only in our mind. To borrow from the language used in the quotes above:

• Those who molest boys are not “bad,” and those who bring molesters to justice are not “good.”
• Seeing a difference between the perpetrators and victims of a bombing is a sickness of the mind.
• When a doctor perforates a woman’s bowels with rusty instruments,the world is perfect at that moment.

If this understanding of morality is true, we are left with either the illusion of evil and good, or a very confused universe in which evil and good are one and the same.

The foundational claims of both of these worldviews are counterintuitive to what we know to be necessary if this life is to make any kind of moral sense.French philosopher Luc Ferry - a self-proclaimed secular humanist -  has written in his best-selling book ‘A Brief History of Thought’:

“The literature of materialism is peculiarly marked by its wholesale profusion of denunciations of all sorts. Starting with Marx and Neitzsche, materialists have never been able to refrain from passing continuous moral judgment on all and sundry, which their whole philosophy might be expected to discourage them from doing.”

For example, Dawkins says teaching religion to children is child abuse. But if Dawkins is right that there is no good and evil, and a world of blind physical forces is indifferent to us, then my teaching of religion can’t be any more wrong than the child abuse to which he compares it. I tell my boys that God exists and Jesus offers them life and hope; Coach Sandusky molests young boys in showers. According to Dawkins, there is an actual moral equivalence there.

This is foolishness. Dawkins himself has conceded by his own description of the nature of reality  that he’s not talking about “bad” or “good.” He’s talking about what he personally prefers. You can’t live consistently in a worldview that says there is no evil or good, then promptly try to say certain things fit those categories. Even Hollywood understands the need for a standard. Vince Gilligan, creator of Breaking Bad, noted in an interview with the New York Times,“

“If there’s a larger lesson to ‘Breaking Bad,’ it’s that actions have consequences. If religion is a reaction of man, and nothing more, it seems to me that it represents a human desire for wrongdoers to be punished. I hate the idea of Idi Amin living in Saudi Arabia for the last 25 years of his life. That galls me to no end. I feel some sort of need for biblical atonement, or justice, or something. I like to believe there is some comeuppance, that karma kicks in at some point, even if it takes years or decades to happen. My girlfriend says this great thing that’s become my philosophy as well. ‘I want to believe there’s a heaven. But I can’t not believe there’s a hell.’”

If naturalism/atheism is true, no one can be brought to justice in an objective sense, because no one does anything objectively wrong – which means nothing can be made right. If monism/pantheism is true, justice is as illusory as the good and evil it would normally seek to adjudicate. Arthur Leff, atheist law professor at Yale, wrote in a Duke Law Journal article entitled “Unspeakable Ethics, Unnatural Law”:

“I want to believe – and so do you – in a complete transcendent and immanent set of propositions about right and wrong; findable rules that authoritatively, and unambiguously direct us how to live righteously. I also want to believe – and so do you – in no such thing, but rather that we are wholly free, not on only to choose for ourselves what we ought to do, but decide for ourselves, individually and as a species, what we ought to be. What we want, heaven help us, is simultaneously to be perfectly ruled and perfectly free, that is, at the same time to discover the right and the good and to create it…

We can say that a valid legal system must have some minimum process for rational determination and operating. We can say that the majority cannot consistently disadvantage any minority. We can say that, whever else a majority can do, it cannot systematically prevent a minority from seeking to become a mojority. We can say all sorts of things, but what we cannot say is why one say is better than any other, unless we stated some standard by which it definedly is. To put it as bluntly as possible, if we go to find what law ought to govern us, and if what we find is not an authoritative Holy Writ but just ourselves, just people, making that law, how can we be governed by what we have found?

…As things stand now, everything is up for grabs. Nevertheless: Napalming babies is bad. Starving the poor is wicked. Buying and selling each other is depraved…. There is in the world such a thing as evil. All together now – sez who? God help us.”

Joel Marks, an atheist  professor emeritus of philosophy at the University of New Haven and a scholar at the Interdisciplinary Center for Bioethics at Yale University, has recently arrived at the same point of epiphany. He wrote last week in the New York Times:

“I had thought I was a secularist because I conceived of right and wrong as standing on their own two feet, without prop or crutch from God. We should do the right thing because it is the right thing to do, period. But this was a God too. It was the Godless God of secular morality, which commanded without commander – whose ways were thus even more mysterious than the God I did not believe in…”

CHRISTIANITY

Christianity claims that Vince Gilligan’s “desire for wrongdoers to be punished” can be fulfilled precisely because some things are objectively wrong or right, and that justice is the process through which an objectively good moral standard can bring a judgment that transcends preference alone.

A worldview informed by Christianity claims that we instinctively believe in right, wrong, and justice because these things exist. It’s ingrained in our nature to seek them. C.S Lewis noted that in the same way our ordinary longings have a source of fulfillment (we are thirsty, and there is water), something real exists to fulfill much deeper  longings (such as joy) as well.  In this case, we long for the world to be just. Christianity says this longing can be genuinely fulfilled as real good overcomes real evil.

William Lane Craig identifies the Christian grounding for the very language of morality:

“On the theistic view, objective moral values are rooted in God. God’s own holy and perfectly good nature supplies the absolute standard against which all actions and decisions are measured. God’s moral nature is what Plato called the “Good.” He is the locus and source of moral value. He is by nature loving, generous, just, faithful, kind, and so forth. Moreover, God’s moral nature is expressed in relation to us in the form of divine commands which constitute our moral duties or obligations. Far from being arbitrary, these commands flow necessarily from His moral nature.”

What, then, is evil? Christian theologian R.C. Sproul writes,

“Evil cannot be defined as a thing or as a substance or as some kind of being. Rather, evil is always defined as an action, an action that fails to meet a standard of goodness. In this regard, evil has been defined in terms of its being either a negation (negatio) of the good, or a privation (privatio) of the good. In both cases, the very definition of evil depends upon a prior understanding of the good.” 

Christianity offers a foundation for good (the nature of God), identifies the source of  the world’s problems (a force is at work that seeks to negate or deprive the good), and offers hope for justice and  (God, the foundation of all that is good, has given us a framework within which to adjudicate between good and evil so that justice can be realized). Francis Schaeffer wrote in “Christian Faith and Human Rights,”

“One of the distinctions of the Judeo-Christian God is that not all things are the same to Him.  That at first may sound trivial, but in reality it is one of the most profound things one can say about the Judeo-Christian God. He exists; He has a character; and not all things are the same to Him. Some things conform to His character, and some are opposed to His character.” 

Goodness has its foundation in a perfect God that transcends our personal preferences and models of reality. Since God has revealed what is truly good, we know how to become good no matter how evil we are. We are not stuck in a universe of blind, pitiless indifference.

Os Guiness recounts the story of W.H. Auden’s journey toward the Christian faith. It began in a theater in America during World War II when Auden observed a German audience cheering the bayoneting of women and children during the siege of Poland. At that moment, Auden realized the pervasiveness of evil within humanity.

“The second thing I saw instinctively, if I was to say that was evil, I had to have a standard by which to do so. I didn’t have one. I’d spent all my life as an intellectual, destroying the absolutes, and now suddenly I needed one to be able to say this was wrong” (quoted in “Time for Truth,” in A Place For Truth).

Because Christianity has a worldview which defines both good and evil, Christians are able to acknowledge and fight the brutal reality of evil with the saving power of good, which makes healing, hope and justice not only real, but possible.

“The purpose of a worldview is to explain the basic data of human experience, not to deny it.”    - Nancy Pearcey, “Saving Leonardo“

Friday, April 26, 2013, Norm Jones of WTCM, Newstalk 580 interviewed Jay Watts about his upcoming visit to Traverse City. Check it out here!

Monday, April 22, 2013, Pete Lathrop of WLJN interviewed Scott Smith and Jay Watts about Jay’s upcoming visit to Traverse City. Check it out here!

“Any benefit that people get from religion – any power it has to fulfill them emotionally or motivate them morally – comes from the conviction that it is first of all true.”  Nancy Pearcey, Saving Leonardo

The Christian worldview claims to provide a rational, compelling presentation and defense of the Christian faith. Through reason, revelation (of the natural and supernatural world) and experience, we search for knowledge about God and His creation. This accumulation of knowledge is not simply a process of absorbing dull facts; it’s the way in which we access foundational, transformative truth.

Christian theologians and philosophers claim to say something profoundly true about human experience. The message is both explained and confirmed in numerous ways: archaeology; historical documents; eyewitness testimony; deductive, inductive, and abductive arguments; philosophy and transcendent personal experiences. But if the truth claims of the Christian faith don’t actually explain our existence truthfully and meaningfully, none of these things matter.

“Your worldview has to have the same shape that reality does.” – J. Budziszewski

There are many significant questions that all belief systems have to address in their attempt to fully engage with the reality of our existence:

• Why is there something rather than nothing?
• How did the universe start?
• How did life begin?
• Why does there appear to be design in the universe?
• Does free will exist?
• Do moral truths exist?
• What does it mean to be human?
• How do we explain pain, evil and injustice?
• Why is there beauty?

All worldviews have something to say about these issues, and they all claim to speak truth. The question is whether or not their claims actually match our experience and knowledge of the world, giving fulfilling answers to the deepest questions in life. Those who embrace false views of reality will live and believe in a way that simply does not match the shape of reality.

“The purpose of a worldview is to explain the basic data of human experience, not to deny it.”   Nancy Pearcey, Saving Leonardo

A worldview carries quite a burden. It must offer a serious explanation for the world as we know it; it must be existentially satisfying to the individuals who adhere to it; it should be free of self-contradiction; it must be practically livable; and it should seek the simple explanation over the complicated when plausible.

Here’s a practical example. In “Evolutionary Naturalism and the Fear of Religion,” Thomas Nagel writes the following:

“I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God. I don’t want there to be a God. I don’t want the universe to be like that.”

It’s a bold and honest acknowledgment. But what if God is part of the shape of reality? Will Mr. Nagel’s worldview adjust to fit reality, or will it reality be forced to conform to what he wishes to be true?  Christianity is not exempt from these demands. Suppose a Christian had written the following:

“I want theism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are not religious believers. It isn’t just that I  believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope atheism is false. I want there to be a God. I want the universe to be like that.”

The same challenge would apply. Do Christians believe in God simply because they want His existence to be true? Or do they have good reason to believe that God’s existence is part of the shape of the universe as it really is?

It’s important that our worldview match our world.

In the series that follows, I will attempt to show why I believe Christianity offers compelling reasons to believe that truth is found most fully and consistently within the framework of a Christian worldview.

PART TWO: “The Shape of Reality: Identifying Evil”

April 18, we’ll be joined by one of the guys we watched in our last meeting about Apologetics Online!

Via live Google Hangout, Brett Kunkle of Stand to Reason (str.org) will be asking and answering the question: Can we be good without God?

Atheists claim we don’t need God to be moral. In this talk we’ll examine the atheist’s confusion, raise the problem of good for the atheist and show that God’s existence best explains the existence of objective moral values.

Join us Thursday, April 18, from 6:30-8:30
Room 7 at Church of the Living God, 1514 Birmley Rd.

We hope to see you there! Please share this invite on your FB wall, with your friends, and with your church to expand our reach. This is a community forum for all those interested in defending the claims of classical Christianity.

Jay Watts is coming to town!   …But who on earth is Jay Watts?

About Jay

Jay Watts is a speaker and writer for the Life Training Institute. LTI was started by Scott Klusendorf as an organization whose “sole purpose is to train others to save lives”.

Jay speaks to churches, youth groups, school assemblies, and other organizations on multiple topics including The Case for Life, understanding the Christian worldview, and his testimony on moving from being a hostile pro-choice atheist to a full-time pro-life advocate. He has spoken to groups at University of North Carolina – Chapel Hill, University of Rhode Island, Eastern Kentucky University, Auckland University in New Zealand and many others. He is an associate member of the Evangelical Theological Society and the Evangelical Philosophical Society.

More recently, Jay has been on a grueling national speaking circuit to reach as many Catholic and Protestant High Schoolers as possible to teach them how to make a persuasive case for life. In addition to his general audience speaking engagements, in the last few weeks alone, Jay has spoken at the following schools:

Jay’s Approach

While Jay makes no bones about the fact that he is a Christian, the case he presents is based upon morality, science, and sound thinking, and therefore will equip his audience to engage in thoughtful and persuasive discussions that can not be easily dismissed on worldview.

Recent Endorsements

If Facebook were a country, it would be the third largest in the world.

The average email user gets 147 messages per day.

Over 4 billion hours of video are watched each month on YouTube.

Podcasts and on-demand viewing are presenting unimagined issues to the entertainment industry.

Here’s the bottom line: The internet is here to stay.

This raises some interesting questions for us:
…Can we interact with it in a productive way?
…Is there a way to reach people online?
…What sources exist that we ought to be aware of?

There are plenty more questions and issues to discuss. Bring them with you this Thursday as we look at the topic of how to do apologetics online.

Join us Thursday, April 4, from 6:30-8:30
Room 7 at Church of the Living God, 1514 Birmley Rd.

We hope to see you there! Please share this invite on your FB wall, with your friends, and with your church to expand our reach. This is a community forum for all those interested in defending the claims of classical Christianity.

#1. Ally Condie’s Matched Trilogy  

“There is a lot to like about this series. Mrs. Condie honors family, tradition, integrity, imagination, creativity, loyalty, bravery, friendship, commitment… It’s quite a list. I do find it interesting, however, that when she writes a story without religion, she also writes a story that is quite bleak. Close to the end of the series, Cassia concludes: ‘But I also know we can’t plan on anyone else rescuing us. We have to do it ourselves. There can be no one Pilot. We have to be strong enough to go without the belief that someone can sweep down and save us.’

It’s all up to us.  We must save ourselves.  That sounds noble, but the story’s conclusion shows the barren hope that humanity has to offer. In the end, the Rising will become the society, much like the rebellion in The Hunger Games.  Sure, Ky and Cassia have each other, but there love is one small candle in an sweeping darkness.  It may warm their hearts, but not the world.”

#2. Beautiful Creatures (This review focuses on the book, not the film.)

“The beginning of Beautiful Creatures quotes Martin Luther King Jr.: ‘Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.’ Lena has brought on a storm because of her power, but she may yet blow the darkness away as the series unfolds. As of now, the clouds don’t look like they will be going away any time soon. Beautiful Creatures does offer some light, but I’m not sure it shines brightly enough for those who need to be truly set free from the darkness that lurks inside us all.”

“I think it’s the best a strongly humanist story has to offer. Isaac Marion is not a fan of religion, and his book reflects a world that relies on people to save themselves. I liked that he wasn’t naïve about the ugly side of human nature. I was impressed by his critique of our shallow culture. And if I had to choose something that people do to change the world, I would vote for genuine love and compassion too.

Having said that, I was frustrated by an ending that could have brilliantly pointed to a much bigger Savior, but settled for an emergent force that somehow resurrects us from our own nihilistic path. That’s the dead part in a story that otherwise felt oddly alive. Perhaps that a place where those of us who believe in Resurrection can explain what a different ending looks like.”