12 mins |Andrew Urquhart welcomes Rowan Locke, CEO of Christian apologetics group, Thinking Matters NZ. Together they unpack some of the most common challenges about the historical figure of Jesus Christ – in particular, the arguments against His death and resurrection.

Myth 1: Swoon theory – what if Jesus didn’t really die on the cross but fell into a coma?

Credit: Rhema Media

11 mins |Atheists often point to discrepancies in the four Gospel accounts of Jesus’ life as evidence that His close apostles and other followers made it up. CEO of Thinking Matters NZ, Rowan Locke, busts this fallacious argument.

Credit: Rhema Media

Sometimes we can have the best intentions but still make a mess of things when we do not operate with wisdom. Today we will look at a few key principles that are essential for having pro-life conversations as we wrap up our series on abortion.

1. Have compassion – you never know the story of those listening. 
2. Stay on track – keep the main issue the main issue. What is inside the womb of a mother? Are humans persons? Don’t all people have a right to life? 
3. Don’t expect instant change
4. Know when to quit – it is more important to be a loving friend to someone then win an argument if things are getting out of hand or someone is distressed
5. Challenge the logical fallacies – get clear on the other person’s position first and repeat it back to them. Look at the whole structure of their argument – is their conclusion the problem or is it how they got there? Don’t strawman someone’s argument and if someone resorts to name calling then don’t engage with that, instead bring it back to the points you are making.

As always it is important to pray and seek to be led by God’s Spirit in these conversations. But they must be had – even if you don’t think you’re making an impact, God has still called us to speak up for the voiceless regardless of whether we see the results or not. 

I’m Becky Gillespie from Thinking Matters and this has been your Thought for the Week.

For more reasons to believe, go to Resources

14 mins |Dr Michael Bird’s journey is anything but ordinary. In this interview, he shares his testimony, dives into Christian apologetics, and talks about why a well-lived Christian life might be the best answer to doubt today.

Credit: Rhema Media

14 mins |Karl Fase unpacks the quiet revival happening in the West—especially among Gen Z and young men. From Jordan Peterson to Joe Rogan, culture is shifting. Hear how Karl’s new series Encounter captures this moment and why Christian media must raise the bar in storytelling and production

Credit: Rhema Media

15 mins |Is faith making a comeback? Karl Fase joins the Rhema Breakfast team to talk about the Quiet Revival happening among Gen Z. From mass baptisms in the UK to the influence of voices like Jordan Peterson, this conversation explores why many are rediscovering God, and why Christian values still shape the world around us.

Credit: Rhema Media

Christians tend to fall into one of three camps when it comes to the topic of abortion. There is the silent camp – those who know the infinite value of human life but are too afraid to say anything. There is the camp of misplaced compassion – those who are rightly concerned for mothers in very difficult situations but they forget that ending an innocent human life will never be the answer to these problem. 

Finally there is the group like Mother Teresa, who are compelled by the love of Christ not only to speak against abortion but to show practical love and mercy to those who are most in need. She was an amazing advocate for the value of every human life, calling abortion the greatest killer of peace. She said that “any country which accepts abortion is the poorest of the poor.” 

New Zealand has one of the most liberal abortion laws in the world and as Christians we cannot turn a blind eye to this issue. This doesn’t mean it will be easy and there are wise and unwise ways to go about things. But God clearly calls us to speak for those who are voiceless, and the unborn need our help.

In our final video of the series, we will look at some tips for having pro-life discussions so that we can help New Zealand discover the sanctity of human life again. 

I’m Becky Gillespie from Thinking Matters and this has been your Thought for the Week.

For more reasons to believe, go to Resources

As we continue our series on the topic of abortion, I’m aware that any male attempting to do this would immediately be shut down for being a man. Today we will look at whether this is a reasonable reaction or if men should in fact be allowed a voice in this issue…

Ronald Reagan once said, ‘I notice that everyone who is for abortion has already been born. Something which is easily overlooked in the abortion debate is the fact that every man was once a foetus. Yes, maybe they can’t get pregnant or give birth, but every human being whether male or female has a direct stake in this issue. 

But perhaps even more important to realise, is that humans don’t need direct personal experience in an ethical issue to have a stance on it. William Wilborforce is a great example of this. He was a white man who was never going to own slaves or be a slave himself. And yet he dedicated his whole life to the abolition of slavery. 

The reality is that any issue involving the life of a human being is relevant for all humanity. The direct and indirect consequences of abortion do not just impact women but they affect all of society. While it’s easy to write men off with catchy slogans, we need to allow men to have a say in an issue which is literally a matter of life and death.  

I’m Becky Gillespie from Thinking Matters and this has been your Thought for the Week. 

For more reasons to believe, go to Resources

Is God anti-gay? It’s a heavy question—and for many, a deeply personal one. Maybe you’ve been burned by religion, hurt by Christians, or just wondering if faith could ever be good news for someone like you. In this video, I want to speak honestly and compassionately about what the Bible really says about sex, identity, and desire. No shame. No stone-throwing. Just a deeper story—one that’s surprised me with its truth, beauty, and hope. If you’ve ever felt torn between who you are and what God says… this is for you. Interested in this topic? Check out our full interview with Sam Allberry: https://www.youtube.com/live/BtX98Cgp9P8

As we continue our series on abortion, today we’ll be looking at the SLED test to help us see that no matter what way you look at it, you can’t say that the unborn aren’t persons without discriminating against many born humans as well. 

Size – obviously the unborn are smaller than the born but if being larger makes someone more of a person, does that mean a tall person is more valuable than a short one? 

Level of development – this is another one which changes all throughout our lives, childhood; puberty, adulthood – we are constantly growing and developing but this does not change our status as a person. 

Environment – Does an astronaut on the moon have a different personhood status to someone on earth? Can travelling through a 7 inch birth canal make you go from being a non-person to a person? 

Degree of dependency – yes the baby is dependent on its mother to live but so is any young child, the elderly and many with various disabilities or illnesses. In fact no human is an island, we all came from two parents and need each other for survival. 

In summary, there really is no logically consistent reason to suggest that human beings are not human persons without excluding other humans from rights as well. The pro-life view is consistent with science and protects the rights of all human life without discrimination. 

I’m Becky Gillespie from Thinking Matters and this has been your Thought for the Week. 

For more reasons to believe, go to Resources

If you’ve seen the previous videos, we have established that no matter what stage of pregnancy, the entity instead of the womb is a living human being. But does this make it a human person? 

You may have heard this objection to the rights of the unborn as many have begun to buy into the idea that human beings are not necessarily human persons. This means that being a biological human no longer counts, instead you must be given personhood status in order to qualify for human rights. 

This is incredibly dangerous ground as it not only seeks to exclude humans in the womb from rights, but whatever arbitrary criteria is used to define personhood, other groups of humans are inevitably discriminated against as well.

For example, it is often argued that there must be a certain level of self-awareness and cognitive function to be considered a person. But this means that you can be a person one day and then if you’re hit by a car the next and find yourself in a coma, you are merely a human – no longer a person with rights.  

In the next video we will look at the SLED acronym to see the common areas that pro-abortion choice advocates use to argue that the unborn are not people. We will highlight the flaws in these arguments and show that the pro-life position is actually far more inclusive than the pro-choice one – not discriminating between human life based on certain abilities or properties.

I’m Becky Gillespie from Thinking Matters and this has been your Thought for the Week.

For more reasons to believe, go to Resources

Before we continue our series on the topic of abortion we need to address a common response to any Christian who speaks on this issue – that we are just pushing our religious views onto others. 

But is abortion really just a religious issue? 

In the last video we narrowed in what needs to be the key focus of the abortion debate. That human life begins at the moment of conception as proven by science. This immediately takes this issue out of the realm of religion and into the topic of human rights. Do humans have rights or don’t they? 

I’m sure most people would agree that you do not have to be a Christian to believe in universal human rights. In fact, there are people of many different religions and no religion alike who advocate for the pro-life position which can be argued on purely scientific and philosophical grounds. In America there is a secular pro-life society which does exactly this, recognising that just as laws to protect killing a 5 year old are not religious, laws to protect a 5 week old are not religious either. 

I’m not pro-life just because the Bible says so or because I’ve been told to be. I am pro-life because all the evidence points to it being the far more logically consistent, humane and reasonable position. Keep following along to hear some of the reasons why you can be confidently pro-life regardless of your religious convictions.

I’m Becky Gillespie from Thinking Matters and this has been your Thought for the Week.

For more reasons to believe, go to Resources

Last video we introduced the series we are starting today on the issue of abortion. Although it is complex, we will start by addressing what really is the central question that needs to be answered in this debate:

What is the entity inside the womb of a pregnant mother?

This is the most important question to ask because it is the question we would ask in any other scenario that involved destroying something. If a young child ran to their mother and said, “Mummy can I kill this?” The first question the mother would ask is “what is it?” If they showed her a mosquito I’m sure she’d say yes. If they showed her a spider, she might also agree.

But if the child was carrying their baby sister, the mother would be horrified and stop them immediately. So what’s inside a pregnant mother? Well, according to scientists and medical professionals, from the moment of conception, a pregnant mother is carrying a human life.

This is not something to ignore. This is a scientific fact which should awaken people to the seriousness of what abortion does. Whatever words we want to use to soften it, abortion does destroy an innocent human life – something we would consider a horrible injustice in any other scenario.

In our next few videos we will explore some of the objections to this position so we can confidently begin to defend the lives of the most vulnerable in our society. I’m Becky Gillespie from Thinking Matters and this has been your Thought for the Week.

For more reasons to believe, go to Resources

In today’s increasingly polarised culture, abortion can be a very hard subject to talk about. People on both sides of the debate can get aggressive and defensive, seeing the other side as the enemy.

But while it is a sensitive and controversial issue, it doesn’t mean we should remain silent. According to the most recent statistics, there are approximately 36 abortions in New Zealand every single day. For some this sounds like a horrific tragedy, while for others it’s simply viewed as women exercising their rights.

In the next few Thought for the Week’s we will address some of the questions and complications surrounding this topic and show how the Christian answer is not to condemn anyone, but to uphold the value and dignity of every human life – the mother, the father and the child. We will show how science backs up the Christian claims and highlight the problems with many of the objections raised by pro-abortion advocates.

In all of this it is important to remember that God is truth and God is love. There is no contradiction between these two things, just as there is no contradiction in God. They always need to go hand in hand and this is how we hope to engage in these issues over the next episodes. I’m Becky Gillespie from Thinking Matters and this has been your Thought for the Week.

For more reasons to believe, go to Resources

The teleological argument is a philosophical argument that suggests that the universe has a purpose and design, which is evidence of the existence of God. This argument can be used by people who believe that God created the universe and everything in it, and that God has a plan and a purpose for everything.

Imagine that you are walking through a park and you come across a beautiful watch lying on the ground. When you look at it, you can see that it has intricate parts and mechanisms that work together perfectly. You would probably assume that the watch was created by a watchmaker, and that the watchmaker had a purpose for creating the watch.

The teleological argument is similar, but it applies to the entire universe. Proponents of this argument say that the universe is so complex and ordered that it must have been created by a designer, or God. They point to things like the laws of nature, the fine-tuning of the universe for life, and the complexity of living organisms as evidence of this design.

For example, the laws of physics, such as gravity and the speed of light, are so precise that if they were even slightly different, life as we know it would not be possible. The teleological argument states that this is evidence of God’s handiwork, and that God must have created the universe with life in mind.

The teleological argument is a way of thinking about the universe that says that its complexity and design suggest the existence of a designer, or God. 

The theory that Jesus did not actually die on the cross, but rather survived and lived on, is known as the “Swoon Theory.” This theory has been thoroughly discredited by scholars and historians, both Christian and non-Christian.

First and foremost, the severity of the crucifixion was well-documented by Roman historians. Roman crucifixion was a brutal form of execution designed to inflict maximum pain and suffering before death. The Gospels describe in detail the physical abuse that Jesus suffered, including the beating he received before being put on the cross, which would have left him in a weakened state. He was then nailed to the cross, a process that would have caused immense pain and further weakened him. The Romans were experienced executioners and would have ensured that death was swift and certain.

Additionally, the accounts of Jesus’ death and resurrection in the Gospels, as well as in the writings of early Christian leaders, support the idea that Jesus actually died on the cross. The accounts describe the soldiers who crucified Jesus checking that he was dead, and then placing him in a tomb. Three days later, he was resurrected and appeared to his disciples, which they reported to others. These accounts are also supported by non-Christian sources, such as the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, who wrote of Jesus’ crucifixion.

Furthermore, if Jesus had merely swooned on the cross and then revived in the tomb, he would not have been able to convince his disciples and followers that he had risen from the dead. The disciples, who had initially been disheartened and afraid after Jesus’ death, were transformed into bold proclaimers of the resurrection. They willingly suffered and died for their belief that Jesus had risen from the dead, a transformation that can only be explained by their actual encounter with the resurrected Jesus.

In conclusion, the evidence overwhelmingly supports the fact that Jesus actually died on the cross. The theory that he merely swooned and survived is not supported by any credible evidence and has been discredited by historians and scholars.

The question of why a good, all-powerful God would allow evil and suffering in the world has been pondered by philosophers and theologians for centuries. One common explanation is the concept of free will. According to this belief, God gave humans the freedom to make their own choices, and as a result, evil and suffering exist in the world because people choose to do harm to others and engage in evil actions.

Another explanation is that suffering serves a greater purpose, such as helping individuals to grow and mature in their character, or bringing people closer to God. Some hold that suffering can bring about spiritual growth and a deeper understanding of the human condition.

It’s also worth considering that we live in a finite world, and that our understanding of the world and God’s actions is limited. Some believe that the reasons for suffering may be known to God, but are beyond our comprehension. This places high importance on the place of the sovereignty of God. 

It’s important to note that when affronted with the question of evil and suffering in the world, a logical answer is not what most people are looking for. Evil and suffering is a universal experience of people, so often the most impactful response we can make on behalf of Jesus is to kindly ask: “can I ask what is behind the asking of that question?” That way you can apply a heart response when needed, rather than a conceptual response – and provide an answer that is both emotionally and intellectually satisfying.

Do you know about the secret Gospels? The ones about Jesus life that have been suppressed by the church. They talk about Jesus wife, how he wasn’t really crucified, or give some secret knowledge about God? Popularised by novels such as the Di Vinci Code, those hostile to Christianity are quick to jump on the train to believe the few manuscripts and books claimed to have been written by other apostles. There are claims that the early church worked to suppress these other gospels and writings because they didn’t align with what the church wanted the public to believe about the The thing is, these Gnostic Gospels have been thoroughly debunked as forgeries or imitations, and the reason the Church discredited these documents is because they were known forgeries of imitations. Some of these forgeries are also much more modern than people realise. The Gospel of Thomas is a popular Gnostic writing, but there is no evidence it is written by the Apostle Thomas of the New Testament, and its earliest writing can be dates to the early second century, nowhere near the first century writings of the other Gospels. Further, it was not quoted at all by early church fathers – those whom the Apostles had direct discipleship of – whereas nearly all the four canonical gospels can be reconstructed JUST from the writings of early church fathers.

The Gospel of Jesus wife was welcomed as a breakthrough document when its discovery was announced in 2012. And while it is written on Papyrus from the fourth century, it appears to have been written on VERY recently – in fact, since 1997. Unfortunately, the forger appears to have used an online PDF version of the Gospel of Thomas as their inspiration, and some of these PDF features appeared to make it onto the Papyrus!

When someone makes a claim about these Gnostic Gospels, simply ask them “what is their historical evidence or the ancient citation for their claim.” Remember, the burden of proof is on the person who made the claim.

For more reasons to believe, go to Curated Resources

10 mins |Are you ready to make a defense for the Christian worldview? This video will help you get started!

Resources mentioned in the video:

Dr. Daniel Wallace Textual Criticism Class: https://www.credocourses.com/product/…

Dr. Gary Habermas and the Evidence for the Resurrection:    • A Historian Explains the Evidence for…  

Dr. Peter Williams on Slavery in the Bible:  

  • Lecture – Peter Williams “Does the Bi…  

Real Historian Responds to “Jesus Was a Myth” Claims:    • Real Historian Responds to “Jesus Was…  

Undeniable Historical Evidence for the Existence of Jesus:    • Undeniable Historical Evidence for th…  

Credit: Alisha Childers

3 mins | Is Christian apologetics about apologizing for one’s beliefs? If not, why is the word apologetics used? Is this word even found in the Bible?

Join Eric Lyons as he answers these questions and more in under 3 minutes.

Credit: Eric Lyons & World Video Bible School (WVBS)

28 mins |Gavin Ortlund reflects on the nature of Christian apologetics in light of a conversation between Alex O’Connor and Rhett McLaughlin.

Gavin Ortlund (PhD, Fuller Theological Seminary) is President of Truth Unites, Visiting Professor of Historical Theology at Phoenix Seminary, and Theologian-in-Residence at Immanuel Nashville.

Credit: Gavin Ortlund, Rhett McLaughlin & Truth Unites

The question of the historical reliability of the New Testament is a matter of ongoing debate among scholars and historians. Most scholars argue that the New Testament provides a historically accurate account of the life and teachings of Jesus, while others argue that the accounts in the New Testament have been altered over time and contain legendary and mythical elements.

The issue of the accuracy of the New Testament was that it was written some years after the events it describes, and it was written by a variety of authors with different perspectives and purposes. Also, a claim repeated by skeptics and leaders in other religions is that the texts of the New Testament have been copied and transmitted over the centuries, and there are differences in the manuscripts that have survived, which can make it difficult to determine the original text.

However, many scholars believe that despite these challenges, the New Testament can still be considered a valuable and authoritative historical source. For example, some of the details in the New Testament accounts of Jesus’ life, such as his baptism by John the Baptist, his trial before the Roman governor Pontius Pilate, and his crucifixion, are supported by other historical sources, and are agreed as fact by Christian and non-Christian scholars. Another note is that while there are indeed hundreds of textual variations between ancient manuscripts, this is an overstated claim as to the substance of the differences. Most of the changes are spelling differences, word order, punctuation changes and additions, and dialect differences. None of these have any ramifications for translators – and any uncertainty in translated differences are explicitly mentioned by the publishers of bibles in the footnotes!

Overall, we can be VERY certain that the Gospels we have today are as they were written by their original authors in the first century.

For more reasons to believe go to Curated Resources

25 mins | This talk took place at Liberty University’s CFAW Convocation. Wes Huff presents historical and logical evidence to answer the question, “Can I trust the Bible?”

Credit: Wes Huff, Apologetics Canada

18 mins |Most people think Rhett McLaughlin left Christianity simply because of evolution—but they’re missing the real, hidden reason behind his dramatic exit. In this video, I’ll unpack Rhett’s own words, reveal the subtle but devastating mistake that led him away from faith, and show exactly how you can avoid it.

Credit: Capturing Christianity,

Moral relativism claims that right and wrong are not universal truths but are shaped by personal or cultural perspectives. On the surface, this might sound tolerant, even progressive. But let’s take a closer look at its implications.

If moral relativism is true, then no action can be objectively condemned, no matter how horrific. A culture practicing systemic injustice or an individual committing heinous crimes could simply claim, “It’s right by my standards.” If there’s no universal moral framework, how can anyone reasonably object? The very foundation of human rights—our shared understanding that certain things are inherently wrong—crumbles.

Think about it. If all moral claims are equally valid, then society can’t call out atrocities like genocide or slavery as objectively evil. These judgments would merely reflect one culture’s subjective opinion. This absurdity shows that moral relativism is self-defeating; it denies the possibility of moral progress. After all, if no set of values is better than another, what does it even mean to “progress”?

Even more paradoxically, moral relativism makes its own claim self-contradictory. It declares that no universal moral truths exist—while treating this statement as a universal truth. The logic falls apart.

Ultimately, rejecting moral relativism doesn’t mean denying nuance or cultural differences. It means affirming that some actions—like kindness, justice, and respect—are good universally, while others are plainly wrong. A world without moral foundations is not enlightened—it’s chaotic.

While we might believe that Jesus was a historic person, the claim that Jesus is the Son of God is much harder claim to defend. According to Christian theology, Jesus is both fully human and fully divine, possessing both a human and divine nature. Christians believe that Jesus is the son of God in the sense that he is eternally begotten by God the Father, and that his divine nature is co-equal with the Father.

In the New Testament, Jesus himself claimed to be the son of God and was referred to as such by his disciples and others. In the Gospel of John, for example, Jesus says “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6). This statement reflects the belief that Jesus is the only way to God and that he possesses a unique relationship with the Father that no one else can claim.

Additionally, Jesus’ miracles, such as healing the sick and feeding the hungry, are seen as proof of his divine nature. The New Testament also describes Jesus’ death and resurrection as fulfilling Old Testament prophecies and providing a way for people to be forgiven for their sins and have eternal life.

Furthermore, Christians believe that Jesus’ death and resurrection show God’s love for humanity and provide a way for people to have a personal relationship with God. By accepting Jesus as their Lord and Savior, Christians believe that they can have their sins forgiven and receive the gift of eternal life. In conclusion, the belief that Jesus is the son of God is a central tenet of the Christian faith, and is based on the teachings of the New Testament, the claims made by Jesus himself, and the belief in his divinity as evidenced by his miracles, death and resurrection.

For more reasons to believe, go to Curated Resources

There are some differences between the Gospel accounts that critics of Christianity say are contradictions and mean that while we might be able to know Jesus existed, we can’t accept the claim that Jesus is the son of God, or he really did miracles, and its not generally reliable.

But while we already know that if two stories are identical, we might suspect collusion, another important thing to note was that while there might be perceived differences in the gospel accounts, these differences are well within the expected writing style of the time and actually add to their first century legitimacy. Of course, paper was not a limitless resource 2000 years ago and most biographies of people were written with the intention that it could be read to an audience in 2-3 hours, so paraphrasing events, summarising, spotlighting were all techniques expected of writers of antiquities.

For instance, after the resurrection of Jesus in the Gospel of Luke, it states Peter ran to the tomb, whereas in the Gospel of John, it states Peter AND John ran to the tomb. So was it just Peter, or was it Peter and John? Just because John is omitted in Luke’s account, doesn’t mean he wasn’t there. In fact, slightly later in Luke 24:24 Luke writes: “Some of those who were with us went to the tomb and found it just as the women had said, but him they did not see.””

So while Luke specially mentions just Peter in earlier verses, now he is mentioning a plurality of people visiting the tomb after the women reported the empty tomb. Just because Luke spotlighted Peter, doesn’t mean John was not also there. It was expected of writers of ancient times, specifically in Greek antiquities, to shorten, paraphrase, highlight and spotlight key events, and the style of writing places these written accounts right in the time and location we would expect.

17 mins | The Morning Wake Up are joined by Travis Dickinson, a professor of philosophy at Dallas Baptist University and speaker on the Thinking Matters tour.
Travis shares his insights on doubt in the Christian faith, why it’s actually a normal and healthy part of our spiritual journey, and how leaning into tough questions can lead to stronger belief.

Credit: Life FM, Rhema Media

As shown by the last episode, the fine-tuning of our universe draws strong evidence for the existence of God. However, the multiverse theory has been suggested as a means to explain away this fine tuning, proposing that there are a massive number of possible universes in existence and we just happen to find ourselves on the one which can support life.

However, this idea doesn’t actually eradicate the fine tuning problem it seeks to avoid. Instead, it simply pushes it back a step as there still needs to be an explanation of the origin of the multiverse itself. Laws of incredible precision would still be needed and a first cause which is outside of time, space and matter.

As philosopher Antony Flew said, “No matter how far you push back the properties of the universe as somehow “emergent,” their very emergence has to follow certain prior laws.’ So multiverse or not, we still have to come to terms with the origin of the laws of nature. And the only viable explanation here is the Divine Mind.”

So even if the multiverse is real, far from being inconsistent with theism, the best bet for those who support it would be belief in God to have designed it.

I’m Sophie Gillespie and this has been your Thought for the Week. For more reasons to believe, visit www.thinkingmatters.org.nz

When we talk about the fine-tuning of our universe, we’re referring to the crazy, insane precision in the fundamental physical constants needed for our universe to hold any form of life whatsoever.

For a small illustration of the odds, imagine our universe would only have come into existence if someone opened a safe. This safe doesn’t only have a combination lock with millions of digits, but its dial also has millions of possible numbers to select. Inputting a single digit incorrectly would result in the door not opening, and us never being here to consider it.

British physicist, Paul Davies says, “scientists are slowly waking up to an inconvenient truth – the universe looks suspiciously like a fix. For 40 years, physicists and cosmologists have been quietly collecting samples of all too convenient “coincidences” and special features in the underlying laws of the universe that seem to be necessary in order for life – and hence conscious beings – to exist. At every level, we find that our universe’s ability to create and sustain life forms is rare and remarkable.”

So just like the chance of guessing the correct safe combination is incomprehensible, the chance that our universe appeared so perfectly adjusted for life on accident is equally implausible. Instead, all reason and experience tell us that there must be intelligence behind such a remarkable existence.

I’m Sophie Gillespie from Thinking Matters and this has been your Thought for the Week.

For more reasons to believe visit thinkingmatters.org.nz

Research shows that one of the top reasons youth walk away from their faith is they don’t have a safe place to express their doubts. Instead, they are given the impression that it is wrong to doubt and they just need to have faith, but is this really what God wants?

When famous defender of Christianity, Josh McDowell, was told by his son that he didn’t know if he believed anymore, he was actually delighted and encouraged his son not to be afraid of having questions but to keep seeking the truth. He knew that his son needed to make his faith his own and wrestling with doubts was a key part of this journey. Eventually, his son was able to come out the other side with an even stronger conviction in God and now he too is in full time ministry encouraging others to seek truth also.

As Christian author and speaker Tim Keller said, “A faith without some doubts is like a human body without any antibodies in it. People who blithely go through life too busy or indifferent to ask hard questions about why they believe as they do will find themselves defenseless against either the experience of tragedy or the probing questions of a smart skeptic. A person’s faith can collapse almost overnight if she has failed over the years to listen patiently to her own doubts, which should only be discarded after long reflection.”

Doubts should not be ignored, instead they should motivate us in the pursuit of truth which we have no reason to fear.

I’m Becky Gillespie from Thinking Matters and this has been your Thought for the Week.

For more reasons to believe visit thinkingmatters.org.nz

We have a powerful gospel message. Romans 1:6 says, “I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes.”

But how should we go about sharing the gospel? Can I just recite it’s message and let it speak for itself? And don’t apologetics overcomplicate the gospel message? Well if you want a long answer short…. Nope! It doesn’t!

In today’s culture there are countless hurts, barriers, and misconceptions of our Christian faith. Because of this, influential Christian thinkers, from Francis Shaeffer to Randy Newman have agreed that “pre-evangelism is more important than ever”. Before we share the gospel, we need to remember each person we talk to has their own unique background which may help or hinder their ability to see the goodness, truth, and beauty of the gospel.

When Jesus sent out his disciples, he told them “one sows and another reaps.” Although God can do an immediate work in someone’s heart, often, there’s a process before people are ready to accept the gospel. Just as John the Baptist prepared the way of the Lord, we can sow seeds of truth and weed out lies to prepare a straight path for the gospel. One small conversation can break down a barrier or straighten out a misconception. God can use many people and encounters to slowly sow until the reaping is ready to happen.

I’m Sophie Gillespie and this has been your Thought for the Week.

For more reasons to believe, visit www.thinkingmatters.org.nz

As science is ever more able to explain and help us navigate our universe, has the need for a creator been extinguished? To show just how illogical this train of thought is, consider a parallel question: can understanding a story remove the need for its author?

After watching Cinderella, a mother asked her children, “Why do you think Cinderella’s slipper was made of glass? ” The first child said, “Well I suppose her fairy godmother liked glass slippers.” The second child said, “Well, I suppose the author liked glass slippers so he put them in the story.” One child got their answer from the internal storyline, but the other child answered from an external standpoint, crediting the mind of the author. Now imagine if the first child said, “because I know Cinderella’s slippers came from her fairy godmother, I don’t need to believe the author had anything to do with it.” This would be ridiculous. The fairy godmother only has slippers to give because the author wrote that into the story!

When humans study science, we’re exploring the laws and principals we’ve found to be true in the immediate context of our universe. But no matter how much we learn about these laws, at no point can we claim to have lost need for the creator. We can still link all scientific discoveries back to the original author, who created both an orderly universe, and our intelligent minds to observe it.

I’m Sophie Gillespie from Thinking Matters and this has been your Thought for the Week. For more reasons to believe, visit www.thinkingmatters.org.nz

In every monotheistic religion, God is described as being loving. However Christianity is the only one to take this a step further in its claim that God is love. This is different to saying God is loving – instead the Bible tells that God is love as the essence of his very being.

So what is the difference? To express or feel love, there must be an object to which that love is directed. I might love my mum or love ice cream, but I can’t just love nothing. The same principle applies with God. In Islam, before Allah created the world, there was nothing for him to love. So Allah can be loving, but his love is actually dependent on the existence of his creation – love cannot be an inherent part of his being.

But why isn’t this the same in Christianity? Well, the difference here is that we believe in a trinitarian God. This means that God is one in being but three in person. It is only this trinitarian nature which makes it possible for God to be love as his very being. Even before He created the world, God existed as an eternal community of love, with each person of the Godhead loving the other two. Because Christianity is the only religion with a trinitarian God, it is the only religion where love can be inherent to the very being of God.

I’m Becky Gillespie from Thinking Matters and this has been your Thought for the Week.

For more reasons to believe visit thinkingmatters.org.nz

With so much diversity of religion could it be that when you strip everything back, we all worship the same God?

It definitely sounds like a nice idea, but is this possible?

Well, let’s imagine I asked different people to describe my mum. One says she’s 5ft 4., has brown hair and wears skirts. Another tells me she is over 6ft and never wears skirts. Another says she has black hair. Of course it’s easy to see here that these people can’t all be describing my mum because they are making claims that are in direct contradiction to one another.

This is exactly what different religions do – they don’t just describe different aspects of God but they blatantly contradict each other. Hinduism believes in millions of gods, Buddhism doesn’t believe there is a personal God and Islam and Christianity both claim that their God is the only God. Christians believe Jesus is God but if you believe that in Islam, you have committed one of the worst sins. Each of these religions also describe different ways to be saved and they all believe they alone are true.

Of course, it is logically possible that all these religions are wrong, but it’s not possible for more than one to be right, it would be like saying my mum is both 5ft 4 and 6ft tall. If they can’t all be true, we can’t just blindly stick with the one we are most familiar with – we have to look at where the evidence points and see which one makes the most sense.

I’m Becky Gillespie from Thinking Matters and this has been your Thought for the Week. For more reasons to believe visit thinkingmatters.org.nz

If I asked a Christian whether they believed the Bible was true, chances are they would say yes, they do believe if it’s true. If I asked them why, one of the most common answers is either because they’ve been told it’s true or because they have faith…

But are either of these actually good reasons?

When my aunt was a kid, she made cardboard wings for herself and jumped off the roof of her house. She obviously had so much faith that she would be able to fly, that she actually took the leap. Problem was, it didn’t matter how much faith she had, because her faith was placed in a mistaken idea, she fell off the roof and landed on the ground.

So why didn’t this work?

Well the question is not about how much faith we have, but what do we have faith in? If my aunt wants to fly she is better to put her faith into an aeroplane company which has a good track record rather than cardboard wings. In the same way our faith is useless if it’s not placed in someone who is truly alive, capable, trustworthy.

As Lee Strobel said, “Faith is only as good as the one in whom it’s invested.”

Our level of faith doesn’t change the truth, instead we are called to use the brains God has given us to investigate the truth and then place our faith in that. Thankfully God has provided us with an abundance of evidence to show that He is the best person we could ever place our faith in.

I’m Becky Gillespie from Thinking Matters and this has been your Thought for the Week. For more reasons to believe visit thinkingmatters.org.nz

Christianity makes some pretty bold claims – in fact, you could even say offensive claims. One such claim came from Jesus himself when he said “I am the Way, the Truth and the Life – no one comes to the Father except by me.” That’s right, Jesus didn’t call himself one of the ways, one of the truths or one of the life’s – he said that He was the only way to God.

But why Jesus and not other religious pathways or figures?? Well let’s imagine this scenario. You’ve had stomach problems for a while and you’ve tried 4 different doctors. Every doctor you’ve been to has suggested a different treatment but none of them have worked. You eventually go to the 5th doctor and he discovers that the root of your problem is not with the stomach at all but it is actually neurological. This correct diagnosis totally changes the type of treatment you are given, and this time, it works.

We can look at religion in the same way. Every religion identifies some sort of problem with humanity and the world and then proposes a solution to that problem. We believe that Christianity is the only religion which correctly diagnoses the human condition and this problem is only solved through Jesus. That problem is that we have turned away from God, coming under the power of sin and death which affects us all. Jesus came to conquer sin and death, making a way for us to be reconciled back to God and have eternal life.

I’m Becky Gillespie from Thinking Matters and this has been your Thought for Today. For more reasons to believe visit thinkingmatters.org.nz

DNA. While high school students can pull out its full name, Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid, for me, DNA prompts a different phrase to come to mind: Don’t Neglect Awe. Because honestly, I don’t believe we can look at DNA without being gob smacked… Francis Crick, a Nobel prize winner famed for his contribution in discovering the structure of DNA, realised that its 4 subunits: A,T C & G, function like alphabetic characters in a written text, or digital characters in a section of software. In fact, Bill Gates articulated that DNA is actually more complex than any software humans have been able to develop…which is super crazy complex! Even to write the most basic part of DNA’s code would take 1000 books of 1000 pages.

So what’s the significance of this ultra complex information? Well, we know information doesn’t come from purely physical processes. Physical processes can produce randomness, or even patterns, but they can’t produce authentic information. Information is only ever produced from a mind. Even Crick, who was an atheist, believed an intelligent source was needed for the information in DNA. However, he chose to attribute this to aliens. I mean, whatever floats your boat I guess, but personally, I think if you weigh up all the evidence there is a much better case that the great mind behind DNA was an intelligent God.

I’m Sophie Gillespie from Thinking Matters and this has been your Thought for the Week. For more reasons to believe, visit www.thinkingmatters.org.nz

I once heard a story about a prestigious scientist called Joe. One day, Joe went and told God, “Listen God, I’m not sure if you’ve noticed, but you’re becoming a bit out of date. We know why rain falls now, and what causes earthquakes. We know how bacteria and viruses work. My colleagues and I have even started to investigate how we could download human consciousness into computers – we could give ourselves eternal life! Us humans really are capable of enjoying and sustaining life on our own.” After listening patiently, God said to Joe. “You know I created free will, so if you really want to go on without me that’s your choice. But just to check that you’ll be okay, could you do something to prove that you really can create and sustain human life without me?” “Sure thing” said Joe, “In fact, I reckon us scientists could make a human just like you did with Adam.” Joe bent down to collect some dust off the ground. “Wait a minute” said God, “That doesn’t count. Without me here you’ll have to supply your own dust.” You see, the thing is, it doesn’t matter how much science advances, we really have nothing without God. As astronomer and scientist Carl Sagan once said, “To really make an apple pie from scratch, you must begin by inventing the universe.”

I’m Sophie Gillespie from Thinking Matters and this has been your thought for today. For more reasons to believe, visit thinkingmatters.org.nz

The Bible conspiracy theory; was the Christian holy book just written by a bunch of clever men who wanted to create a religion? What a lot of people don’t realise is that as well as requiring extreme human ability in both writing and deception, this theory also just doesn’t line up with the facts. Historians have a virtually unanimous agreement that this book was authored by more than forty people across the timespan of about fifteen centuries. With its name originating from ‘ta biblio’ meaning ‘the books’, the Bible can be likened to a library of texts, authored by people from all walks of life. These writers varied from kings to peasants, philosophers to fishermen, and included leaders, poets, tax collectors, musicians, scholars, statesmen, shepherds, and many others. They wrote all across Asia, Africa, and Europe, with the original writings being in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic; over 14 literary styles were utilised: from romance and poetry to law and eye-witness testimony. And yet despite the huge diversity among authors, time periods and genres, the Bible as a whole amazingly presents one unified story of God’s redemption for humanity. Keep a lookout for our next thought where we will look more specifically at some of the prophecies that are fulfilled in the Bible and show that rather than this being a conspiracy, there must have really been a divine hand behind this incredible book.

I’m Bobby-Jean Russ from Thinking Matters and this has been your Thought for the Week. For more reasons to believe visit thinkingmatters.org.nz

The question of God’s existence does not come without consequences. Whichever way you answer it will have a significant impact on your life and for many, the predicted consequences of believing in God are enough to put them off even exploring the possibility. One of these perceived consequences is that God will ruin their freedom. We might be enjoying life, we’re in control, we have no one to answer to – ultimately we can do whatever we like. But is this the true nature of freedom? Imagine, you’re sitting in front of a piano but you have no idea how to play it. You’re free to play it however you like, but because you don’t understand how it works, it doesn’t matter how hard you try, you’re really just making noise. You’re not free to make the music that it’s been created to make. Put a concert pianist in front of a piano though, and by conforming themselves to how the instrument is designed to be played, they are able to experience true satisfaction and beauty through the music they make. If God exists, we too have been made with a specific design for an intended purpose. Freedom doesn’t come from throwing off all restraint and becoming a slave to our desires, true freedom comes when we live in accordance with our design and purpose. If God did create us then far from ruining our lives, He knows what will bring us the greatest joy and fulfilment and that is what He wants just as much as we do. I’m Becky Gillespie from Thinking Matters and this has been your Thought for the Week.

Can our life and existence have ULTIMATE meaning without God? The inference of meaning is a good evidence that God might be out there drawing us to Him.

For more thoughts, visit https://www.thinkingmatters.org.nz/thought-for-today/

22 mins | Author and apologist Lee Strobel talks about his new documentary movie ‘The Case For Heaven’ and the evidence for an afterlife from accounts of Near Death Experiences, consciousness and the resurrection of Jesus.

Credit: Premier Unbelievable?

1 hr 50 mins |Village Lutheran Church in Ladue hosted a lecture “Christianity Once Turned the World Upside Down: Is It Still True?” featuring the renowned Christian defender of the Faith, Dr. Alvin J. Schmidt, on Saturday, February 7, 2015.

Dr. Schmidt is the author of 11 books; one received an award from the American Library Association. His book How Christianity Changed the World (2004) is translated in seven foreign languages, including Russian.

Credit: Village Lutheran Lectures on Christianity and Culture

9 mins | Paraplegic Joni Erikson Tada speaks with grace and truth about what ‘death with dignity’ really is.

Credit: Real Truth. Real Quick.

8 mins | Alan Shlemon of Stand to Reason responds to this week’s challenge: “Euthanasia is a fundamental human right.”

Credit: Stand to Reason

2 mins | Alan Shlemon of Stand to Reason responds to the question: If going to Heaven is so great, why do Christians want to prolong unhappy life on Earth?

Credit: Stand to Reason

2 mins | What should Christians think about euthanasia? What about physician-assisted suicide? Sean briefly addresses these questions and more.

Credit: Sean McDowell

1 hr | How can people best defend the unborn? What are helpful responses to the strongest pro-choice arguments? In this video, Sean McDowell interviews Stephanie Gray Connors, who is one of the most articulate pro-life speakers today. They take live questions.

Credit: Sean McDowell

1 hr 20 mins | Lila Rose talks with Stephanie Gray Conners, pro-life activist and author, about her new book My Body for You, A Pro-Life Message for a Post-Roe World. They discuss real challenges of motherhood, how the role of motherhood images the love of God, as well as how to answer some of the toughest pro-choice questions.

Credit: Lila Rose

40 mins | Matt Fradd takes questions on how to quit porn.

Credit: Pints With Aquinas

30 mins | Matt Fradd speaks with compassion about the dignity of humanity.

Credit: Pints with Aquinas

12 mins | Dr Carl Trueman has authored or edited more than a dozen books, including the best seller “The Rise and Fall of the Modern Self.” In this episode, Dr. Trueman discusses our pornographic culture, and its affect on our minds and in our churches.

Credit: Dial In Ministries

12 mins | Christopher West unfolds why living together before marriage is a bad idea, and how cohabitation can hurt a relationship.

Credit: Theology of the Body

9 mins | Jordan Peterson speaks with Ben Shapiro about the emptiness of hook-up culture and the West’s failure to instill the fundamental values of life in young people.

Credit: Ed Shapiro

1 hr 13 mins | Lila Rose talks with Kim Zember, author of Restless Heart, who shares her story of same-sex attraction, seeking fulfillment in homosexual relationships, and how she discovered her true identity and freedom from the love of God.

Credit: Lila Rose

6 mins | Rosaria Butterfield, a former lesbian feminist academic shares about her journey to Christ: through the compelling experience of  Christian kindness and hospitality.

Credit: Crossway

6 mins  You’re in a conversation and someone says, “People can’t help being gay. It’s part of their genetic makeup.” What would you say?

Today, the search has shifted to whether or not there is any genetic component to one’s sexual orientation, and if there is, what kind of role does it play in determining who we are sexually attracted to? Still, people will often assume that there must be a genetic source for sexual orientation and will talk about it as if it is settled science. But it’s not.

Credit: What Would You Say?

50 mins | Why is the statement, “I am a man trapped in a woman’s body” considered coherent and meaningful today? What are the historical and philosophical roots that led us to this cultural moment? In this interview, I talk with Carl Trueman about these questions and more.

Credit: Sean McDowell

1 hr 13 mins | Formerly an agnostic, author Nancy Pearcey argues that secularism denigrates the body and destroys the basis for human rights. In Love Thy Body, Pearcey sets forth a holistic and humane alternative available to all – one that offers reality-oriented solutions that embrace the dignity of the human body and provide a sustainable basis for inalienable human rights.

Credit: The Heritage Foundation

1 hr 16 mins | What are the key differences between evangelical Christianity and progressive Christianity? How do they uniquely approach key issues like the nature of Scripture, the person of Jesus, and relationships? In this video, I talk with pastor/author Colby Martin about these issues and more.

Credit: Sean McDowell

55 mins | Have progressive Christianity and conservative Christianity drifted so far that they can be considered different faiths? How greatly do they differ politically, theologically, and culturally?

In this interview, Sean talks with sociologist George Yancey about his ground-breaking book One Faith No Longer. They discuss differences in how they view Jesus, politics, and other faiths.

Credit: Sean McDowell

39 mins | Author Alisa Childers invites you to examine modern lies that are disguised as truths in today’s culture.

Credit: Horizon Church

14 mins | In this clip from his latest Stand to Reason University course, Greg Koukl considers the logical consequences of relativism and shares five fatal flaws of moral relativism. Look for the complete course, “Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air,” at https://training.str.org/index/.

Credit: Stand To Reason

7 mins | Do we live in a post-truth world, or is truth still important? If so, why? Sean tackles these questions and more in this interactive, top-quality video.

Credit: Sean McDowell

48 mins | Our culture is deeply confused about truth and is drowning in a sea of relativism. In this talk, Brett Kunkle examines the nature of truth, distinguishes objective truth from subjective truth, and then tests our understanding of truth. The results are eye-opening for students and adults alike, as many Christians find themselves inadvertently affirming relativistic views of truth. Finally, Brett discusses why the truth really matters.

Credit: MAVEN

Alan Shlemon of Stand to Reason insightfully unpacks the question, “Did God Create Evil?”

Credit: Stand To Reason

The Christian faith requires you to take up your cross and follow Jesus and can sometimes mean losing friends, dividing families, or life as you know it to walk in the path of God. Nabeel Qureshi shares how Jesus and his lived example provides a unique answer to our suffering.

Credit: RZIM HQ

Oxford professor John Lennox explores the hardest question Christians have to face about their faith – the problem of suffering.

Credit: The Veritas Forum

Tim Keller compares Christianity to other worldviews, and shows how Christianity offers hope and restoration.

Credit: Jeff and Alyssa

It’s simply not a “Christian myth” that Christianity led to science. Ironically, the idea that Christian faith is toxic to science is the real myth. Some atheists claim Christianity is a science stopper. The facts of history show the opposite. Christianity was the modern science starter.

Credit: Red Pen Logic

Can we explain everything in the universe using just space, time, matter, physics, and chemistry? In our culture, science is king. But can science explain everything? In this episode of Impact Answers, author and cold-case detective J. Warner Wallace explains that when we investigate the universe, we discover that science can get us a lot of answers, but not all of them. We discover that the universe appears to be designed because it is.

Credit: Impact 360 Institute

6 mins | Oxford professor John Lennox speaks with his usual humour and wisdom to illustrate the validity of miracles.

Credit: The Veritas Forum

How should we approach claims of the supernatural or the unusual? Is God the only being with the power to supernaturally intervene in our world? In this video, Frank Turek lists several logical explanations for strange events ranging from weird to miraculous.

Credit: Cross Examined

David Hume, a Scottish Enlightenment philosopher, said that miracles are a violation of natural laws. Is this true? Find out what Frank has to say about it in this video!

Credit: Cross Examined

Lee Strobel, an Investigative Journalist, reveals the fruit of two years of investigation into miracles.

Credit: Woodlands Church

Kirk Cameron is joined by John Lennox to discuss the simple logic of Christianity, how math and science are clear indicators of a Creator, and believing in the evidence of God.

Credit: Kirk Cameron on TBN

In this video, Dr. Costa is interviewed by Dr. David Wood on the subject of Mormonism. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints also known as the Mormons is a non-Christian cult that denies the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the fundamentals of the Christian faith.

Credit: Tony Costa/Toronto Apologetics

Melissa Dougherty shares her journey to Christ.

Credit: Melissa Dougherty

Dr. William Lane Craig outlines some beliefs of Buddhists while discussing the issue of religious pluralism.

Credit: ReasonableFaithOrg

Why would a brilliant Hindu engineer become an atheist and then choose to follow Christ? What evidence convinced him Christianity is true? What did it cost him to follow Jesus? Check out this recent interview with my new friend Ganesh about his fascinating story.

Credit: Sean McDowell

Lee Strobel, a former atheist turned Christian who wrote the book The Case for Christ, shares how he went from skeptic to believer. This 16-minute explanation explores the truth he uncovered about the resurrection, the gospel accounts, and the controversies he had to overcome to support the evidence for Christ and make a case for the foundational belief in Christianity.

Credit: Maybe God Podcast

Oxford mathematician John Lennox speaks at The Veritas Forum @ Harvard on the topic “Miracles: Is Belief in the Supernatural Irrational?” Lennox explains how science – while eminently valuable – cannot disprove particular instances of miracles like the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Credit: The Veritas Forum

This is the moment when Jordan Peterson realized that in order to have objective morality, there must be a moral lawgiver. Thanks To William Lane Craig being used by God.

Credit: Daily Dose Of Wisdom

Oxford chemist Peter Atkins has been promoting atheism for decades. However, when asked if there is any evidence that could possibly convince him that he’s wrong, Dr. Atkins admitted that his position is unfalsifiable. That is, he would never accept any evidence against atheism. David Wood discusses the issue.

Credit: Apologetics Roadshow

Dr William Lane Craig decimates Naturalism.

Credit: 1GodOnlyOne

Dr. Craig discusses Alvin Plantinga’s defense of a time-tested argument by C.S. Lewis.

Credit: drcraigvideos

Did the universe have a beginning? Or has it existed from eternity past? If it DID have a beginning, this raises a question: Did the universe have a Creator?

In PART 1 we explored this question scientifically. Now, let’s look at it philosophically.

Aristotle believed the universe was eternal in the past. But Al-Ghazali disagreed. He pointed out that if the universe did NOT have a beginning, then the number of past events in the history of the universe is infinite. But that’s a problem because the existence of an actually infinite number of past events leads to absurdity! It’s metaphysically impossible. Why?

Credit: drcraigvideos

A well-crafted short video to trace the scientific foundation for the Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God.

Credit: drcraigvideos

J. Warner Wallace, author of Cold-Case Christianity, was interviewed by Bobby Conway (The One Minute Apologist) and discussed what we, as Christians, might expect from skeptics who reject the claims of Christianity.

Credit: Cold Case Christianity

Wise and Godly guidance for interacting and discussing ideas with gentleness and respect, to build bridges.

Credit: Mama Bear Apologetics

Nabeel Qureshi shares his journey from Islam to Christianity.

Credit: CrossPoint Church

Biola Masters in Christian Apologetics – Apologetics to Islam

Nabeel Qureshi speaks on Jesus in Islam vs. Jesus in Christianity

Credit: Biola University

There are over 1.5 billion Muslims in the world who are lost. As ambassadors for Christ, our desire should be to learn about Islam so that we are able to engage Muslims with the Gospel. This conversation will help you do exactly that.

Credit: Ryan Pauly

Alan Shlemon of Stand to Reason emphasizes the importance of looking to Islam’s authoritative sources in order to know what Islam really teaches then explains a key teaching about the Qur’an.

Stand To Reason

At The Veritas Forum at Harvard, Oxford mathematician John Lennox explains what makes Christianity unique in comparison to other worldviews.

Credit: The Veritas Forum

In this brief video, Sean offers four of his favorite discoveries that support the trustworthiness of the New Testament. This is a great place to start to see the external evidence supporting the Bible.

Credit: Sean McDowell

How do we know we can trust the Old Testament documents? Is there any good evidence to support their reliability? Sean briefly answers these questions and more.

Credit: Sean McDowell

Why should we trust what the gospel authors have to say about Jesus? How can we test the Gospel authors to see if their accounts are reliable? J. Warner Wallace answers these questions in this video from a stage presentation from his book, Cold-Case Christianity.

Credit: Cold Case Christianity – J. Warner and Jimmy Wallace

Nabeel Qureshi enjoyed defeating Christians and proving that the Bible is corrupted. Until David Wood stopped him in his tracks.  Learn from Nabeel how to defend the bible’s many translations.

Credit: Inspired From Above

Cameron Bertuzzi  interviews Greg Koukl about his book “Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions.” Toward the end they talk about how Tactics differs from Street Epistemology.

Credit: Capturing Christianity

Evangelist and theologian Dr Michael Green (1930 – 2019) gave the opening address at Unbelievable? The Conference 2012.

Credit: Premier Unbelievable

Of the three transcendental (truth, goodness, and beauty), beauty is the one we most often neglect when doing apologetics. Yet arguments for the existence of God can be greatly helped by an aesthetic appeal.

Credit: Truth Unites

Have you ever shared your faith in a way you later regret? Sean shares an evangelistic failure, what he learned from it, and practical advice how to better share your faith.

Dr William Lane Craig shares about the difference between evangelism and apologetics.

Credit: drcraigvideos

Many Christian millennials think it’s wrong to evangelize. Dr. Craig offers evaluation.

Credit: Reasonable Faith Org

Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason encourages Christians for whom evangelism seems overwhelming to focus on small opportunities of influence rather than “sealing the deal.”

Credit: Stand to Reason

Watch an artist bring alive Chapter 9 of C. S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity as it is narrated, and hear about God’s plan for our redemption – to give us only the best.

Credit: C S Lewis Doodle

Jesus’ death on the cross wasn’t just to get believers to heaven. Renowned Bible Scholar Tom Wright tells Justin Brierley why he wrote his book “The Day The Revolution Began” to explain the big picture story of why Jesus died and what happened on the cross.

Credit: Premier On Demand

The Gospel can be presented in a variety of ways. Here’s how Christian apologist Greg Koukl puts it.

Gregory Koukl is a Christian apologist, radio talk show host, author, speaker, and the founder of the Christian apologetics organization Stand To Reason.

Credit: Capturing Christianity

Often times, people have a real problem with Jesus’ claim that he’s the only way to God. Is it intolerant to suggest that Jesus the only way? In this video, author and speaker Brett Kunkle explains that the question is not whether someone is offended, but instead whether or not Jesus’ claim is true.

Credit: Impact 360 Institute

Cliffe Knechtle has a great conversation with college students at a campus in the southwest US. The “Give Me An Answer” ministry began as an outgrowth of the dialogues Cliffe Knechtle has had with students on various university campuses throughout the United States.

Credit: Give Me An Answer with Stuart & Cliffe Knechtle

Ben Arbour, a philosopher and expert on the Ontological Argument for God’s existence, explores the version of the argument he thinks is best and covers several of the most popular objections.

Credit: Capturing Christianity

In this response video, Dr. Luke Barnes (theist, cosmologist) and Dr. Philip Goff (agnostic, philosopher) join Cameron Bertuzzi to respond to skydivephil’s video entitled, “Physicists & Philosophers reply to The Fine Tuning Argument.”

Credit: Capturing Christianity

Astrophysicist Luke Barnes explains why we instinctively sense that the fine tuning of the Universe for life points towards a mind beyond the cosmos.

Credit: Premier Unbelievable

Defenders is Dr William Lane Craig’s weekly Sunday school class on Christian doctrine and apologetics. This video is Part 2 Foundations of Christian Doctrine.

Credit: ReasonableFaithOrg

In 2019 Megan Almon from the Life Training Institute based in the USA came to New Zealand for a speaking a Pro-Life Training tour. ‪@ChangepointChurch‬ managed to record her final presentation in New Zealand before returning to the U.S.A. In her presentation, she provides a compelling case for life and some incredible tools we can use in presenting these truths to people, as well as the incredible power of the Gospel when dealing with this controversial topic.

John Lennox (Oxford) argues that there is evidence of transcendence beyond nature. Semiotics – signs like letters and numbers – cannot be explained in a purely reductionist fashion but require an appeal to the mind. | Harvard University |

Explore more at https://www.veritas.org

Credit: The Veritas Forum

Cameron Bertuzzi interviews historian and philosopher Dr. Gary Habermas who explains the evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus. They also talk about NDE’s (Near Death Experiences) and the Shroud of Turin.

Credit: Capturing Christianity

Website: http://capturingchristianity.com

Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? Is there good historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus? Are miracles really possible? Explore the evidence for yourself in this video from Impact 360. For more videos like this visit http://impact360.org.

Credit: Impact 360 Institute

Lee Strobel spent two years of his life studying, researching, learning everything he could in order to disprove the resurrection and deity of Christ. What he found instead changed his life forever. – This week, Lee Strobel takes us through the four main points he found that shifted his mind and heart about the truth surrounding the resurrection of Jesus.

Credit: ChannelC²

Eric Metaxas interviews Stephen C. Meyer about the ultimate mystery of the universe as drawn from recent scientific discoveries in physics, cosmology, and biology. The interview took place at the Dallas Conference on Science and Faith, sponsored by the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture, in January 2019.

Credit: Socrates in the City

Beginning in the late 19th century, many intellectuals began to insist that scientific knowledge conflicts with traditional theistic belief — that science and belief in God are “at war.” Philosopher of science Stephen Meyer challenges this view by examining three scientific discoveries with decidedly theistic implications.

Credit: Skeptic

Associate Professor of Biblical Studies at Eternity Bible College, Preston Sprinkle, speaks at student-led Afterdark chapel at Biola University on February 12, 2020.

Credit: Biola University

For more information: https://www.reasonablefaith.org/

In 2017, Dr. William Lane Craig participated in contributing to The Avoid Project. Avoid asks the question, “What if believers knew about the evidence for the Christian faith?” In Dr. Craig’s particular interview, he addresses the question of the absurdity of life without God.

Credit: drcraigvideos

In this short video, Sean McDowell explains why Beauty is one of the most compelling arguments for God.

Credit: Sean McDowell

Is beauty only in the eye of the beholder? Or is it come from something beyond us–is beauty grounded in who God is? Megan Almon explains how beautiful things entice us and draw us in, and explains the profound longings within us which influence and transform.

Credit: Summit Ministries

In this joint interview, Cameron Bertuzzi (Capturing Christianity) is joined by Dr. William Lane Craig and Dr. David Baggett to discuss the merits of different versions of the moral argument for God’s existence.

Credit: Capturing Christianity

For more resources visit: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/moral

Reasonable Faith features the work of philosopher and theologian Dr. William Lane Craig and aims to provide in the public arena an intelligent, articulate, and uncompromising yet gracious Christian perspective on the most important issues concerning the truth of the Christian faith today.

Credit: drcraigvideos

A succinct summary of the Ontological Argument, masterfully crafted by Reasonable Faith.

Reasonable Faith features the work of philosopher and theologian Dr. William Lane Craig and aims to provide in the public arena an intelligent, articulate, and uncompromising yet gracious Christian perspective on the most important issues concerning the truth of the Christian faith today.

For more resources visit: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/ontolo…

Credit: drcraigvideos

People experience a sense of transcendence in music. This video suggests that theism provides a better explanatory framework for that experience than naturalism can.

Reasonable Faith and Avoid Project team up another cinematic short film. This time, Dr. Craig explains the baffling universal framework that is “mathematics.”

Three characteristics of the nature of math suggest theism, or something like theism. This is one of the most surprising arguments for the existence of God.

Produced by Dr Craig Videos, this short video gives a compelling argument for Design.

In this Piers Morgan Uncensored special, Meyers firmly rejects the idea that a scientific worldview leads to atheism, arguing instead that ‘the universe requires a creator or cause’. When Richard Dawkin’s name is mentioned, Meyer claims that he actually really loves the atheist firebrand and admires his intensity. Lastly, Morgan and Meyers agree that the question of God’s existence is tied to more than just cold hard facts, but also human nature itself.

Nov 9, 2013 at Birch Cove Baptist Church

Peter Kreeft handles this very tough topic with grace and truth.

Of the three transcendental (truth, goodness, and beauty), beauty is the one we most often neglect when doing apologetics. Yet arguments for the existence of God can be greatly helped by an aesthetic appeal.

Truth Unites is a mixture of apologetics and theology, with an irenic focus.

Gavin Ortlund (PhD, Fuller Theological Seminary) serves as senior pastor of First Baptist Church of Ojai.

Website: https://gavinortlund.com/

Extracts from the full presentation, which can be viewed at:   • William Lane Craig: The Evidence for …   “The Evidence for God” by Dr William Lane Craig. This lecture, followed by audience Q&A, was held at Imperial College London, during the UK Reasonable Faith Tour.

How is it reasonable to believe in God given the evidence that the existence of evil provides? Dr. Peter Kreeft discusses some of life’s hardest questions, as he explores the rationality of belief in God. | Iowa State University, 2012

In this video Gavin Ortlund responds to Ken Ham’s claim that young-earth creationism is only denied for unbiblical reasons like the pressure of modern science.

Gavin Ortlund (PhD, Fuller Theological Seminary) serves as senior pastor of First Baptist Church of Ojai.

Play this recording below or listen on Spotify

Play this recording below or listen on Spotify

Play this recording below or listen on Spotify

Play this recording below or listen on Spotify

Play this recording below or listen on Spotify

As Christians we should always be seeking truth. We want to grow in our understanding and ability to explain what we believe is true because we know that the truth sets us free. However, the bible doesn’t just tell us to speak the truth, rather it says we must speak the truth in love.

So what could this look like?

When we are having a conversation with someone, it is important that we seek to understand them first. To show love to someone means you treat them as you would like to be treated and all of us want the chance to be listened to and understood. In the book of James, we are told that we should be slow to speak but quick to listen. This is a huge part of showing we value the person we are talking to and that their perspective matters.

Francis Shchaeffer once said, “If I have only an hour with someone, I will spend the first fifty-five minutes asking questions and finding out what is troubling their heart and their mind, and then the last five minutes I will share something of the truth.”

That may sound extreme, but if we follow that principle, those 5 mins of words will say much more than what even an hour of words could say if they’re not what the person needs to hear at the time. Every human being is unique and complex and for our words to have any meaningful impact on their life, we must seek to understand them in humility first. We must speak the truth in love.

I’m Becky Gillespie from Thinking Matters and this has been your Thought for Today. For more reasons to believe visit thinkingmatters.org.nz

Play this recording below or listen on Spotify

Transcript:

Play this recording below or listen on Spotify

Transcript:

The Trinity can be one of those subjects which Christians like to avoid. But if we claim to believe in a Trinitian God shouldn’t we be able to explain what that means? 

Most people have heard the basic concept – God is 1 being but 3 persons; Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Each person is fully God, but there is only one God. Atheists, agnostics and other religions like to say this is a contradiction, but is it? 

A contradiction occurs when two statements cannot both be true at the same time. If I was to say God was 1 being and 3 beings that is a contradiction. If I was to say God is 1 person and 3 persons, that also is a contradiction. But neither of these describe the Trinity which is 1 being, but 3 persons. So the key here is understanding that person and being are not the same thing. Being is the what, and person is the ‘who’. 

Let’s use humanity as an example. ‘What’ I am is a human. That is my being. But who I am is different – who I am is Becky. That is my person. So humans are one being and one person. 

The nature of God however is different and that doesn’t make it wrong – One being – God. but three persons; Father, Son and Holy Spirit. There is no reason for this belief to make Christianity less credible – if anything it makes sense that God is unlike anything in creation for the creator will always be far more complex than its creation. 

I’m Becky Gillespie from Thinking Matters and this has been your Thought for Today. For more reasons to believe visit thinkingmatters.org.nz

Play this recording below or listen on Spotify

Transcript:

Science has often been put at odds with Christianity, but the more we look into science the more we can see the work of the creator. In the field of microbiology, the intricacy and complexity of microorganisms, such as bacteria and viruses, demonstrate the existence of a creator. The highly specialized structures and functions within these tiny organisms cannot be explained by evolution alone and must have been designed by a higher power.
The evidence for this is the interdependence and cooperation between different microorganisms in an ecosystem.

My wife often reminds me to take care of my gut bacteria, but feeding it with fermenting foods like sauerkraut and yoghurt, because it adds to my body’s overall health. But these gut bacteria are not part me, but we can’t live without it, and it can’t live without us. This symbiotic relationship and dependence between bacteria in our gut and such complex relationships and systems could not have arisen by chance and must have been deliberately planned and put into motion.

The continuing discovery of new microscopic organisms and the expansion of our understanding of their functions are further evidence for God: far from being at odds with Christian belief, this scientific exploration testifies to the Creator God – it seems creation itself ‘waits with eager longing for the revealing of the children of God.’

I’m Rowan Locke from Thinking Matters, and this has been your Thought for Today for more reasons to believe visit www.thinkingmatters.org.nz

Play this recording below or listen on Spotify

Transcript:

The Bible we have has a long history and has been passed down through many different manuscripts. Some skeptics of Christianity, in an attempt to discredit the reliability of the Bible, like to point out that there are more than 400,000 textual variants between the manuscript used to compile the New Testament, and therefore it cannot be trusted.

But here’s what the skeptics won’t tell you: more than 99% of the textual variants are not meaningful. How do we define meaningful? Spelling differences – different place names, because places had name changes or were known differently to people of different languages. Different word orders. Or the use of a different article – things that have grammatic implication, but no meaning implication. Less than 1% of the textual variants are considered meaningful and only half of those occur enough to be considered viable. The variants that we are left with are about a dozen or so phrases; about a dozen or so verses; and then two passages some manuscripts include and others do not. Most modern bibles are transparent with these too, and mention “some manuscripts do not have this.”

However, if we were to remove all these variants, we do not lose the gospel or any of the core doctrines of Christianity: nothing that we believe is challenged or changed in anyway. There is not a document in human history of this age that we could be MORE certain that it says now what it has always said.

I’m Rowan Locke from Thinking Matters, and this has been your Thought for Today for more reasons to believe visit www.thinkingmatters.org.nz

 Play this recording below or listen on Spotify

Transcript:

Growing up Māori and Christian can be complicated: Maori Christians often do not feel welcomed by either group. The reality is, too few Maori are engaged with the Church in New Zealand. We know Christ has called ALL to be part of his church, so what can be done?

This issue is not unique to Māori though – the very beginning of the church encountered racial and cultural divisions which needed resolution. In Acts, the Council of Jerusalem was formed to discuss incorporating Gentiles into the early church.

Pre-Colonisation, Māori embraced the Gospel, but after experiencing betrayals, having land confiscated, and suddenly becoming a minority, Māori did not feel welcome in the European expressions of traditional church denominations. In a similar way, the early church was built on Jewish tradition, but the disciples quickly understood that the non-Jews were different and had different values and customs; values and customs which did not necessarily affect their ability to receive the Gospel.

They also realized that God Himself had called these Gentiles and that it was by His grace they, including themselves, were saved. Their final conclusion was that the Gentiles had received the Holy Spirit and so, should be received into the faith with only a set of core beliefs to follow.

Therefore, just as there was room for the Gentiles to enter the faith, there is also room for Māori and other cultures of Aotearoa to enter the faith. And just as the Jews did not need to become like the Gentiles, or the Gentiles needed to become like the Jews, we also do not need to become like one another, but simply, despite our differences, make room to worship alongside others in unity with Christ.

I’m Īhaka Nāmana from Thinking Matters, for more resources like this one, visit https://www.thinkingmatters.org.nz Ngā mihi.

 Play this recording below or listen on Spotify

Transcript:

When I was 12, I began to be introduced to worldviews outside of my Christian upbringing and it became apparent to me that I didn’t really know what I believed or why I believed it. As I was exposed to more challenges to my faith, I became less confident in what I thought I knew.

It can be tough navigating our faith sometimes. Questions arise like, “Is Christianity true? Or am I just delusional?” But, is this supposed to happen? Are Christians allowed to have doubts or question their faith?

In John, we find one of Jesus’ own 12 disciples having doubts of his own. Thomas doubted the resurrection, but after Jesus appeared to him, he immediately renounced his doubt. Jesus’ response? “…Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed” (Jhn 20:29, NIV).

Jesus did not scold Thomas for doubting, instead He praised those who still have faith despite not seeing first-hand evidence for their belief. It is not wrong to have doubt, and doubt itself does not disqualify us from salvation, it is what we do with those doubts that determine whether our faith becomes stronger or weaker.

We can allow these doubts to fester or we can search out the truth. At 12, I decided not to let my doubts destroy my faith and I immersed myself in Christian apologetics, learning what I believed, and exploring the evidence for it. This helped me address my own doubts and grow my faith.

So, It’s not wrong to have doubts, it’s what we do with these doubts that can make them unhealthy or not. Don’t let your doubts stop you from having a strong relationship with God. To learn more, and to find answers to doubts you may have, visit https://thinkingmatters.org.nz

I’m Īhaka Nāmana from Thinking Matters, ngā manaakitanga

Play this recording below or listen on Spotify

Transcript:

The word ‘apologetics’ stems from the Greek apologia, meaning “a defense” which is most famously exhibited in 1 Peter 3:15 which says, “but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you.”

Many Christians do not know what the word apologetics means: either they think it means that we apologize for being Christian, OR they think apologetics is about arguing and “Destroying” your opponent – but what is Christian Apologetics REALLY About?

Simply put, apologetics is learning what you believe well and why you believe it. It’s about researching and finding evidence or reasoning for our beliefs, so we then can, as Paul says, “make a defence” for what we believe.

Okay, but why is apologetics important? It’s not only important to answer the doubts of unbelievers, it also helps to answer our own doubts about the faith. It builds our confidence in what we believe and helps us to navigate objections or questions that others or we ourselves may have. Apologetics is also a great way of finding places in which our beliefs or doctrines may be incorrect or aren’t fully in line with the truth.

However, Christian apologetics isn’t merely about learning information and arguments. Effective Christian apologetics is transformational to the way we think and behave. It builds our faith, increases our confidence in God, and influences our actions.

Apologetics is about discovery and seeking out truth. It is a tool in which we can use to help others understand our faith and why we believe in Christianity, while helping us navigate our own faith and relationship with God.

I’m Īhaka Nāmana from Thinking Matters, for more information on apologetics and more, visit https://www.thinkingmatters.org.nz Ngā mihi

Play this recording below or listen on Spotify

Transcript:

When Pilate is questioning Jesus at his trial, he asks: What is truth? Previously Jesus had said ‘I am the truth.’ Was Jesus just being deep and mystical or is there a truth in there?

We live in confusing times, overwhelmed by conflicting news, views, and ideas. It has become increasingly difficult to know what is true and what is false: so, what is truth?

There are two types of truth: objective truth or subjective truth.

Objective truth is something that is true for everyone at all times, and in all situations no matter their personal position on it.

Pure science and math define what is objectively true by explaining how the earth is in orbit around the sun or that one plus one equals two. Some people have claimed otherwise, but whether you believe it or not, it remains true, it just is.

Subjective truths are the truths you hear when someone says ‘what is true for you isn’t necessarily true for me,’ or ‘know YOUR own truth.’ In other words, subjective truth is really just an opinion. It’s not objective truth at all.

If you say Chocolate Ice Cream is the best flavour that is a subjective truth. I can respect that Chocolate Ice Cream is the best flavour to you, but I personally think Goody Gumdrops is better – is either of us wrong? No! because it is subjectively true for each of us.

Our culture today tells us that ALL truth is subjective and there is no objective truth. But this goes against reality.

Why is truth important?
Truth is important to us as Christians because living in a world where truth is objective, we can know where we stand, we can trust what we see, because we don’t decide what is real, it just is.
And ultimately, we can connect with and trust the source of all Truth, Jesus.

I’m Michelle Englehardt from Thinking Matters; visit us at www.thinkingmatters.org.nz

In 2019, Megan Almon from the Life Training Institute in the USA was invited to New Zealand by Thinking Matters to help train New Zealand Christians in the Case for Life. Our friends at Changepoint Church in Ohauiti, Tauranga, recorded her last presentation. In this video, you’ll learn how to establish the humanity of the unborn in everyday conversation by appealing to science, and to talk about human dignity as something that is intrinsic to each person — not something based upon function. You’ll learn to connect the dots between the issue of abortion and the amazing grace and beauty of the Christian Gospel. Learn to make your case with grace and love – while also standing up to the toughest scrutiny in the public square.
Download Megan’s Notes

SHOW NOTES:
In this Easter Special, Associate Pastor of Massey Presbyterian Church, Auckland and New Zealand Christian Network writer and contributor Rev. Mark Maney discusses with host Michelle Englehardt the case for the resurrection of Jesus. The Resurrection is a key tenant of Christianity, without which, our “faith is useless” (1 Corinthians 15:14). No wonder Christ’s resurrection is attacked by skeptics and atheists so strongly.
Mark explores some of the most common objections to the ‘impossibility’ of the resurrection, and demonstrates the evidence in scripture and extra-biblical texts for His resurrection, and why we can have more certainty that this historic event actually took place.
Mark’s recommended resources:
Cold Case Christianity | J Warner Wallace – Thinking Matters | Store
The Son Rises: The Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus ­by Dr William Lane Craig
Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? By Dr William Lane Craig, Jonathan Morrow, et al.
Surprised By Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission of the Church & The Resurrection of the Son of God  by N. T. Wright
The Case for the Resurrection – Dr Gary R. Habermas & Dr Michael Licona
(PDF) Investigating the Resurrection of Jesus Christ | Andrew Ter Ern Loke – Academia.edu
About Mark Maney
Mark has had a passion for apologetics since he became a Christian 22 years ago. This is due to his belief that being like Jesus means knowing, loving, and living the truth. Engaging in the marketplace of ideas is a key part of discerning truth in our world, and apologetics is a beautiful pathway through that marketplace. Mark is also an engaging speaker, having won the 2016 Toastmasters NZ Humorous Speech Contest and 2018 Toastmasters NZ Most Entertaining Speaker. Mark did his undergrad (Religion & Theology) at Taylor University College in Edmonton, Canada and his graduate studies (Cross Cultural Studies & Apologetics) at Trinity Western University in Vancouver (Langley), Canada. He served as the minister at St. Andrew’s Presbyterian Church, Mt Maunganui, and now serves as Associate Pastor of Massey Presbyterian Church and Writer, researcher and contributor with the New Zealand Christian Network.

Return to all PodcastsWatch, Listen, and Share, on any of the platforms below:

SHOW NOTES:
In this episode we hold a discussion with Lyn Packer. Our topic is an important one: Mental Health and the Church. See below for Lyn’s bio.
First, Lyn shares about who she is and what the Lord has called her to with her husband Rob. Then Lyn honestly shares her testimony which includes her very painful childhood which led to years of mental health issues which stayed with her after becoming a Christian.
During the discussion Lyn shares some sobering statistics on mental health including in the Church and how difficult it can be to ‘fess up’ about our ongoing mental health issues within the Church.  This discussion was full of grace and wisdom.
Lyn’s blog posts on mental health can be found here:
Mental Health and the Church — Rob and Lyn Packer
Recommended books:
Any books by Dr Caroline Leaf.
Mental health and the Church by Stephen Grcevich
The Body Keeps the Score by Bessel van der Kolk
The High Five Habit and The 5-second rule by Mel Robinson have good insights into how the brain works.
Helpful websites:
Church and Mental Health: www.churchandmentalhealth.com/books/
Mental health Ministries: –  http://www.mentalhealthministries.net/resources/books.html
Focus on the Family’s website: –  https://www.focusonthefamily.com/get-help/mental-health-resources/
Mental Health Foundation NZ  –  https://mentalhealth.org.nz/
Mike Kings websites –  I am Hope  –  https://www.iamhope.org.nz
Key to Life Charitable trust –  https://keytolife.org.nz/
Christian Counsellors Association NZ –  https://www.nzcca.org.nz/
Mental Wellbeing, Anglican Movement –  https://anglicanmovement.nz/mentalwellbeing
Emergency Help:
If this conversation has triggered you please reach for help. If an emergency phone 111. Or contact one of these free 24/7 helplines:

24/7 Helpline |0800 LIFELINE (0800 54 33 54) or free text HELP (4357)
Suicide Crisis Helpline | 0508 TAUTOKO (0508 82 88 65)

LYN PACKER BIO:
Lyn’s ministry carries a very strong prophetic mantle. She ministers primarily in the prophetic and teaching, calling and enabling people to step into their destiny. Her prophetic gifting is also expressed through her art, and writing. She has written several books covering a variety of subject matter – prophecy and revelation, creativity, dance, prayer and prophetic allegories.

Return to all PodcastsWatch, Listen, and Share, on any of the platforms below:

Show notes: In this enjoyable, challenging podcast Michelle discusses the question, ‘Does Mathematics Reveal The Fingerprint of God?’ with biological mathematician Dr. Shawn Means. See below for Dr. Shawns bio.
First Shawn shares his incredible testimony and journey into mathematics and Christianity. He also discusses how eerie but predictable, useful, and logical, the world of mathematics is. He demonstrates how pure mathematics, which seems to have no practical application and is intended to push the limit of mathematical theory, often discovers practical and foundational aspects of reality. Shawn shows what ‘imaginary numbers’ are and how they work and how they and other aspects of mathematics point to a creator/designer. They also discuss the question, ‘Is mathematics something created? Or discovered?’
Books & authors mentioned or recommended:
The Dream-Quest of Unknown Kadath – HP Lovecraft (his worldview is antithetical to the Christian worldview but is consistent in revealing what would be a world born out of chaos).
All The Kings Men – Robert Penn Warren
Elementary Applied Partial Differential Equations – Richard Haberman
Other mentions:
Richard Feynman, Theoretical Physicist
Schrodinger’s equation -Quantum mechanics
The adventures of Pete & Pete – Episode 8 Season 2 “X=Why?” M.C. Escher – world famous graphic artist.
Richard Feynman, Theoretical Physicist. JS Bach – whose compositions contain mathematical structures
Caspar Wessel and his use of imaginary numbers
Dr. Shawn Means Bio: Shawn is a mathematician who uses mathematics to help biologists figure out biological problems – ranging from signals for muscles to contract, to viruses, to neurons network together. He loves to teach on diverse issues from a Christian perspective such as politics in science and how mathematics itself reflects a great mathematical creator. Shawn balances all this cerebral stuff with drumming in worship teams and his band and sharing his own variety of spicy New Mexican dishes with just about anyone willing to taste.
Thinking Matters is a donor supported organisation so if you enjoy our videos, please support us so we can make more like these. Visit https://support.thinkingmatters.org.nz – and while there check out our other resources and events.

Return to all PodcastsWatch, Listen, and Share, on any of the platforms below:

Links to things mentioned:
Thinking Matters is a donor supported organisation so if you enjoy our videos, please support us so we can make more like these. Visit https://support.thinkingmatters.org.nz – and while there check out our other resources and events.

Return to all PodcastsWatch, Listen, and Share, on any of the platforms below:

In this podcast we talk with three incredible apologists and speakers from a new ministry called Lighten Group based in the US. You will be familiar with one of our guests, Xandra Carroll who was our first guest on episode 1, season 1. Please see below for their bios.
In this fascinating discussion our guests share their personal journeys to apologetics and also how they navigated the dark times of the past few years. Lighten has been born out of what was a devastating season for many. RZIM trained many apologists to share the Gospel of Christ and it is encouraging to see so many of those people continuing in the Great Commission.
Their website will be live soon at: https://lightengroup.org/
We then turned to an enlightening discussion on the importance of apologetics in this cultural moment. And how apologetics has different iterations depending on the need. Answering the questions pastors, leaders, parents, and young people are grappling with right now.
Book Recommendations:
Xandra – Science and Christianity: Conflict or Coherence? by Henry F. Schaefer
Alycia – The Epic of Eden: A Christian Entry into the Old Testament by Sandra L. Richter
And all three of our guests share a word of encouragement to our listeners and watchers.
Guest Bios:
Xandra is a speaker and author and received a bachelor’s degree in biological science, she studied apologetics at the Oxford Centre of Christian Apologetics, and completed a Master’s degree in Conservation Biology at Victoria University here in New Zealand.
Alycia Wood grew up in the Church but always had questions that caused her to dig deeper into the Christian faith beyond the Sunday morning sermon. Alycia has a degree in Criminal Justice and Sociology, and a Master’s in Social Justice from Marygrove college, and has volunteered at orphanages, prisons, and shelters for the homeless in various countries. Prior to joining Lighten Group Alycia was involved in apologetics ministry through the Ravi Zacharias International Ministries for eight years.
And we have Lou Phillips. Lou has a bachelor of science degree, double majoring in molecular biology and political science. Lou also received his certificate of theological studies from Oxford University (Wycliffe Hall) and was trained at the Oxford Centre for Christian Apologetics.
For the past 7 years Lou has been traveling and speaking at universities, conferences, and churches entertaining peoples largest objections to Christianity. Lou is most interested in topics such as meaning, identity, and sexuality as they relate to the Christian worldview, especially in the lives of students and young adults.
Thinking Matters is a donor supported organisation so if you enjoy our videos, please support us so we can make more like these. Visit https://support.thinkingmatters.org.nz – and while there check out our other resources and events.

Return to all PodcastsWatch, Listen, and Share, on any of the platforms below:

Phoenix was born and raised in New Zealand’s North Island where she completed her B.A. at the University of Waikato and her post-graduate studies in Film & Television at the University of Auckland. Today she lives in the USA with her husband and four kids while working as the Marketing Director for CrossExamined.org where she gets to combine her love of Christian apologetics, digital communication, speaking, and teaching. Phoenix is a regular writer for CrossExamined.org and for Women in Apologetics (WIA). She is currently completing her M.A. in Christian Apologetics at Southern Evangelical Seminary.
Thinking Matters is a donor supported organisation so if you enjoy our videos, please support us so we can make more like these. Visit https://support.thinkingmatters.org.nz – and while there check out our other resources and events.

Return to all PodcastsWatch, Listen, and Share, on any of the platforms below:

Dave is a gifted leader, communicator, and author with a passion to see the Christian faith both well represented within and positively appreciated by our society. Following theological studies at the Bible College of New Zealand (now Laidlaw) Dave worked in community ministry in South Taranaki, and then as a pastor in Singapore. He returned, with his family, to New Zealand at the end of 2010 to begin this current work. He has been fearless in pioneering initiatives purposed to helping the Church in New Zealand to better represent itself and achieve its mission, with notable successes, certainly including the national Hope Project media efforts, with significant application in and through hundreds local New Zealand churches.
In this podcast Dave shares the importance of the need for hope in his own young life and how that led to faith and some of the events that happened in his life that eventually led him to ministry. He also shares about Shining Lights Trust and the Hope Project, and the importance of keeping the Christian voice and positive stories from our Christian heritage in the public square. How stories change peoples view especially when shared by people who have a sincere faith in God and all that entails.
Links to things mentioned:
Ministry: https://shininglights.co.nz/
Books authored by Dave:
In One Spirit: Releasing the hope of Christ beyond the intersections of denomination, Church, mission and culture. https://alltogether.co.nz/product/in-one-spirit/
Because we care! A practical and motivational guide to evangelism in the New World. https://alltogether.co.nz/product/because-we-care/
The Elephant in the Room: Missing links that are stopping our churches achieving their mission. A path to new hope. https://alltogether.co.nz/product/the-elephant-in-the-room/
The book Dave recommends the most: THE BIBLE
Thinking Matters is a donor supported organisation so if you enjoy our videos, please support us so we can make more like these. Visit https://support.thinkingmatters.org.nz – and while there check out our other resources and events.

Return to all PodcastsWatch, Listen, and Share, on any of the platforms below:

Kristopher is the Founding Director of Thinking Faith Ministries, and also serves as the Co-Artistic Director for the award winning production company The Unity Creative. He describes himself as ’Father of two, husband of one, servant of Jesus.’
Notes and links to things mentioned:
Kristopher shares his powerful testimony of coming to Christ and his faith journey that led to becoming an apologist and the ministries he shares with his wife Jodie. He also gives one of the most comprehensive and helpful definitions for ‘Apologetics’ we’ve heard. We also discussed apologetics and the arts and the importance of apologetics in discipleship and lot’s more!
Despite some technical difficulties this is a podcast that is well worth watching or listening to and sharing with friends and family who may struggle with belief in the Christian Faith.
Kristopher’s ministry: Welcome To Thinking Faith
Great quote: ‘The culture is using the arts as an apologetic to us, so it is only seems fair to return the favour!’ – Kristopher Bate
Scriptures mentioned: 2 Corinthians 5:17-21 & 1 Peter 3:15
Book & DVD series recommendation: The Insanity of Belief – Nik Ripken
Thinking Matters is a donor supported organisation so if you enjoy our videos, please support us so we can make more like these. Visit https://support.thinkingmatters.org.nz – and while there check out our other resources and events.

Return to all PodcastsWatch, Listen, and Share, on any of the platforms below:

Play this recording below or listen on Spotify

For those of you not familiar with the word apologetics, it is derived from the Greek word Apologia and we find it in the Scriptures, in 1 Peter 3:15: where it reads

But in your hearts honour Christ the Lord as Holy, always be ready to make a defence (an apologia) to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you;

Christianity has a rich intellectual history that we can be proud of and I encourage you as students to look back as you move forward into the future, to see the amazing works of those who have gone before especially in the area of the Arts.

Art is often a forgotten yet incredibly powerful tool for apologetics.

Christian Intellectual, Nancy Pearcey wrote: The Truth is that artists interact deeply with the thought of their day, translating worldviews into stories and images.

From the time of Christ’s resurrection artists have used their skills to succinctly portray the power of the gospel story. Art has a way of connecting the mind AND heart.

Artists also have used their skills to define the generation within which they live.

I encourage each of you who have an artistic gift to use it bravely as your apologia to influence your culture for good.

To quote Marcel Proust: ‘Through art we can know another’s view of the universe.”

As Christian artists I encourage you to share your view of the universe and the Creator who made it, with the world.

I’m Michelle Englehardt from Thinking Matters visit us at thinkingmatters.org.nz

Around A.D 165, news came to the city of Rome of a new infectious disease spreading from the east.  Infectious diseases were part of life in those days, but this one, was different.  It came with utterly gruesome symptoms, including fever, chills, nausea, vomiting and diarrhea  It snuck up on people as the symptoms typically showed up two weeks or so after it had been contracted.  Its signature characteristic was the development of horrible black pocks over the body. They formed scabs which left disfiguring scars.  It became apparent that these pocks formed inside the alimentary tract too.  Diarrhea turned from red to black as the disease lingered in the body.  Often victims would cough up or excrete scabs. Suffering would continue for two or three weeks before the illness finally subsided or killed them.  It was apparent that Rome was experiencing smallpox.

The plague came in waves for a generation, and killed possibly as many as 10% of the people of the Roman Empire. Armies were decimated and wars were called off.  It swept through all strata of society.  In the year AD 189, it was reported that about 2,000 people died per day in the crowded city of Rome.

Most of all, the disease spread fear.  People implored the gods to save them.  The masses of people who were not aristocrats received no help to ease their suffering.  Thousands were left abandoned on the streets and in the fields to suffer and die. No-one wanted to go near them. Even their own families, if there were any of them left, abandoned them.  Apparently, the gods had seen fit to torture them to death.

What did Christians do in this situation?   We presume some who named the name of Jesus just melded into the milieu of the population.  But there are records of others who had a significant impression on the whole empire!

In the middle of all this horror there were a few people out in the streets caring for the sick, feeding them, washing them and when necessary burying them.  Somebody cared!  In the mid 3^rd century, when the plague hit again, groups of these people cared again.  These people were risking their own lives to care for those struck down with the plague.  They carried the rejection of others because they cared for ‘the living dead’.  Who were these people?

These risk takers were known to meet in their houses.  They were apparently not religious in the overt sense.  They were not into routines of rituals and rules to please the gods.  Some called them atheists – meaning ‘without gods’.  They were despised by many, especially the aristocrats because they would not bow in worship to them or to the Caesar.  They were not weak-willed, as they were prepared to take a course of action that would incur the wrath of the state.  In an age when education was only for the elite, they educated their own children to think differently.  They cared for the sick and vulnerable.  It appeared that they lived according to a radically different world view.  Their ideas about what is real, about what is right and wrong, about what is valuable, about caring for others were strangely different!

It appeared that they lived according to a radically different world view.  Their ideas about what is real, about what is right and wrong, about what is valuable, about caring for others were strangely different!

Many people were intrigued and sought to find out why they were different.

Why was their attitude and practice so different?

They discerned the times and knew what to do.

As Christians they would have sought God as to how they could seize the day – redeem the time (Eph 5:15).

If there were Jews in their community, they would have had access to the Jewish scriptures, to the law of Moses, the law code that the ancient people of Israel were to live by.  They would have gleaned from that God’s heart for his people. They would have understood that God wanted his people to not suffer the diseases of the world.  As God said when Israel were to receive  the Law:  ‘If you diligently listen to the voice of the Lord……I will put none of these diseases which I have brought upon the Egyptians, for I am the Lord that heals you.’ (Exodus 15:26).

And they would have been made aware of  Leviticus 13 -15, the chapters dealing with what to do about infections.  Remember these instructions were given thousands of years before there was an understanding of what we call microbiology.  The passage begins with The Lord said to Moses and Aaron.  Moses and Aaron did not have much if any understanding of how infectious diseases were transmitted. They were merely the messengers. The people of Israel did not know the scientific laws of God to live by, but they had God’s special revelation to them, the Law of Moses to heed and obey.  And so all their actions were to be done in the context of their obedient relationship to God.

So what were they to do about infections? Here is a summary:

• They were to be observant. They were to look out for swellings, rashes, spots, sores and discharges.
• They were to take themselves to the professionals (The priests in Israel were the health professionals) to be tested, to be diagnosed.
• Before diagnosis, the symptomatic person was to be regarded as infectious (unclean).
• If the diagnosis was positive they were to be isolated for seven days and then to be retested.
• If they were found to be disease free they were declared clean.
• Any points of contact such as clothing and skin of the infected person were to be washed thoroughly, before they could be declared clean again.
• An infected person was to make it very clear that they were ‘unclean’ and were to practice isolation and ‘social distancing.’
• After being declared clean again, they were to make a special offering in the tabernacle or temple. (This was effectively paying the priest (the doctor) for his services.)
• Regular washing, especially before meals was to be practised by all.

I cannot but be in awe of God’s instructions to the ancient Israelites, as they are so similar to the instructions we are given in the light of modern medical science!

These early Christians would have listened to and read the instructions of the apostle Paul about what to do about the laws of civil authorities.  Passages such as Romans 13 told them that they should obey the authorities as they are Gods servants to us for our good.

And they would be totally familiar with the teachings of Jesus to, above all else, love God and love others.  “..by this shall all people know that you are my disciples.”  This boldly addresses the motivation behind their action.

The gist of the moral instructions in the whole of the Bible and particularly in the New Testament was their motivation to outwork their love for God and others with practical action.  Their love for others moved them to  care for the poor, the vulnerable, the sick.  They knew that inevitably their love would result in some of them dying with the disease.   But their love was seen and so drew many to know Christ.

So what should we do in the context of the current pandemic?

We have the added dynamic of governments attempting to protect the vulnerable by legislation.  Christians have reacted to this in a variety of ways.  Some have declared that these responses are unnecessary dictatorial actions of power hungry governments and international organisations.  While many others have rejoiced in the fact that governments have put into place action which reflect the value that we should have of the lives of the vulnerable. Lives do matter more than the temporary health of the economy.

What does the Bible have to say about how to live in situations like this?

Some who have the former of the two reactions above tend to immediately go to the book of Revelation and begin to think in terms of the beast and the antichrist.  Maybe?  If this is relevant to the current situation then the instruction of what we do is clear.

This calls for patient endurance on the part of the people of God who keep His commands and remain faithful to Jesus. (Rev 14:12)   

In summary, as Christians, this is what we should do:

Do not fear!  – whether that be fear of the disease or fear of the government’s action.

Do not be a fear monger!

Do not dwell on the negative!  Think on (make your thought life feed on) that which is good. Phil 4:8

Do not judge others who have a different response to you!

Here is a paraphrase of Romans 14 adapted to this issue:

Accept those who struggle with their faith without quarrelling over disputable matters. One person’s belief allows them to be vaccinated, but another who struggles with this does not.  The one who has no problems with it should not look down on the other, and the one who does not must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted us all.  Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To their own master – for us that’s the Lord – servants stand or fall. And they will stand, for the Lord is able to make them stand.  Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind. Whatever they do they do so to the Lord. For none of us lives for ourselves alone. We all belong to Him. Its between us and him.

Heed the truth.  Discern and listen to voices that are telling the truth!

Follow the wisdom of those who know the truth, especially when it lines up with the practical wisdom of the word of God.

Be very careful then how you live – not as unwise but as wise (informed by the truth, and knowing what to do) making the most of every opportunity, because the days are evil. (Ephesians 5:15,16)

Don’t disobey the law unless it is forcing you to disobey the clear instructions of the Lord.

Seek to bring glory to the name of Jesus.

Love God and love others.

Seek God as to what He wants you specifically to do.

Seek out those who are doing it tough in the current context.  Encourage them. Be positively proactive!  Pray for them. Practically help them.

In doing so some will be attracted to the One who motivates you to love them.

Children from families who have immigrated are often said to be caught between two cultures. They belong to their parents’ culture but grow up within another. It can be a tricky tension for them to navigate as they often wish to be faithful to their ‘home culture’ as well as fit in with their adopted culture at school and with their friends.

Children from Christian families growing up in New Zealand could likewise be called “two culture” kids, because they face a similar tension. In one way or another, they ‘belong’ to the Christian faith as a culture inherited from their family. But they are also members of their wider societal culture which at points pressures them to compromise their inherited Christian culture. While not all children from Christian families maintain their family’s faith, the need to navigate the tensions between their two cultures remains.

John Stonestreet and Brett Kunkle’s A Practical Guide to Culture: Helping the Next Generation Navigate Today’s World is exactly what it says on the cover (even if it explicitly identifies neither the “next generation” or “today’s world”). It is not so much a book for young Christians themselves to read, although it would certainly be helpful for them. Rather, it is for parents, caregivers, mentors, and youth workers who wish to see the young people under their charge make their way through a changing society with their increasingly alien faith intact. Most encouragingly, it is, as the title states, practical. It is no book of intellectual theorisation. Stonestreet and Kunkle write for people at the coalface of raising and guiding youngsters – but leave ample sources for further reading to those who want it. It is written within and for North American culture, but it serves well enough for other western cultures too.

The book achieves its purpose via four parts.

The first part of the book is the most theoretical. It gives its readers the reference points for what follows by describing what culture is and what it is not. The authors suggest we must consider culture within the context of the Christian faith, and not vice-versa, as well as clarify what success in Christian living will look like in our particular time and place. To do this, we must also understand Christian faith well. For this reason the authors take the time to lay out the main contours of the grand narrative of the Bible, as well as raise the question of what is our place and purpose within it. It is not enough to know what isn’t right with our culture – to be helpful guides we do need to understand not only where we are, but also where we have come from, where we are going, and how we will get there. That is the purpose of part one.

This first section is worth taking some time to read as it will help to understand the theory that lies beneath the practical stuff. It is important for understanding what is driving cultural issues at a deep level – perhaps akin to diagnosing the cause of an illness rather than merely band-aiding the symptoms. One thing that is useful is the breakdown of a culture into its constituent parts and functions: ideas, consequences, champions, artefacts, and institutions. These are helpful to remember as specific issues are raised later in the book.

Part two identifies four elements of our culture that shape it at a deep level. These are things that tend not to be noticed and tend to be causes rather than symptoms. These are not the only four drivers operating beneath the surface level, but they have been selected as they have a higher relevance for young people. These are: 1) the torrent of information presented to people daily, 2) the lack of societal agreement over what it means to be human and what life and community is for, 3) the impact of social media upon community and relationships, and 4) the problems caused by prolonged adolescence and the reluctance or inability to transition properly into adulthood.

The third part of the book is titled “Pounding Cultural Waves”. Announcing that it is now “time to get really practical”, the authors “tackle eight contemporary cultural challenges that are pounding away at our young people” (p. 153). The eight challenges are as follows: pornography, casual physical intimacy, sexual orientation, gender identity, affluence and consumerism, addiction, entertainment, and racial tension.

Each chapter within this section follows a set pattern. First, an overview of the issue and some relevant statistics are given. Following this is a section titled “Don’t Buy the Cultural Lies”, where false ideas are uncovered – for example, the idea that pornography is a harmless expression of sexuality, or that what we own defines who we are. The third sections are titled “Recapture the wonder of God’s story”, which aim to provide a positive affirmation of biblical truth – for example the peace and satisfaction in God that should allay our desire to own more and more stuff; or the depiction of what it means to be human according to God’s design, together with the solution when things when human existence fails to live up to how God first made it. After this some “Action Steps” are provided which give some practical and concrete suggestions for parents and mentors. The fourth major subsection to each of these chapters is called “Hopecasting”, where the authors point to signs for hope in the present which demonstrates instances of real turnarounds where we can see that God is at work and things are changing for the better. One example I particularly liked was about a group of university students who organised a ‘Real Sex Week’ event at their campus as an alternative to the ‘Sex Week’ organised by another student group. Rather than focussing on crude and casual sex, they provided talks on beneficial sex education. Each of these chapters concludes with a very short list of resources for further exploration and suggested questions to facilitate discussion.

The four short chapters of the fourth and final section is called “Christian Worldview Essentials.” These are a selection of topics that cap off the book by addressing some Christian formation issues the authors felt needed special treatment. These are: 1. Understanding God and reading the Bible well; 2. Why to trust the Bible; 3. Living and proclaiming Christ in a religiously plural culture; and 4. Engaging positively with our culture. Each of these presents the topic in an accessible way that assists parents and mentors to help young people live faithful Christian lives in our present context.

The fourth of these chapters (on positively engaging our culture) explores four questions worth recounting here: What good can we celebrate, protect, promote, and preserve? What is missing that we can contribute? What evil can we stop? What brokenness can we restore? The ideal the authors strive for – and which Christian parents ought share – is for young people not simply to survive adolescence with their faith intact, but to make a difference with it.

Thumbing through this book as I write this, I feel that what I have written doesn’t really do justice to the helpfulness of this book. It is simple to read (as its authors intended it) but carries a lot more deep insights than could appropriately be crammed into a post like this. There were many quotes and thoughts I had marked that would have been great to have shared, but these I will have to invite the reader to find for themselves. This book deserves more than a swift read through. Although it is an easy read that could be completed quite quickly, the real payoff will come with thoughtful reading, discussion, and follow-up of the sources for further reading (some of which are available online). I leave the reader with my commendation of A Practical Guide to Culture and invite them to see for themselves its usefulness for Helping the Next Generation Navigate Today’s World.

This books is available in our store: A Practical Guide to Culture: Helping the Next Generation Navigate Today’s World 

Part one explained that the message of the first chapter of the Bible is possibly the most influential text the world has known –  it introduces a worldview that has significantly shaped the modern world we know.  It explained how Genesis 1 is all about a radically new idea, God and His acts of creation.  It is about the creator, not the details of his creation.  It is not about the physical process but about the processor, God Himself.  It is about how He did it, about His creative word.  It is about why things are, His purposes, not the details of what is. And we showed how that without it there would be no modern science and technology.

Part two goes on to explain that without an understanding of the message of Genesis 1 there would be little if any understanding of the prior value of human life, no consciousness of environmental and social responsibility, and no international cooperation for the common good. Human life would be much like living in a hostile jungle.

Continuing from part one’s unpacking of the key ideas in Genesis 1 about the creation of the cosmos, we now begin to see where humanity fits into this story.

A repeated phrase in the text is

And God saw that it was good

This was saying that the various parts of creation had value.  This value was not because of their use to us humans who were yet to be mentioned in the story.  This value was intrinsic value.  God values His creation.

After the story of creating everything including humans, it reads:

God saw everything He had made and indeed it was very good

This implied that the whole of creation, including humans, working together in the harmony of its designed order is extremely valuable. Herein lies the ‘why’ underpinning ecology and environmental science.  People who believe Genesis 1 have good reason to be environmentalists.

Introducing humans into the story it reads:

Let Us make man in Our Image

Prior to this God said, “let there be”, but in making humans He said, “let Us make man in Our image”.  The plurality of His being, as expressed in the name Elohim, is highlighted.  The ultimate unity in diversity was to be reflected in humanity.  Herein lies the ‘why’ underpinning the value of human diversity.  People who believe Genesis 1 have good reason to relish in and enjoy the flourishing of cultural diversity.

The “image and likeness” of God has multiple layers of meaning.  Amongst these are the characteristics of God He has already revealed in the previous verses of the story, such as:

God is eternal, so we are created to live eternally.

God is a fellowship, so humans are to live in fellowship.

God is a creator-worker so we are created to creatively work like Him.

God speaks His Word so humans are able to communicate information and ideas – with words. And, as God’s words were the means of His creativity, human’s expressed ideas are the foundation of our creativity.

God is intelligent so we are able to “think God’s thoughts after Him”.

God is the law-giver (see part 1) and so controls the whole of creation, so we are created to rule over or manage the earth with Him.

God values all that He created.  He cares for it all. And so we are to value as He values, to love as He loves.

The text continues:

And God blessed them

God has a purpose for humanity. He extended the grace of life and the ability to reproduce to them.

God said.. .fill the earth and subdue it..…have dominion over .. living things.

God had this purpose for humanity.  It was to manage the earth.  This included the development of the resources of the earth.  God had a planned relationship of humans to living things, to value and care for His creation.  It was not to exploit and destroy but to manage the living world.

It is currently popular in some circles to accuse the Bible of inspiring the exploitation of the environment, referring to this verse.  The issue is not the taking dominion of the living things, but how that is done.  Do we ‘do our own thing’ or first listen to the voice of God in creation – listen to and obey the science?  In our time, modern environmental scientists have embraced this charge to manage the welfare of living things, not to exploit and destroy but, as good stewards, to be responsible for their flourishing.  Many don’t appreciate that this moral obligation, this burden of responsibility, comes from God’s Word.

It was this impulse in humanity to understand and manage which led to the necessary scientific investigation which is discussed in Part 1.

Imago Dei

The implications of our creation in the ‘image and likeness’ of God can be summarized in three groups of responsibilities:

Relational likeness: We are created with the purpose and ability to relate to God and to love what God loves – to love others in a meaningful way.

Character likeness: We are created with the purpose of reflecting the holiness of God.  We have moral responsibility.

Functional likeness: We are created with the responsibility to represent God in our work of earth-management.

How this aspect of Genesis 1 works out in human society and activity:

The Value of human life

Because Christians believe we are specially made in the image of God, societies with a Biblical Christian tradition put the highest value on human life.  The original humanism in the western world arose at the time of the reformation.  It was Christian humanism, Christians valuing of human life and having the flourishing of all humans as a priority.

As a result, Christians are at the forefront of protecting human life – of all human life – the poor and vulnerable, the members of minority groups, the unborn and the old and infirm.

The Value of Human Community

It flows automatically that if we are created to relate to God and to each other we will value human communities.  Out of reverence to God we will, in turn, honour one another and work together to achieve our God-given purposes.

The Value of human diversity

Because Christians believe we are made in the image of God, who is the ultimate diversity in perfect unity, we have an understanding that humans are diverse for a purpose – to express the amazing diverse glory of God.  The move to eliminate the tribalism and racism that has plagued humanity for all of known history began with Christians who were convinced that all humans were equally made in the image of God.  It was Christians believing Genesis 1 who defied the prevailing mindset of tribal (and international) warfare and developed the idea of international cooperation for the flourishing of all humanity.

The Value of the will of others

Because others are made in the image of God with moral responsibility, with the God-given will to choose to fulfil God’s plan for them, Christians will respect the will of others.  Leaders will value the ideas of their team members and give them the freedom to outwork their calling with God given imagination, intelligence and creativity.  This is the value underpinning the practice of ‘democracy’, shifting the power from the king/leader to the people. Teachers and mentors will give the students under their guidance the freedom to make choices in the light of the wisdom they are imparting to them, and thus practice moral responsibility.

The Value of non-human life

Genesis 1 declares that God highly values His creation working together in harmony.  This in particular involves humans who have, according to Genesis 1, a responsibility to care for the living things on Earth.  The ‘soul’ of the environmental movement arose from Genesis 1.

In summary

Genesis 1 is all about a radically new idea, God and His acts of creation.  It is about the creator, not the details of his creation.  It is not about the physical process but about the processor, God Himself.  It is about how He did it, about His creative word.  It is about why things are, His purposes, not the details of what is.  It is about His purpose and His highly valuing and blessing His creation.  It is about His love for us.  It is about God commissioning us humans to fulfill His purpose for us.

The ideas of Genesis 1 are the foundational ideas which spawned modern science and technology, that gave rise to the values which undergird democracy, drive international cooperation, humanitarianism and endeavours to increase human flourishing.

This is why Genesis 1 is one of the most powerful writings in the whole history of humanity.

It was morning, and a silver fog was melting away on the bay below. A fresh, brisk Wellington wind galloped over the mountainside. I was crouched down on the soil with my cohort of volunteers. As we continued planting seedlings, our hearts filled with hope for the degraded forest around us. I paused often to drink in the lovely New Zealand landscape. My teammate noticed and struck up a conversation.

“It’s amazing,” he said, “isn’t it?”

I smiled. “It really is. I’ll never get tired of this.”

“And isn’t it amazing to think this is all here by accident?” he continued.

We went on working in silence, but that short exchange struck a chord deep in my mind. The conversation we had that morning was a seed, and only now has a fuller understanding germinated. Only after years of pondering the philosophical implications of environmentalism am I now able to share some preliminary thoughts about why his question bothered me so deeply…

Isn’t it amazing to think this is all here by accident?

…Yes, it is amazing to think this is all here by accident, amazing and terrible, because it removes the very reasons we have for protecting a forest in the first place. Evolutionary naturalism challenges humanity’s role as environmental steward by removing our responsibility in three key ways. First, evolutionary naturalism evokes ‘survival of the fittest’ whereby the strong persist and the weak die off. Yet environmental stewardship seeks to protect and value the weak. Second, evolutionary naturalism operates through natural selection whereby random changes shape the world. Yet environmental stewardship necessitates deliberate management. Third, evolutionary naturalism presents the human race as merely one of many animal species. Yet, for environmental stewardship to be logical, we must concede that humans are distinct from other organisms. This article seeks to demonstrate how the Christian worldview presents a coherent case for environmental stewardship whereas evolutionary naturalism undermines it.

In the ensuing discussion, ‘naturalism’ refers to the philosophical view that reality is exhausted by nature and contains nothing supernatural; therefore, this view assumes scientism meaning the scientific method should be employed to examine all facets of reality.[1] ‘Evolution’ refers to the process by which all existing life has been developed from earlier forms through the unguided process of natural selection.[2] Thus it should be noted for the sake of this paper that naturalism is a philosophical view of reality while evolution refers to the physical process producing that reality.

SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST

‘Survival of the fittest’ refers to the survival of organisms best adapted to their environment.[3] In this view, the strong persist while the weak perish. Michael Soulé, one of the forefathers of conservation biology, explains why extinction is considered good through the lens of survival of the fittest; Soulé writes, “Extinction is…good because it is part of the process of replacing less well-adapted gene pools with better adapted ones.”[4] As a conservation biologist I am forced to ask: Why does my entire field go directly against the principle of extinction? In the natural order, the weak die off while the strong survive. Yet in conservation biology, the weak are targeted for protection and assisted at great lengths. In fact, New Zealand’s department of conservation spends millions of dollars each year on conservation projects to protect vulnerable species. The money spent on conservation initiatives increase each year, with the 2018 budget providing a $182 million increase.[5] In many countries, millions of government dollars are mingling with the blood sweat and tears of conservationists, all poured out in an effort to counteract extinction. If survival of the fittest is the natural order of things, why are we working against it by protecting the vulnerable?

In many countries, millions of government dollars are mingling with the blood sweat and tears of conservationists, all poured out in an effort to counteract extinction. If survival of the fittest is the natural order of things, why are we working against it by protecting the vulnerable?

According to the Christian understanding, all of creation, even the weak, has intrinsic value because all of it is valued by God. For instance, God calls His creation ‘good’ before humans are ever on the scene. He makes His value judgment about the natural world before we do (Genesis 1v31). This means that God is the source of creation’s value; each element of God’s creation gets its objective value from Him and not from humanity. Many passages describe the intrinsic value of creation outside the context of human life (Psalm 104). This Christian view of nature’s intrinsic value stands in stark contrast to naturalistic thinkers like Soulé who writes, “The mechanisms by which such value judgments arise in consciousness are unknown…We could speculate about the subconscious roots of the norm, ‘diversity is good.’ In general, humans enjoy variety. We can never know with certainty whether this is based on avoiding tedium and boredom or something else, but it may be as close to a universal norm as we can come…Perhaps there is a genetic basis in humans for the appeal of biotic diversity.”[6] From a naturalistic perspective, there is simply no basis for protecting the weak. In fact, we can’t even be sure where any of our value judgments come from; they are entirely arbitrary. Yet in the Christian view, our desires and perspectives are gradually conformed to see the world in the way God sees it. Thus, our value judgments become His value judgments as we grow in spiritual maturity. We are made in the image of a God who protects and defends the weak, epitomized by Christ Himself becoming the weakest of all in order to rescue humanity from spiritual extinction.[7]

…in the Christian view, our desires and perspectives are gradually conformed to see the world in the way God sees it.

NATURAL SELECTION

If survival of the fittest is the outcome, natural selection is the process leading to that outcome. Natural selection is the process by which certain genetic types are preserved within populations, subspecies, or species.[8] This process is the hand that picks a card at random from the fanned deck of gene pools spread out before it. Natural selection is understood to be the deterministic force while random genetic drift is the stochastic element.[9]

It is interesting, then, that those who love nature do not ‘let nature take its course’. Rather, hundreds of organizations have taken ownership of lands in order to manage them. This deliberate gaining of control can sometimes be unsettling to environmentalists, but it is regarded as necessary, if not a bit unnatural. Higgs puts it bluntly in his work Nature by Design: “As restorationists we are involved in the design of ecosystems and places whether we like it or not”[10]. Similarly, ecologist Bill Jordan writes: “Restoration is shameful because it involves…a measure of hegemony over the land; because it dramatizes not only our troubling dependence on the natural landscape, but—equally troubling—its dependence on us.”[11]

From a naturalistic point of view, environmentalism can certainly be seen as ‘hegemony’. Yet naturalism cannot answer the question of whether or not nature belongs to us. If it does, where did we get the authority to manage it? Again, the Christian perspective offers clarity where evolutionary naturalism offers only confusion and contradiction.

In the Christian paradigm, creation belongs to God and is His property. Psalm 24v1 states that the earth and everything in it is God’s possession. Similarly, Deuteronomy 10v14 explains that the whole universe is owned by God, not by us. He is the supreme landlord, we are the tenants. Yet our Creator did not hoard His treasures for Himself, but made us keepers of His world. This theme is repeated many times throughout the Old Testament. Genesis 2v15 reads: “The LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it.” (emphasis mine) In his seminal work Reconciliation Ecology, Michael Rosenzweig comments, “God said ‘Of all that lives, of all flesh, take two of each to keep alive with you.’ This is the commandment of reconciliation… ‘Keep alive’ is a perfect translation of the original Hebrew. The Hebrew uses a Semitic construction called causative. Hence, ‘keep alive’ means that we are required to actively cause all those species to stay alive.”[12]   Humans have an innate desire to actively manage nature. We come by that desire honestly, though many of us have forgotten it, or we’ve burned it from our psyche by the blue light of technology and sparkling flame of industry.

Yet our Creator did not hoard His treasures for Himself, but made us keepers of His world.

To fully understand our capacity for environmentalism, we must understand our role as keepers of nature. Picturing humanity in this way has huge ethical implications because it means we are accountable to God for how we treat His possession—His natural world. The Cape Town Commitment describes proper management of the natural world as “the logical outworking of our love for God by caring for what belongs to Him.”[13] Active management is essential to environmentalism, yet from the viewpoint of evolutionary naturalism it can be nothing more than a form of hegemony which counteracts a naturally stochastic process.

HUMANITY AS ONTOLOGICALLY ANIMALISTIC

According to evolutionary naturalism, humans are an advanced species of primate and nothing more. If we apply the precepts of natural selection, we may deduce that our species has been naturally selected for. We are what Darwin would have called the “favourable variation” that is preserved.[14]  If we then apply an understanding of survival of the fittest, we will see that our species is naturally pushing other species out of the biosphere due to its own success. From a purely naturalistic evolutionary perspective, there is nothing lamentable about this. If the rise and fall of species is a game of Go, the highly adapted Homo sapiens sapiens is winning due to our naturally acquired propensity to drive other species to extinction. If this ‘favourable trait’ has been naturally selected for, there is no rational reason to stop driving other species to extinction. Similarly, if we are nothing more than a product of genetics, behaviors such as polluting ecosystems, overuse of resources, and animal abuse can all be seen as naturally derived. Should we, for instance, feel guilty about making landfills that are visible from space?[15] Should we feel culpable for introducing invasive species into other areas of the earth? Or were these behavioral traits genetically selected for through evolutionary naturalism? Emma Marris investigates this question in her book Rambunctious Garden. Marris asks, “What happens to the concept of ‘invasive species’ if you fold humanity back into nature and consider us just another way species move around, along with migration and ocean currents?  Presto change-o, it disappears.”[16] To ask a more pointed question: are humans or are humans not part of nature?

“What happens to the concept of ‘invasive species’ if you fold humanity back into nature and consider us just another way species move around, along with migration and ocean currents?  Presto change-o, it disappears.” – Emma Harris

Theologian Christopher Wright argues that we fit both categories. Christianity paints humanity as above nature since God’s creation was given to us in a different way than the other animals. We were crowned with glory and honor, and all things were put under our feet.[17] Yet we are, in a sense, creatures among the creatures. We were told to be blessed and multiply, but so were the animals, and long before humanity entered the picture.[18] Additionally, humans were created on the sixth day, but we didn’t get that whole day to ourselves. We were created “along with and after the creepy crawlies” as Wright says.[19] We were created from the dust of the ground, given breath of life, provided with food, as were the animals. This hardly marks us out as superior. Nor is it demeaning to our ontology. Rather, our paradoxical part-of-yet-other celebrates the capacity of God who brought the whole biosphere into creation.

To retain humanity’s role of responsible stewardship, humankind must be more than a random selection of traits that includes the propensity to drive other species to extinction. Evolutionary naturalism undermines humankind’s responsibility by presenting a paradigm where humans and their behaviors are merely a product of genetic drift, natural selection, mutation, recombination, and migration.[20]

To retain humanity’s role of responsible stewardship, humankind must be more than a random selection of traits that includes the propensity to drive other species to extinction.

CONCLUSION

Environmental stewardship is essential to protecting and restoring the natural world. Humanity’s innate desire to protect the vulnerable and manage environments, as well as our sense of culpability when we fail to do so, must not be diminished. Yet evolutionary naturalism, if followed to its logical conclusion, undermines environmental stewardship. Survival of the fittest removes humanity’s reason for protecting the vulnerable. The stochastic outworking of natural selection contradicts deliberate ecosystem management. The argument that we and our behaviors are simply a product of evolutionary forces removes our culpability for mistreatment of the earth. As Ken Boa puts it, “Pure naturalism corrodes by the acids of its own assumptions.”[21] As a philosophy, naturalism simply doesn’t work because it destroys its own modus operandi, making the very practice of naturalism unnatural. When applied to environmentalism, evolutionary naturalism undermines it completely.

For environmental stewardship to be logically coherent, we must have a basis for our duty. Where does our sense of obligation come from? To truly be culpable, our responsibility must have been granted to us from an external source, from an entity superior to ourselves. No one receives their duty from a subordinate. Nor does one receive duty at random. It is delegated by a higher person. Philosopher Richard Taylor explains, “A duty is something that is owed…But something can be owed only to some person or persons.  There can be no such thing as duty in isolation…Duties and obligations always arise from relationships between persons.”[22] The practice of environmental stewardship stems from the duty we were charged with. Yet evolutionary naturalism removes not only our basis for that obligation, but also the Person who has given us that duty.

Today as I stand on the mountainside and survey a forest taking root, I am still overwhelmed by beauty. But I’m also overwhelmed by the voices of conflict, and by the questions this conflict raises to the surface. Why are Christians forsaking their solemn duty to protect the earth? Why are so many in Christendom trying to drown out the voices of environmentalists? Why do so many conservationists still claim that evolutionary naturalism is the only option, especially when the Christian worldview is the strongest basis for environmental stewardship? There is an empty chair at the table of environmentalism. Christianity has much to bring to the dialogue, and it is to everyone’s loss that it has not yet taken its seat.

Footnotes

[1] Zalta, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

[2] Hammond, Dictionary of Science page 206

[3] Ibid page 643

[4] Soule, What is Conservation Biology? page 730

[5] https://www.doc.govt.nz/news/budget-2018/docs-budget-2018-explained/

[6] Soule page 730

[7] 2 Corinthians 5v21

[8] Hammond page 427

[9] Sober, The Nature of Selection

[10] Higgs, Nature by design: people, natural process, and ecological restoration

[11] Jordan, The sunflower forest: Ecological restoration and the new communion with nature, page 50

[12] Rosenzweig, Win-win ecology: How the earth’s species can survive in the midst of human enterprise, page 41

[13] Dowsett, The Cape Town Commitment, page 28

[14] “This preservation of favourable variations and the rejection of injurious variations, I call Natural Selection” Darwin, Origin of Species

[15] Humes, Garbology: Our dirty love affair with trash, page 288

[16] Marris, Rambunctious Garden: Saving nature in a post-wild world, pages 107-108

[17] Psalm 8

[18] Genesis 1v28

[19] Wright, Goodness, Glory, and Goal of Creation)

[20] Walsh, The Trials of Life: Natural Selection and Random Drift, page 453

[21] Boa, Conformed to His Image page 3

[22] Taylor, Virtue Ethics: An introduction page 75

Works Cited

Barnhart, H., & Barnhart, H. (1986). Dictionary of Science / Hammond Barnhart. New Jersey:

Hammond.

Boa, K. (2020). Conformed to His image: Biblical, practical approaches to spiritual formation.

Darwin, C. (2019). On the origin of species by means of natural selection.

Dowsett, R. (2012). The Cape Town commitment. Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson Publishers.

Higgs, E. (2003). Nature by design: People, natural process, and ecological restoration.

Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

Humes, E. (2013). Garbology: Our dirty love affair with trash. New York, NY: Avery.

Jordan, W. R. (2012). The sunflower forest: Ecological restoration and the new communion with

nature. Berkeley, Calif: University of California Press.

Marris, E. (2013). Rambunctious garden: Saving nature in a post-wild world.

Rosenzweig, M. L. (2003). Win-win ecology: How the earth’s species can survive in the midst of

human enterprise. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Sober, Elliott (1984), The Nature of Selection. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press

Soule, M. E. (January 01, 1985). What is conservation biology?. In, Bioscience. — Vol. 35, No. 11

(dec. 1985).

Taylor, R. (2002). Virtue ethics: An introduction. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.

Walsh, D. M., Lewens, T., & Ariew, A. (September 01, 2002). The Trials of Life: Natural Selection

and Random Drift*. Philosophy of Science, 69, 3, 429-446.

Wright, C. (October 2020) Goodness, Glory, and Goal of Creation, presented at the Carl F.H.

Henry Center

Zalta, E. N. (2004). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Introduction

In the first part of this three-part article series we looked at what ‘Scientism’ as a worldview entails. In summary it says that all of reality is physical or material, nothing exists other than matter and energy in space and time. Scientism then goes on to say that the only way we can know that reality is through science. There is no other knowledge than scientific knowledge.

In the second part of the series we looked at the first two approaches to refute Scientism. In this third and final article in the series, we will identify non-physical/ immaterial realities that we know exist, but which are not able to be known through science. If we can identify just one such thing, just one entity, then scientism is refuted. Just one will do, but in fact there are many.

Refuting Scientism: Non-Physical/Material Realities

Moral Principles & Obligation: In the worldview of scientism, moral principles are not objectively real, in the sense that they exist externally to the human mind and are knowable. Moral principles are merely human constructs. So in reality, good and evil; right and wrong, can change over time, they are subjectively decided by society. Therefore, there is no real obligation on an individual to follow them. There is no real shouldness or oughtness. Largely according to the view of scientism, the majority, persuasion, or power, decides what is right or wrong. Might makes right! Interestingly, this even undermines the application of values in science, for example, the need to accurately report results and not cheat. But scientism has no real evidence to support its claim that ‘might makes right!’. How could it, since scientism denies the reality of such immaterial realities and is not the appropriate method through which to know them. Remember, you don’t use a weighing scale to measure how tall you are. Christianity explains moral principles as an immaterial objective reality grounded in the character of God and revealed in His Word. The obligation to follow them comes from the fact that God is our creator. The same applies to human virtues such as courage, honesty and compassion. This explanation is more powerful and plausible than the alternative offered by scientism.

Objective Aesthetic Beauty: True objective beauty in the natural world, the wonder of the Grand Canyon, or the splendour of a peacock’s feathers, are not real with scientism, they are just subjective, chemically induced reactions. Similarly, music: dance: the arts: so essential to being human in all societies, are not objects of true beauty. Scientism again reduces our experiences to physical, mechanistic, reductionist explanations, that seem at odds with our most basic human intuitions. Similarly love, the most powerful force known to humanity, is reduced to mindless chemicals in our brain! But the claims of scientism here, are just that—claims, mere assertions—there is no real evidence presented to support them. This just seems so intuitively wrong, and perhaps our intuitions are correct.

The Human Soul, Freewill and Self Identity: The existence of an essence to each human being, a soul, is simply denied with scientism. There is no soul, mind or consciousness, there is just a physical brain. But, again, these claims are not supported by science in the traditional sense of the word. In fact, there is much positive evidence for a soul.

First, there is our basic intuition that we are more than our body, more than our brain, common to all humanity. Second, there are philosophical arguments based on the law of identity that show that the immaterial mind is different to the physical brain, in that they are not identical in their substance and properties. Third, there are numerous strong credible reports of near death and out-of-body experiences, pointing to an immaterial reality at the core of all of us.

Related to this question of the soul/mind, scientism claims there is no real human freewill, no real volitional choice, all that is really happening is endless physical cause and effect in the brain. Scientism inevitably entails a deterministic view of human life. This determinism, combined with the implication that there are no real moral principles, means that according to  scientism no one should be held accountable for crimes, since crime is just a societal construct in the first place; and secondly, since free will is an illusion, that they didn’t really make any moral choice. Further to all this, the idea of self, an ongoing unique personal identity, makes no sense under scientism. If we are just physical atoms which are replaced over time, then we are a completely different person in the future than we were in  the past, as all the atoms of the human body are replaced. Within the view of  scientism, the self has to be reduced to ideas such our narrative, our abilities, our accomplishments. But these things  are all transient, so if we lose our memory, lose our abilities, who are ‘we’? Who am ‘I’? There is no ‘me’ or ‘I’ at the core of scientism. But scientism has no evidence to support such a radical claim, it is a claim based on the assumption that there can be no other non-physical, immaterial answer. The issues of human personhood, abortion, and euthanasia are replete with views stemming from this baseless scientism.

Our Thoughts, Feelings, Desires and Memories: Our private thoughts, feelings, desires, and memories are not accessible by science, they are non-physical realities. Brain waves and maps may correlate with certain emotions and thoughts, but they will not tell us what they are, since they are non-physical and not publicly accessible by science. Memory knowledge is interesting in this case, since much of what we know is memory, but our memories are not testable by the classic scientific method. Therefore, scientism reduces a huge body of our personal knowledge to non-knowledge! It would deny its reality, yet that reality is fundamental to us.

The Existence of Evil and Suffering: This may seem an odd reality to include in this list. But while moral goodness, discussed above, is a non-physical objective reality that undermines the worldview of scientism, the existence of evil and suffering similarly does so, but perhaps even more powerfully. If scientism is accepted, then evil and suffering are not real in an objective sense, they are just things we subjectively don’t like! However, believers in scientism will often argue that the existence of evil and suffering disproves God. How could an all good, all powerful, all knowing God allow evil and suffering? They will often rightly be passionate about injustice, suffering and evil in the world, especially those that have been propagated in the name of religion. While there is not space here to outline good reasons why God may allow evil, many have presented such reasons in the past. For the purpose of this discussion, the important point is that the reality of objective evil and suffering in this world is something we all intuitively perceive, and something even people purporting to believe in scientism will invoke. But this then means that if some things are objectively wrong, there must be a right; if some things are objectively evil, there must be a good. We can’t know crooked if there is no such thing as straight! Deep inside we all know that some things are just plain evil—not just socially constructed wrongs—and that evil is a non-physical immaterial reality, which undermines the worldview of scientism.

Scientism may claim that its opponents hold to an argumentum ad consequentiam—we dismiss the truth because we don’t like the consequences. It claims that we just don’t like the fact that our thoughts, feelings, consciousness, soul, mind, moral principles, beauty, love, purpose, and meaning are all illusions. However, our case is that there is positive non-physical philosophical, experiential, existential, intuitive, perceptive and historical evidence for knowing these non-physical realities. In order to so quickly dismiss everything that makes us human as an illusion, needs very strong evidence, as in doing so it undermines everything that makes us human in the first place. Scientism fails to provide such evidence.

Conclusion

The cumulative impact of these refutations should be enough to persuade any open-minded person that scientism is fundamentally flawed as a worldview. It is simply false. Additionally, the worldview of scientism, in reducing humanity to mere machines, claims that there is no real meaning to life and no purpose. Not even the pursuit of knowledge through science has any real meaning or purpose in the worldview of scientism! Christianity on the other hand is prepared to follow the evidence wherever it leads. It will lead you to the foot of the cross and into eternity, if you are prepared to follow it—I encourage you to do so.

Bibliography

Austin L. Hughes, ‘The Folly of Scientism’, The New Atlantis: A Journal of Technology & Society, 2012.

John C. Lennox, Can Science Explain Everything? London: The Good Book Company, 2019.

C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man, New York: Macmillan, 1955S.

McDowell & J. Morrow. Is God Just a Human Invention – And Seventeen Other Questions Raised by the New Atheists. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 2010.

J. P. Moreland, Scientism and Secularism: Learning to Respond to a Dangerous Ideology. Wheaton, Illinois, Crossway, 2018.

Introduction

In the first part of this three-part article series we looked at ‘Scientism’ as a worldview. Scientism claims that all of reality is physical or material. Nothing exists other than matter and energy in space and time. Scientism then goes on to say that the only way we can know that reality is through science. There is no other knowledge than scientific knowledge.

In this second part of the series we will look at the first two types of refutation of Scientism. First, we will examine the assumptions Scientism makes. As we will see, these assumptions cannot be proven by science, and therefore refute Scientism’s claim that the only source of knowledge is science.Second, we will show that the best explanation for many phenomena in this universe is an agent designing cause, not a natural cause. According to Scientism, all causes of any phenomena must be natural, physical, or material causes. If we can identify any other cause, then Scientism is refuted.

In the third and final article, we will identify non-physical/ immaterial realities that we know exist, but which are unknowable  through science. If we can identify just one such entity thing, just one entity, then Scientism is refuted. Just one will do, but in fact there are many.

Refuting Scientism: Assumptions Scientism Makes, But Cannot Prove

Circular & Self-Refuting Reasoning: Scientism lacks the evidence to support its most basic claim: all that exists is matter and energy in space and time. Instead, it makes this assumption, and then attempts to explain everything on that basis. It assumes what it claims to prove, it is a circular argument and as such is fundamentally flawed. The logic of Scientism can be presented as follows;

P1.The only realities that exist in the universe are physical.

P2.Science is used to explain the universe and everything in it.

P3.Since the universe is physical, science can only provide physical explanations.

C.Therefore, science proves that the only realities that exist in the universe are physical.

Anyone applying the most basic level of critical thinking can see this fundamental flaw in Scientism, if only they step back and actually think! Further, the knowledge claims of Scientism are not just circular, they are self-refuting. For example, the claim that “only what is testable by Science can be true” is a “philosophical statement about science that cannot itself be tested by Science”, therefore it refutes itself![5]

Laws of Logic/Numbers/Mathematics: Science simply assumes that the laws of logic, numbers and mathematics are real, but it cannot prove they are. These laws are clearly non-physical realities. At this most basic level Scientism is proven false! Just think about it. The scientific method can’t be used to prove the reality of logic, numbers and mathematics, it a priori assumes the existence of these immaterial, non-physical realities. This proves that Scientism is wrong! In contrast, the Christian worldview holds that non-physical realities such as numbers can be understood as grounded in God. Our ability to recognise them comes from the image of God, the imago Dei, in us.

The Existence of a theory independent external world, that is orderly, uniform and knowable: Similarly, Science simply assumes the existence of a theory independent external world that is orderly, uniform and knowable. It can’t operate without this assumption. Christianity on the other hand knows there is a theory independent external world, that is orderly, uniform, and knowable, since it was created by God. This is revealed in God’s Word, Scripture, and in nature itself, with the presence of orderly, uniform, and knowable specified complex information pointing to a designing mind. This will be discussed further later.

The Reliability of our Cognitive and Sensory Faculties: Since scientism cannot allow a designing cause and creator to the universe and human life, it leaves us with the explanation that humanity is totally the result of physical evolutionary processes. In such an all-encompassing macro-evolutionary narrative, all that matters is the survival of the fittest, which is produced by random physical cause and effect over time. But if this is the case, why should we trust our cognitive and sensory faculties as a means of discerning truth? Survivability is all that counts, not truth, yet scientism simply assumes that we can trust our cognitive and sensory faculties. This cannot be proven, it is simply assumed, and if the evolutionary narrative is true, why should we trust our faculties? The Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga has written extensively on this issue. Christianity on the other hand infers that our cognitive and sensory faculties can be reliable as they are created in the image of God. We also recognise that they are not one hundred percent reliable. There is a humility that comes from knowing this world is fallen and corrupted, which is entirely absent in scientism.

Refuting Scientism: Agent Causes

Another important assumption of scientism is that there can only be physical/material causes. Which is to say that there can only be natural causes. Everything must be reduced to a natural cause. This is why science is often described as reductionist, reducing all explanations to the physical or material.

In this view human beings are merely a collection of physical/material entities, atoms, that have been in cause and effect action throughout time. As discussed above, this results in scientism, in which our sense of consciousness, mind, and freewill are merely illusions. There is just physical cause and effect. This however conflicts with our most basic intuitive understanding of causes in the world.

In the real world we accept that humans have free will, and by their volitional choice as acting agents, they can cause things to happen in the physical world. Thus, we understand there are agent causes, as well as natural causes. Additionally, we recognise that agents may have goals, future purposes and motives which they act to achieve, otherwise known as end causes. As a simple example, imagine a boiling jug of water. If we asked what caused the water to boil, we could give the natural cause, by explaining how heat energy is transferred to H2O molecules causing them to change from water to gas. However, we could also rightly say that the agent cause was that Mark turned the jug on, and further the end cause was that Mark wanted a cup of tea! But in the worldview of scientism, such agent causes and end causes are simply not allowable, since all is physical! We may think that Mark chose to turn the jug on for the purpose of having a cup of tea, but in reality it is all physical cause and effect, Mark’s choice and purpose are simply an illusion. There is no real mind, there is just matter! Atoms bouncing into each other, natural cause and effect.

Hence, when Christians infer from the evidence of fine tuning in the universe, or the specified complex information in DNA, that there is a designing mind as an agent cause, this is simply dismissed by scientism (and unfortunately by many implicitly influenced by scientism). This is in spite of the evidence, i.e. that the only known cause we know in the universe for such specified complex information is a designing mind, and that the probability of that happening through natural causes by chance is literally impossible! Such an agent cause explanation is simply not allowed with scientism. Any natural hypothesis, no matter how implausible and no matter whether it can be tested, verified or falsified, is preferable. This quote by Lewontin sums this view up well:

Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine foot in the door. [6]     

Bibliography: 

Austin L. Hughes, ‘The Folly of Scientism’, The New Atlantis: A Journal of Technology & Society, 2012.

John C. Lennox, Can Science Explain Everything? London: The Good Book Company, 2019.

C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man, New York: Macmillan, 1955S.

McDowell & J. Morrow. Is God Just a Human Invention – And Seventeen Other Questions Raised by the New Atheists. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 2010.

2018. J.P. Moreland, Scientism and Secularism: Learning to Respond to a Dangerous Ideology. Wheaton, Illinois, Crossway, 2018.

Warning: This article discusses suicide.

Euthanasia, assisted suicide, assisted dying, end of life choice; all are different names for the same thing: helping to end someone’s life with a deadly dose of drugs. Catch-cries such as: “If people want to die, it’s compassionate to help end their lives,” “I don’t want to see my relative suffer,” or “Their body, their choice,” sound reasonable and even kind, yet when looking closely at the issues, they overlook or ignore some important consequences.

This article highlights some of those negative consequences and also offers a Christian perspective.

As a society called to protect it’s weakest and most vulnerable, and yet often fails, the acceptance of assisted suicide and euthanasia sends two very dangerous messages.

First, we must consider how that message could be interpreted by sick and elderly people, who are confronted with the idea that their lives are no longer worth living. This opens the potential where what some see as a right to die, will become for others a duty to die.

Second, it potentially sends the message to caregivers and family that assisted dying can relieve them of their ‘duty of care.’

Currently, society accepts that people who are sick, elderly, or disabled, need to be cared for until their natural death. However, when assisted dying is offered as a choice, then staying alive to be cared for can soon become optional, not the default.

The option of euthanasia can increase guilt and worry upon the sick and elderly, because in their vulnerability they may feel they are a financial and emotional burden to their families. This can increase the pressure for them to justify to themselves, their doctors and their families, why they are choosing to live.

In the U.S. State of Oregon, for example, where assisted suicide is legal, 59%—more than half—of those who received a lethal overdose in 2019 gave being a “burden on family, friends/caregivers” as one of their reasons. [1] That is truly tragic. The ‘right to die’ could too easily become a ‘duty to die’, thereby removing it as a truly “free” choice.

One of the more chilling potential outcomes of a ‘right to die’ culture is that people could be pressured to die as victims of abuse and neglect by their family or caregiver. Director of LifeNET NZ, Brendon Malone, records the following story from a nurse who works in a New Zealand hospital. Originally, she had no problem with the concept of euthanasia—but all this changed when she experienced just how common family neglect was.

The nurse recounts:

“There was the family that stood in the corridor of a very busy ward and argued about why the individual who held Power of Attorney was wasting everyone’s time by requesting medical staff keep the patient alive, and that they instead needed to refuse treatment and let nature take its course otherwise, on discharge, the patient would have to go into care and that would eat into their inheritance.

What was this horrible disease that was stripping this individual of their dignity?

A chest infection, which was responding well to intravenous antibiotics.”

She goes on…

“There’s been countless family members who tell me that the patient is no longer their parent, their spouse, their sibling, that they’re dead inside, and could I please just give them more morphine to hurry things up a bit.

Then there’s the recent media attention over the practice of ‘granny dumping.’

This is where a family dumps their elderly relative at the emergency department so they can take off on an overseas holiday, or because they just can’t be bothered checking in on them over a long weekend.

I have found myself comforting many elderly patients who, through heaving sobs, recount their belief that they are a burden on their families, that they’d be better off dead, that they are cutting into their family’s inheritance, or they are of no more use to anyone.”

Assisted dying leads some people to request a lethal dose because they are being coerced, abused, or develop the mindset of being a burden. No legal safeguards and guidelines can fully protect against this.

There are other negative consequences which need to be considered:

1. No second chances.

Doctors can get it wrong. Correctly diagnosing a terminal illness and then estimating how long a person has left to live is not an exact science. Despite modern medical knowledge, mistakes are made. A terminal prognosis can turn out to be wrong. And even when the diagnosis is correct, many patients still recover and survive long term.

It is important to acknowledge that with assisted death the result is final—there is no second chance. The chance to allow a misdiagnosis to come to light, or a natural recovery to play out is removed.

2. The normalisation of ending another person’s life.

Euthanasia sends the message that it is OK for a doctor to deliberately end a person’s life in some circumstances. In countries that allow assisted suicide or euthanasia, there tends to be an increase in the number of assisted deaths over time. For example, the Netherlands has reached a point where doctor-induced deaths account for more than a quarter of all deaths in that country.[2]

3. The expansion of criteria.

The criteria of who is eligible for assisted dying tends to expand over time. In countries that have allowed assisted dying, a relaxation of safeguards, and of how the law is interpreted become broader over time. An example of this can be seen in Canada where the requirement for a person’s death to be “reasonably foreseeable,” has been removed, allowing more disabled people to be eligible.

In the Netherlands, euthanasia was initially restricted to the terminally ill, but now it is given to increasing numbers of people with mental illnesses, and to people with advanced dementia or an accumulation of age-related conditions.[3]

The Dutch are debating whether to allow euthanasia for anyone over a certain age who is feeling “tired of life.” And even though it is not officially part of the Dutch euthanasia law, new-born babies can and do receive lethal injections if they have disabilities—even if those disabilities are survivable and treatable.[4]

4. A mixed message on suicide.

Far too many of us have been deeply impacted by the painful tragedy of a loved one choosing to end their life. Assisted dying sends a frightening and dangerous mixed message to those struggling with depression and suicidal thoughts.

Suicide is an individual act, while assisted suicide and euthanasia always involve someone else in the ending of a life. Euthanasia creates a dangerous double standard in an age where suicide rates are already far too high. How can we tell a loved one, suffering from a treatable mental illness like depression, that it’s wrong to end their life by taking an overdose, when others can receive an overdose to legally end their life as long as it’s from a doctor?

This mixed message seriously erodes the valuable work of suicide prevention.

5. A change in the ethic doctors live by.

Many of us have experienced the pain of watching loved ones suffer through a terminal illness, and it is normal to fear suffering at the end of our own lives. However, law changes are not needed in order to effectively treat severe pain. It is entirely legal for a doctor to administer as much medication as needed to relieve a patient’s pain and other symptoms—even if such medication hastens the patient’s death as a side effect of that treatment.

If a patient were to die as a result of the medication, the doctor would not be at fault because of their “intention,” which was to relieve the patient’s symptoms—not cause their death. This practice comes from thousands of years of established medical ethics—which have maintained the principle that it is unethical for a doctor to kill their patients intentionally.

Euthanasia shatters this principle and makes it legal for a doctor to intentionally kill their patients, in certain circumstances, with a fatal dose of drugs. This is why the World Medical Association, and the medical associations of almost all countries around the world including New Zealand, oppose euthanasia.

“Doctors should not be involved in interventions that have as their primary intention the ending of a person’s life” – Australian Medical Association.[5]

Categorising euthanasia as a “health service” legitimises it, making it sound somehow, safe. As people generally trust health professionals, euthanasia becomes more acceptable, simply because a doctor is doing it.

But many leading medical associations have declared euthanasia unethical.[6]

Labelling intentional killing as “healthcare” creates some disturbing consequences. If euthanasia becomes just another treatment option, there will be increasing pressure on health practitioners to be involved even if they do not want to be.

As the concept of Euthanasia is discussed and debated around the world, this raises legitimate questions: Is it right to force doctors to be involved in a medical system that condones intentional killing, contrary to established medical ethics? Is it appropriate for politicians to pass laws that redefine the concept of “healthcare”—overriding thousands of years of medical tradition?

6. What are doctors saying?

Here in New Zealand, 17 doctors signed an open letter in support of euthanasia leading up to the country’s 2020 Referendum on the issue. By contrast, more than 1500 New Zealand doctors signed an open letter saying “No.”[7] Their letter ended with this request: “Leave doctors to focus on saving lives and providing real care to the dying.”[8]

Dr Sinéad Donnelly, a specialist in the care for terminally ill people, said of the proposed law change at the time:

“…only include doctors to provide a cloak of medical legitimacy.  Killing is not caring…If you are really determined to legalise euthanasia, find another profession to do it. Please leave doctors out of it so that we can focus on caring for our patients.”[9]

7. The Christian perspective.

The points of discussion we have covered so far show that the ideas that give us pause for thought about euthanasia are not due to christian bias, but rather are potential consequences we should look at if we are a responsible society that looks after its most vulnerable. Yet, caring for our most vulnerable has always been core to true Christian expression within a community.

The Christian perspective is important because implicit within a responsible and caring society are the doctrines and values of Christianity which helped form such a society.

In Genesis 9:6 we are warned against the killing of another human being as humanity was created in the Image of God – Imago Dei – and because of this each human person has intrinsic worth and purpose and should be treated accordingly.

How we do this for the sick and dying can be found in Jesus’s story of the Good Samaritan found in Luke 10:30-37:

Jesus replied, “A man went from Jerusalem to Jericho. On the way robbers stripped him, beat him, and left him for dead. “By chance, a priest was traveling along that road. When he saw the man, he went around him and continued on his way. Then a Levite came to that place. When he saw the man, he, too, went around him and continued on his way. “But a Samaritan, as he was traveling along, came across the man. When the Samaritan saw him, he felt sorry for the man, went to him, and cleaned and bandaged his wounds. Then he put him on his own animal, brought him to an inn, and took care of him. The next day the Samaritan took out two silver coins and gave them to the innkeeper. He told the innkeeper, ‘Take care of him. If you spend more than that, I’ll pay you on my return trip. “Of these three men, who do you think was a neighbour to the man who was attacked by robbers?” The expert said, “The one who was kind enough to help him.” Jesus told him, “Go and imitate his example!”

As Professor David Richmond states:

“The parable of the Good Samaritan condemns those who *speak about* compassion but are *not* prepared to sacrifice the time and personal attention demanded for the care of suffering people. It is one thing to promote euthanasia as a compassionate response, [but] quite another to make the sacrifices involved in bringing love, comfort and care to the dying.”[8]

Romans 15:1 asks that ‘we that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not please ourselves.’ Selflessness is a core Christian value. In fact, Timothy goes so far to say in 1 Timothy 5:8 that ‘if someone does not provide for his own, especially his own family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.’

These verses remind us of the importance God places on our caring and taking responsibility for others, and nowhere in Scripture is the intentional killing or assisted suicide of someone unwell or injured, seen as a positive part of a healthy society.

People on both sides of this debate care very much about suffering. No one wants to experience intolerable ongoing pain and suffering—or force someone else to endure it. But as we have seen, the introduction of euthanasia into a community can have many unintended negative consequences.

Assisted suicide and euthanasia might make sense at first glance, but like an iceberg, there are dangerous and hidden repercussions below the surface. A compassionate response to suffering is absolutely necessary, but only if that compassion is also extended to everyone who could ultimately be hurt through the normalisation of assisted death in a community.

Authorised by C. Booth, Board Chairman of Thinking Matters, 183 Moffat Road, Bethlehem, Tauranga 3110

If you would like someone to talk to please contact any of the following people:

Lifeline – 0800 543 354 (0800 LIFELINE) or free text 4357 (HELP)

Suicide Crisis Helpline – 0508 828 865 (0508 TAUTOKO)

Healthline – 0800 611 116

Samaritans – 0800 726 666

For prayer support:

Prayerline – 0800 508 080

References:

[1] https://www.oregon.gov/oha/PH/PROVIDERPARTNERRESOURCES/EVALUATIONRESEARCH/DEATHWITHDIGNITYACT/Documents/year22.pdf

[2] https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/jan/18/death-on-demand-has-euthanasia-gone-too-far-netherlands-assisted-dying; One may also read https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/doctors-induce-twenty-five-percent-of-dutch-deaths/. Calculated based on 150,214 total deaths in the Netherlands during 2017.  6,600 euthanasia deaths + 32,000 deaths by continuous sedation, divided by 150,214 = 25.7% of total deaths.”

[3] https://nltimes.nl/2020/01/30/10000-older-nl-residents-say-theyre-ready-die-new-euthanasia-study

[4] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4240050/; https://www.ucsfbenioffchildrens.org/conditions/spina_bifida/treatment.htm; https://www.parliament.nz/resource/en-NZ/52SCJU_EVI_74307_40438/8a0a8d96b6a34c3d1c8c2c822f18775d4ff65a43 (Submission by Dutch journalist, Gerbert van Loenen)

[5] https://ama.com.au/media/ama-calls-greater-investment-and-community-awareness-quality-end-life-care

[6] https://bioethicsobservatory.org/2017/10/three-international-organizations-euthanasia/23110/

[7] https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1911/S00124/doctors-letter-opposing-euthanasia-gets-1500th-signature.htm

[8] http://doctorssayno.nz/?fbclid=IwAR2JGsDfQIfZiUbivStK3qYFuc0DfZSuUOl8PkUXWmO7gsRnl3wCuMfjfbg

[8] https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1904/S00183/doctors-open-letter-gets-1000th-signature.htm

[9] Trayes, Caralise, The Final Choice, Published by Capture and Tell Media, 2020, (p243)

The first step away from Christian theism was the belief system we call Deism. This was motivated largely by the change in authority for knowledge about the divine from Scripture to reason and intuition. Platonic theories of knowledge that had held sway during the middle ages argued that a person becomes what they study. Because God is good and holy and the material world was considered irrational and less than good, scholars rejected the study of the natural world in favor of God. However, biblically minded scholars started to recognize that everything is part of God’s creation and though corrupted, is of value. They also recognized that because God is a rational being his creation must be orderly. Armed with these assumptions, scientists subsequently found that the world operated like a giant machine where all the parts work together. Scholars, however, began believing that God’s nature could be discovered through studying nature. They rejected the notion that God could reveal himself through Divine Revelation and special acts in history. God could only be known through Nature which, because it functioned as a giant clock, made God the clockmaker. This also elevated the place of reason from a necessary condition to a sufficient condition for knowing God. As we begin to answer the worldview questions, we will also see how Deism served as a natural transition to naturalism, and learn some helpful approaches to those who might not realize they are Deists.

1. What is prime reality – the really real?

God, under Deism, is reduced to an impersonal, distant, uninvolved creator who created the universe and then left it to run on its own. He does not care for what he made and does not involve himself in any way in the affairs of humanity. He is simply reduced to being the first cause, the explanation for why things exist and work the way they do. Mankind is left floating through an indifferent universe. A God who is distant and uncaring is practically the same as one who is not there at all! Not only is God distant, but according to Deism is ultimately unknowable. Because the Deists denied God could reveal himself through divine revelation, the only information they could gather about him was from creation. This meant that they were unable to form prior expectations about what he was like or what he would do. Not knowing what he would do, however, makes it impossible to draw conclusions from what he actually did. God could have created the universe because he was lonely, or because he enjoys seeing people suffer. Either way, it is impossible to decide what is true.

2. What is the nature of external reality?

The cosmos is a closed system where everything is determined and no miracles are possible. God is not interested in what happens to his creation and even if he was would never interfere with it. If he did, it would suggest he had not set up the clockwork-like universe correctly in the first place. If the universe is like a determined clock, events within it are a part of a network of causes and effects. To introduce real change one would have to transcend this network, an act which is impossible for finite humans. Is it still possible to have freedom if everything around us is determined?

3. What is a human being? What does it mean to be human?

Humans are personal beings locked into the clockwork of the universe. They do not have any special relationship with God and are not made in his image. Hence, humans have no free will. If God had created mankind with the capacity for meaningful self-determination then they would also be able to choose to sin and deviate from the perfect plan. Humans, under Deism, are puppets, dancing to their DNA and environment, incapable of making meaningful choices and lacking anything that can be meaningfully called personality.

4. What happens to a person at death?

Deism, by denying the possibility of Divine revelation, precludes the knowledge of anything that happens after death since the supernatural by definition is beyond the natural. Besides, why would a God who does not care at all about what happens inside his universe concern himself with the eternal destiny of those living in it? Humans have no special relationship to God but are merely parts of a giant mechanical system ticking away. The logical conclusion of this is despair; if I am going to die and have no reason to believe in an afterlife, then anything I do now does not matter. The result is the same.

5. Why is it possible to know anything at all?

Because the universe operates according to how it was designed, we can learn what God is like by studying it. However, as mentioned previously, any other source of knowledge that is not based on our study of the external world is rejected. Here we see beginning hints of the “scientism” of our modern era. So many people today, especially those who study empirical subjects, believe that unless something can be demonstrated by science or logic, it cannot exist. Take the Deist David Hume’s famous quote:

If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.

Unfortunately for Hume, this statement is not based on conclusions made using logic or experience and thus, by its own definition, ought to be committed unto the flames. According to their reasoning, the Deists ought to have rejected the notion that only knowledge obtained through the natural world is legitimate. However, to do so would have been to destroy the very foundation upon which their entire system was based.

6. How do we know what is right and wrong?

Not only does the Deistic worldview pose problems for the idea of knowledge, but also morality. If God as the creator is revealed through the external world, then his creation must reflect what he is like. This leads to the destruction of ethics since the universe itself says nothing about what is right and wrong. Whatever exists is right and there is no difference between good and evil. Though one may make subjective distinctions between good and bad, there is no real difference. Because deism denies that man was special (neither created in the image of God nor loved by him) the original deists had no reason to trust any of their moral beliefs. In spite of this, many of them still affirmed Judeo-Christian values, directly contradicting their belief in a distant indifferent God. Their failure to live consistently with what they espoused also demonstrates the difficulty of living out a belief system that directly contradicts reality.

7. What is the meaning of history?

The course of the universe was set at creation and follows a linear path implying that all events occurring after the beginning are determined. For this reason, history, to the Deist, is not important since God is discovered through nature, not revelation or divine intervention. The Deist God acts using general rules and the universe is closed to external interference.

Deism as the dominant worldview was short-lived but briefly powerful, dominating the intellectual world of France and England from the late seventeenth through to the mid-eighteenth centuries and serving as the transition between Theism and Naturalism. We have already seen some of the naturally arising objections above like the inability to affirm human value and freedom or to ground morality in objective reality. Even so, many people today present themselves as Deists unknowingly. When asked about the nature of God they will describe him as an energy or force, who explains the existence of the universe but who is also distant and not involved. How many people do you know who believe in a God like this? Useful approaches to “modern-day Deists” could be to touch on some of the points above by asking questions like: “Does God love you? Where do right and wrong come from?” You may find they have never really thought it through. Ask questions, and be curious. Don’t be too aggressive. If you ask these sorts of questions long enough, you may just find an opening to be able to share with them why they ought to consider Christianity.

While Deism as a worldview is no longer very popular, it helps us to understand the roots of Naturalism, the worldview which argues all that exists is matter and energy. A universe with a God who created it and then disappeared is no different, practically, from one where there is no God at all. If God could be replaced by some natural phenomena that did not require an explanation, then he would no longer be necessary and could be dispensed with. Naturalism, as we shall see, was the natural next step for all those who became unsatisfied with Deism.

Photo Caption

The 1755 Lisbon earthquake killed between 10 and 30 thousand people and significantly damaged the Portuguese economy. The French enlightenment philosopher and deist Voltaire used it as evidence that there could not exist a deity who cared about and intervened in the affairs of mankind. The painting is Allegory of the 1755 Earthquake, by João Glama Strobërle.

When I started my Master’s degree in Conservation biology at Victoria University of Wellington, I had nothing but hope.  When I finished it I felt weighed down by the many in my community who seemed to be politely reversing my efforts.  In time I began experiencing an ongoing sense of debilitating grief at our environmental crisis.

The sensation described above is termed ‘Eco-anxiety’.  Eco-anxiety is defined as “a chronic fear of environmental doom.”[2]  This type of anxiety can lead to insomnia, exhaustion, and depression.[3]  In extreme cases it has been cited as the reason for substance abuse and suicide.  Indeed, on a recent visit to British Columbia, a student approached me after my talk on ‘Going Green’ and told me he wasn’t sure he wanted to live anymore because of the oppressive eco-anxiety that had become a daily part of his human experience.  This student’s story sounded like so many others I have heard on university campuses across the globe.  A recent study revealed that, of the 26 countries surveyed, half of the population on average considered climate change as a “major threat to their nation” with some countries labeling it as the top threat.[4]

The Bible teaches us that God commanded humanity to multiply and fill the earth (Genesis 1:28).  Similarly, Isaiah 45:18 says, “God did not create the Earth empty, He formed it to be inhabited!”  Yet God also clearly charged us with the care and stewardship of the earth.  Thus, how should Christians respond to our ecological crisis, and the eco-anxiety it often causes?  We will have to make an analysis of the eco-crisis phenomenon, which I like to picture as a mixed bag of lollies containing bad things, good things, and that one rolling around at the bottom, cemented to the wrapper, that you might be better off not even identifying.

THE CONS

On one hand, discussions about ecological crises often sift down into catastrophising rhetoric and misinformation.  Climate scientists are pulling their hair out as false facts continue pervading the media sphere.[5]   These falsities do anything but help their cause and research.  Eco-anxiety is a valid phenomenon that affects people all over the globe, and while putting words to our feelings is important, catastrophising language is never helpful.  A study in Great Britain shows that this rhetoric is having a particularly damaging effect on children.[6]  One adage to remember: Facts first, feelings second.  Many ideas are floating around the sea of media, some of these ideas are fact-based and some are plastic nets of emotionalism ready to entangle any passer-by.  For instance, I recently read that koalas are now functionally extinct due to the fires in Australia caused by climate change.[7]  Claiming that koalas are functionally extinct is simply false.  The International Union for the Conservation of Nature Red List labels the koala as vulnerable, three levels less threatened than extinct in the wild.  Many species are presently on the verge of extinction, and almost all of them due to two immediately ameliorable factors: habitat loss and pollution.  Furthermore, apocalyptic statements such as “The world is going to end in 12 years”[9] are not only inaccurate but they cause a lot of anxiety. We have yet to see any credible scientific research showing that humanity is on the verge of extinction due to environmental destruction.[10]

THE PROS

On the other side of the eco-crisis coin we find many beneficial points.  For one thing, societies are bravely looking into the haggard face of environmental damage.  People are finding creative ways to cut down on waste and reuse materials.  For example, Mexican company Biofase has created single-use cutlery from avocado seeds.  Volunteers have removed a reported 5.3 million kilograms of rubbish from beaches in Mumbai.  People all over the planet are taking action.  It is good that we are grieved!

God himself is grieved at abuse and corruption of the natural world, often correlated with human wickedness.  For instance, in Joel 1 we read a call to repentance: “All the trees of the field are dried up and gladness dries up from the children of man…Even the beasts of the field pant for You because the water has dried up.”  We also see this connection between humanity and nature in the positive vein.  Psalm 104:30 reads, “When you send forth your Spirit…you renew the face of the ground.”  Biblically speaking, rebellion and wickedness led to a corruption of the natural world (Genesis 3:17) and repentance or ‘turning back’ to God leads to a restoration that also affects the natural sphere (Romans 8:19-23).

While it is good to be grieved at the destruction of our natural world, it is never good to be anxious.  The Scriptures are replete with passages exhorting us to stand firm and not succumb to fear.  Eco-anxiety may be a term coined in 2017, but anxiety is nothing new.  The wrapper is different but it’s the same bitter lolly.  In my childhood we were afraid of school shootings.  In my mother’s childhood it was fear that an atomic bomb would fall out of the sky at any moment.  In my grandmother’s childhood it was fear of want due to the Great Depression.  There will always be troubles in this world that need fixing.  But we are not meant to operate out of a spirit of fear.  2 Timothy 1:7 reminds us: “God gave us a spirit not of fear but of power and love and self-control.”  Christians are equipped with a top-of-the-line spiritual panoply.  The peace of God protects our minds and our hearts in Christ Jesus and allows us to transcend our limited understanding (Philippians 4:7).  We have access to Jesus Himself, on whom we cast our anxieties, because He cares for us (1 Peter 5:7).  These facts do not provide us with the means of ignoring a crisis.  We are not burying our head in the sand.  On the contrary, it allows us to march with confidence into any storm.  When we cast our fear on Jesus we are dressing ourselves in His perfect love.  Thus we are equipped to face any problem with confidence and faith instead of debilitating fear and timidity.

Our concerns about ecological destruction are valid.  Perhaps some of the fear we feel around a broken landscape stems from anxiety about our own impermanence and brokenness.  Even if the natural world was perfect, it could never be a source of our ultimate security.  Only the person of Jesus offers us that foundation.  Therefore, let us face our ecological crisis head-on, knowing how deeply loved we are by the Creator of all.  His heart is surely grieved by the destruction of our natural world, and it grieves us also because we share His heart.  Praise God that we can face this crisis without the anxiety that catastrophises, and without the ignorance that perpetuates the problem.  We can march into our generation’s hardships with truth, love, and confidence in Christ.

?

[1] Larger animals such as deer, elk, and coyotes; or if you happen to be in Africa perhaps an elephant or ostrich

[2] The American Psychological Association first defined this term in 2017

[3] Doherty, T. J., & Clayton, S. (May 01, 2011). The Psychological Impacts of Global Climate Change

[4] Fagan, M., Huang, C. A look at how people around the world view climate change

[5] Shellenberger, M. Why Apocalyptic Claims about Climate Change are Wrong

[6] Burke, S. E. L., Sanson, A. V., & Van, H. J. The Psychological Effects of Climate Change on Children.

[7] As suggested by activist Bill McKibben

[8] International Union for the Conservation of Nature

[9] As stated by representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

[10] Shellenberger

Works Cited

Burke, S. E. L., Sanson, A. V., & Van, H. J. (May 01, 2018). The Psychological Effects of Climate Change on Children. Current Psychiatry Reports, 20, 5, 1-8.

Cummings, W. (22 January 2019) ‘The world is going to end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change,’ Ocasio-Cortez says.  USA Today.  Retrieved from: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2019/01/22/ocasio-cortez-climate-change-alarm/2642481002/

Doherty, T. J., & Clayton, S. (May 01, 2011). The Psychological Impacts of Global Climate Change. American Psychologist, 66, 4, 265-276.

Fagan, M., Huang, C.  (18 April 2019) A look at how people around the world view climate change. Fact Tank. 2018 Pew Research Center.  Retrieved from: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/04/18/a-look-at-how-people-around-the-world-view-climate-change/

McKibben, B. “A thousand koalas were killed in Australia’s bushfires, and 80% of their habitat is gone. One expert says they are ‘functionally extinct.’ And yet big banks lend big money to big oil–more every year” 23 November 2019. Tweet.

Shellenberger, M. (25 November 2019) Why Apocalyptic Claims about Climate Change are Wrong.  Forbes Magazine. Retrieved from: https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/11/25/why-everything-they-say-about-climate-change-is-wrong/#5d9bfa4312d6

Introduction

You may not have heard of the word ‘scientism’ and even if you have, you may not know what it means, but I can guarantee that you will have been exposed to strong views and opinions that have the worldview of scientism at their core. Statements such as “the only truth we can know is discovered through science” or that “science has proven God doesn’t exist” have scientism at their heart. This three-part article series will explain what scientism is and how it is all prevailing in much of what we see and read. Its influence is everywhere in our media and culture, usually implicitly and not explicitly, it is just assumed. This article series will also show just how deeply flawed scientism is as a worldview.

The nature of reality and how we know it

Scientism says that the hard sciences alone have the intellectual authority to give us knowledge of reality. Everything else – especially ethics, theology, and philosophy – is, at least according to scientism, based on private emotions, blind faith, or cultural upbringing…[they] offer no truth at all.[1]    

Apologetics is essentially defending the Christian view of the nature of reality and how we know it, past, present and future. Scientism is also a view on the nature of reality and how we know it. Scientism claims that all that exists is matter/energy in space and time, there is nothing more than the natural/physical/material, hence Scientism is essentially the same as naturalism, physicalism and materialism as a view of reality. Scientism also claims that the only way we can know anything about that natural/physical/material reality is through science. This usually assumes the application of the scientific method of empirical observation, measurement, hypothesis formation and then testing, to see whether the hypothesis was correct. This is called inductive reasoning.  In that process it also assumes and applies logic and reason, i.e. deductive reasoning. This is what usually comes to mind when people think of ‘science’. Often, they will unthinkingly say that an untestable belief is untrustworthy.

However, science doesn’t just apply the classic laboratory-style inductive reasoning method. It also often applies what is called abductive reasoning (also known as inference to the best explanation). In this method, a person would take all the evidence and attempt to infer the best explanation. The best explanation is the most plausible, and has the most explanatory power and scope for all the evidence. Abductive inferences are often not as testable, verifiable or falsifiable as inductive hypotheses. Historical sciences, such as geology or forensic science, look at evidence from the past,  and often employ abductive reasoning, producing hypotheses that are not observable or reproducible in a laboratory, but which still infer the best explanation for the evidence. Much evolutionary science is conducted in this manner, inferring explanations that simply cannot be tested in the more classic inductive manner.

This application of abductive reasoning is often conveniently forgotten by strident supporters of scientism when they are speaking against the Christian worldview, such as arguments for the historicity of the resurrection, which infers the truth of the resurrection as the best explanation for all the historical evidence. This opinion is summed up by John Lennox:

I know now that the only sort of knowledge of reality is that which can be and has been quantified and tested in the laboratory. If you can measure and test it scientifically, you can know it. If not, the topic is nothing but private opinion and idle speculation.[2] 

The issue here isn’t the abductive method, since science legitimately employs it all the time in the historical sciences, it’s that scientism simply will not allow any explanations that are not natural/physical/ material. If abductive reasoning was unscientific per se, an invalid method of seeking truth, then for example, all non-repeatable knowledge from the past would be deemed “nothing but private opinion and idle speculation,” since you can’t put the past non repeatable events in a laboratory, ruling out among many things, the whole criminal justice system (and forensic science), as well as any historical investigation as legitimate pursuits of truth, including much evolutionary and geological science.

For scientism all that is in existence, has ever been in existence, or ever will be in existence, is natural/physical/material and the only explanations for anything observed in the universe must be natural/physical/material. The only causes and effects allowed in this view of reality are natural/physical/material. But is this true? That’s the key question addressed here.

Science vs Scientism – The Difference

However, before we look at whether scientism is true, we first need to clarify the difference between scientism and science. This is not a Christianity versus science debate, it is a Christianity versus scientism one. So, what’s the difference? Science is the application of a scientific methodology to understand the natural world. Science is a wonderful source of knowledge about the natural world. There is no Christianity versus science war, since Christians believe that God created the universe! In understanding how it works we are discovering how God has worked. Many of the greatest scientists in history were strong Christians; Galileo, Kepler, Pascal, Boyle, Newton, Faraday and Clerk-Maxwell, motivated in their scientific work by the knowledge that in nature they were discovering how God has worked.[3]

The difference between the Christian worldview and Scientism is that Christianity believes that there are also non-physical, non-material realities and that we can know them in other ways than just the classic scientific method. Scientism is limited in that it assumes there can only be a natural world with natural explanations, and as such, all evidence must be fitted to that conclusion. This is anything but open-minded curiosity, this is narrow mindedness! Christianity accepts that we can also know non-physical realities; truths that traditional science will not be able to reveal. To assume science can tell us anything about non-physical realities is like standing on a weighing machine and expecting it to tell you how tall you are. The methods of science will not tell us much about the truths revealed by philosophy, theology, ethics, the arts, history, direct human perception and Divine revelation. Scientism is science without humility. It lacks the ability to see that there is more to reality than the material world and that we can know this through methods other than science. As J. P. Moreland says “I love science. My issues are with scientism.” [4]

Refuting Scientism

To refute Scientism and to show its fundamental flaws as a worldview is easier than you may think! There are three main types of refutation available. First, there are the assumptions made by Scientism that cannot be proven by science, refuting their own claim that the only source of knowledge is science. Second, since according to Scientism all causes of any phenomena must be natural, physical, or material causes, if we can identify any other cause—such as an agent cause—then Scientism is refuted. Third, if we can identify one thing, just one entity, one reality, that is immaterial and is not able to be known through science, then Scientism is refuted. Just one will do, but in fact there are many.

The next two parts of this three-part article series will look at these refutations of Scientism. You may not find all these refutations equally convincing and Scientism may try and posit natural explanations, but the question must be asked; are the explanations of scientism the most plausible? What is the best explanation, with the most explanatory power and scope? A possibility does not equal a probability, just because it is labelled ‘scientific’.

Either Scientism is true or it isn’t, either everything is physical/material, or it isn’t, and if it isn’t, we must be open to asking just what these non-physical realities are. Can we know them through science alone? If not, how we can know them?

Bibliography: 

Austin L. Hughes, ‘The Folly of Scientism’, The New Atlantis: A Journal of Technology & Society, 2012.

John C. Lennox, Can Science Explain Everything? London: The Good Book Company, 2019.

C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man, New York: Macmillan, 1955S.

McDowell & J. Morrow. Is God Just a Human Invention – And Seventeen Other Questions Raised by the New Atheists. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 2010.

J. P. Moreland, Scientism and Secularism: Learning to Respond to a Dangerous Ideology. Wheaton, Illinois, Crossway, 2018.

Imagine arriving in a foreign city without knowing anyone, speaking the language, or even having a map. You would be lost, forced to ask for help by waving your hands and wander around hoping to gain a sense of direction. The same is true of this life. To be able to navigate life one needs a guide or map which explains where you are, why you are here and where you need to get to. This is a worldview, the set of answers to the big questions of life like ‘why we are here’, ‘what is real’, ‘what happens after death’. Everyone, whether or not they have given much thought to the topic, has a worldview through which they see the world and form their opinions. In addition, it is not possible to jettison one’s framework of beliefs in order to become objective. Rather, the goal is to make sure that the assumed worldview corresponds with reality since the closer a worldview is to reality, the more it enhances one’s ability to find the truth.

In my first article, I introduced seven questions that help us to identify and define a worldview. By defining the Christian worldview in this article using these questions, my hope is that before progressing further, we will understand what we believe. Before we can make a defense of Christianity, we must first know it. Using these seven questions, let’s have a deeper look at the Christian faith.

1. What is prime reality?

God, the only being that exists by the necessity of its own nature, is prime reality. He is an infinite, personal (triune), transcendent yet immanent, omniscient being who is sovereign over all and perfectly good. God is infinite and beyond all measure in His qualities and attributes. He is the only self-existent being (Exodus 3:14, Psalm 90:2). God is also a personal being capable of both self-reflection and self-determination, able both to think and know Himself and take action.

The key to understanding the personal nature of God is the fact that He is tri-personal, one being who exists in three persons. This means that each member of the Trinity stands in an eternal relationship with the other members. Furthermore, because human beings are personal like God, we are also able to have a relationship with Him (as first demonstrated by Adam and Eve in the garden). As a personal being, God is also capable of choice; He chose to create the universe and to send Christ to this earth to die for our sins.

God as the Creator of the cosmos is both beyond and set apart from it. This is known as the transcendence of God. Yet at the same time, He is present and causally active at all places within it. These are the attributes of immanence and omnipresence. It is possible for God to be immanent and omnipresent in the universe because He is Spirit. This is not possible for us because we are physical beings, confined to finite points in time and space.

In addition to being omnipresent, God is also omniscient. He knows everything, the beginning from the end (Revelation 22:13), and is wise above all things (Job 38:1-18, Psalm 139). Because God is the creator of the universe, He is fully sovereign over all that happens within His creation. Nothing exists outside of His interest or beyond His control and authority. Finally, God is not an evil creator who made His creation to torture for His own pleasure. He is good, and His goodness is expressed through his holiness and love. He is holy since there is no evil in Him and loving because He seeks the good of His people.

2. What is the nature of external reality?

God created the universe from nothing (Genesis 1) to operate as a finite open system with uniformity of cause and effect. The universe is finite since it has a beginning and is made up of a limited number of atoms, and open in that it is possible for God to reach in and change things. A closed system cannot be externally changed or re-ordered. The universe is not an illusion but is real and operates in a structured orderly way (Isaiah 45:18-19). This regular operation makes it possible to discover laws that describe how many things work and which allow us to predict what will generally happen. Every time you put a mug on your desk you do not expect it to float up to the ceiling! Finally, because the universe is an open system it is not determined. Both God and people (to a lesser extent of course) can interact with and re-order it.

3. What is a human being? What does it mean to be human?

Humans are beings created in the image of God (Genesis 1) and inherit from Him personality, self-transcendence, intelligence, morality, gregariousness, and creativity. Humans are personal because God is personal, and thus we are able to know ourselves (self-consciousness) and are able to make decisions without coercion (also known as self-determination). In a limited way, we can transcend the world around us. We are aware of our own existence and are able to shape our environment to a degree that other animals in the world cannot. The difference between our transcendence and God’s is that God is transcendent to the ultimate degree. In addition, we are able to reason and possess knowledge, distinguish between good and evil, form social connections and networks, and act in creative and novel ways. God also created the capacity in humans to know both Himself and the world around them.

Humans were created good but when they rejected God, fell into corruption. They became limited in freedom and ability and were alienated from themselves, each other, and God. However, through Christ, God made a free offer of redemption. Because people were created with self-determination, they were able to reject God at the beginning by choosing to live separately from Him. The offer of redemption Christ makes to each human today is also something we can either receive or reject. See Romans chapters 1-6 for more.

4. What happens to a person at death?

Death is either the way to eternal life with God (John 3:15-16) or eternal separation from Him (Matthew 25:31-46). Heaven is the fulfillment of the desire of those who wish to be with God, while hell is God respecting the decision of those who do not wish to be with Him. God will not force those who reject Him to spend the rest of eternity with Him.

5. Why is it possible to know anything at all?

As we saw previously, God created man with the ability to transcend their surroundings and with the ability to reason. Because man possesses the capacity for self-determination, it is possible for him to gain real knowledge. Man is not a biological machine that is pre-programmed to arrive at a given conclusion. In addition, it is possible to gain an actual understanding of how things work using the five senses (sight, touch, taste, sound, smell) because the external world is real and follows laws.

6. How do we know what is right and wrong?

Right and wrong are absolute and transcendent values, based on the character of God. We are made in God’s image and have no choice but to live under moral categories of good and bad, right and wrong (Romans 1-2). Any time we get angry at injustice or praise kindness, we show that by our actions we affirm their existence (see the moral argument for God’s existence here). Moreover, we just know some things are “right” and others are “wrong”. One challenge to the existence of objective moral standards could be that what we think we “know” to be right is just what our culture believes—what was considered moral a century ago may no longer be. For example, slavery was legal until as recently as 1833 in the United Kingdom, yet today purchasing and owning slaves is not only illegal but also universally condemned. This cultural shift, however, does not show that there is no right and wrong, but that cultural perception of right and wrong changes.

However, because morality is grounded in the being of God who is eternal, morality is absolute. God has revealed the moral law not only through the conscience but also through His revealed word.

7. What is the meaning of history?

History is a linear, meaningful sequence of events that leads to the fulfillment of God’s purposes for humanity and through which He has revealed Himself. God does so most obviously by acting directly on our world. For example, He stepped into history in the person of Jesus Christ by taking on human nature, and by performing miracles when he judged the Egyptians and parted the Red Sea (see Exodus 14). God does not only act through direct interventions however but also on a larger scale. He chooses from the almost infinite collection of possible events the set that will bring about his purposes. Right from when Adam and Eve fell, God set a chain of events in motion that would culminate in the birth of Jesus Christ. From the call of Abraham to the exile of the nation of Israel and even the Roman domination of Palestine, everything was preparing the way for Christ. From this, we can also see the past has meaning because it is a record of how God works to accomplish his purposes. God reminded the Israelites never to forget what he had done for them so that they would never turn away. By remembering what God has done, we affirm what he has done and are filled with confidence about what He will do.

There is much more that can be said here, but this article should serve as a brief overview. By answering these questions according to the Christian worldview, I hope to have shown that Christian beliefs not only fit together as a logical and coherent system but also correspond with how the world actually is. If a belief system is internally consistent and empirically accurate, there are strong reasons to believe that it is actually true.

In my next article, I will be taking a look at a Non-Christian worldview which I hope will give you a chance to gain a deeper understanding of these seven questions as well as practice at identifying worldviews that are not true.

It turns out plenty of things get cancelled in a pandemic. Fortunately, my flights home were not among them. Anyway, flights are a small issue in the big picture. Much graver is the cancellation that brings our term on earth to a halt: death. Mortality will be in many people’s thoughts and feelings due to COVID-19. While death is universal, the way different people think of it is worldviews apart.

God’s revelation in the Bible does not address every curious question, but it accurately covers what is important for us about death, and how death is related to other matters. Death is an enemy and a consequence of sin: ‘sin … gives birth to death.’ (James 1:15) This is a truly integrated worldview, because it connects morality with death—and thus affirms the importance and reality of morality. Christ defeated death (Hebrews 2:14), rising so that we might rise, too. Knowing that Christ came to solve our sin problem (and our related death problem) is the ultimate reassurance that God cares about us: ‘[God] who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all—how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things?’ (Romans 8:32). Christ’s resurrection is his major confirmation of his authority and deity. So many aspects of the Christian hope—goodness (morality), God’s love, Christ’s identity, and salvation—are linked to a Christian understanding of what death is and means.

As always, doctrine has applications. To briefly cover one application: a Christian view of death, and a Christian hope, grounds an attitude of holding ambitions loosely and putting treasure in heaven. The daily life of faith and obedience can content us—in fact, it is hugely important in God’s sight. When fear distracts us, God lovingly reminds us that he is in control. C. S. Lewis put it well: ‘All schemes of happiness that are centered in this world were always doomed to a final frustration… If we had foolish un-Christian hopes about human culture, they are now shattered.’ On the other hand, there is great value in the simple daily walk of a life ‘humbly offered to God.’

This is from Lewis’ sermon “Learning in War-Time”. In it, he talks about the fear of death and sense of crisis arising from the onset of World War II. He emphasised that the crisis did not change the fundamental realities of death (or of resurrection either). If this wisdom holds for Lewis’ World War II environment, then it holds for other widely-experienced crises, especially a comparatively smaller one like COVID-19. But how is this wisdom, or its Christian foundation, to come out in our speech? (Within the restrictions of whatever alert level is current, of course).

When it comes to speaking about crises, Jesus’ example in Luke 13 sheds some light on the subject. In verses 1 to 5, Jesus spoke of some bone-chilling recent events (“Pilate’s Gruesome Executions in Galilee”, “Tower of Siloam Disaster”). It is worth noting that Jesus had already earned a reputation for compassion. That gave him the mana to make a point about the events without seeming to do so gleefully or sensationally.

The point Jesus made was, ‘Unless you repent, you will perish, too.’ (just like the victims of Pilate etc.) (Luke 13:5). He did not make this point out of the blue, but led up to it:

1. First was a grounding in the here-and-now: people were presenting him with a recent event. Jesus often based his teaching in concrete experiences to make them memorable.
2. Jesus identified the issue that this event raised: Were these victims ‘worse sinners than all [their neighbours] because they suffered this way?’
3. Jesus addressed the issue with the truth and a call to action: ‘Unless you repent, you will perish, too.’ That is to say, the victims are not necessarily extra bad sinners, and we should remember our own vulnerability and state in front of God.

The audience’s attention to the victims in Galilee and Siloam made them more ready to think about the issue in (2). It brought up their current way of understanding the issue. More than that, it put their understanding to the test. Here were disasters—raw, recent, and vivid. Would it be satisfactory to trot out a current view—say, that God must have singled out these people as extra bad, and one should pat oneself on the back for being safe? Or would that fall flat? The time was ripe for Jesus to present the wisdom that ‘you will perish, too.’ It was—and is—a truth that is more comfortable to ignore. And yet, if the topic of death is raised, so can the other parts of the Christian story mentioned above: goodness, God’s love, Christ, resurrection, and salvation. Apologetics comes in along with that. Once we are talking about the Christian hope, we can ‘give a reason’ for it (1 Peter 3:15) when that is helpful.

What does it look like to have a conversation involving the coronavirus, death, and the gospel? It depends on who is having the conversation. God provides us with a range of friendships and opportunities with people at various points on their journeys. However, Jesus’ comments on the Galilee and Siloam disasters can illustrate some general principles, illustrated in the below stages.

1. Be Grounded in the Here and Now

It is fascinating and comforting to swap stories about a massive shared experience like a lock down. You have opinions that you itch to share, and feelings which require comfort. Give others the kindness of being a good listener. My conversations about the virus in Thailand recently covered points like, ‘My son’s school closed!,’ ‘In my home area they’re still more worried about malaria,’ ‘I wonder if my Mum in China will get the virus?’ In New Zealand, there will also be other angles; for example, ‘masks feel like a sinister sign that the public square has turned into a hospital’.

2. Identify Relevant Issues

This article has focused on mortality. The sense of crisis will make people more open to talk about it, or even bring it up themselves. (That is merely a general observation—still try to speak with sensitivity, as always). Here are three possible routes from the topic of COVID-19 to the topic of mortality:

1. The elderly are vulnerable, and that is relevant to everyone, whether it means us or our parents/grandparents. What is the hope of an elderly believer?
2. No age group is invincible, and ‘Death as an equaliser’ is another classic theme. Kiwis might take to it, since equality in general is a Kiwi value!
3. Coping mechanisms, or what you do to help you get through, are the stuff of many conversations (‘I like to do x’ … ‘you should reward yourself with some x’). Cultivate Christ-based ways to cope with things, and then they can come up in conversation.

3. Address the Issues

Hope, for the elderly and for all, is based on God’s promises. The foundation that helps a Christian to cope with life relates to the above-mentioned attitudes like placing a high value on simple daily faith and obedience and recognising God’s control. Those, in turn, are founded on the incarnate Son of God’s victory over sin and death.

Remember that everyone’s current understandings of the issue of mortality could come up in stage two ‘Identify relevant issues’. Worldviews surface … and so do the unsatisfactory points of a worldview that does not fit God’s world. Consider Biblical truth on mortality (or whatever the issue is), and that will give clues for Addressing the Issue (stage 3).

There are many shapes and sizes of crises in the headlines or in our lives, whether in Galilee, Siloam, the UK, or NZ. The God who is able to ultimately heal this world is also able to bring truth to our lives. This truth is meaningful both here and now and also forever. We can learn from Jesus’ example of engaging with a current crisis and pointing to deeper things.

My dear reader, I have a confession to make…

I am addicted to consuming information. There, I said it. Podcasts. Audiobooks. The weekly newspaper. YouTube. RSS Feeds. I just can’t stop. Something about me wants to try to get it all! But that’s not the end of it. I have hundreds of hours of podcasts just waiting for me. The list never seems to get smaller. As soon as I have caught up on one podcast, I add two more. And what’s worse, I would have many more hours to listen to, but I’m already listening at high speed.

Okay, I get that what I do might be a bit strange. It’s not really normal to consume vast quantities of information. You are more likely to find someone binge-watching the latest show on Netflix than ‘binge-learning’! However, for someone like me, today is the best time to be alive. There are more opportunities to learn than ever before. You can learn almost anything however and whenever you want, and therein lies the danger. As the volume of consumable information has grown, the amount of effort we must expend to sort the true from the false, and the helpful from the unhelpful, has also increased. If we exclude nothing and consume everything, then we risk polluting ourselves and we destroy the chance to think creatively. If on the other hand we exclude too much, then we miss out on learning. All truth is God’s truth, no matter where it comes from.

In addition, it is important to be aware that not everything we consume, we consume willingly or consciously. What does society define as ‘the good life’? Do we all have to live in the perfect house, have our next exciting trip planned, and be physically fit or is it actually all about living an environmentally sustainable life? Not only that, but we are the most entertained people that have ever existed. When we entertain ourselves with the latest movie or video, we often switch off the thinking part of our brain. Without even a thought, we open ourselves up to ideas and beliefs which are untrue and contradict our beliefs. My goal for this first article is to provide a set of tools, which we can use to discover truth and uncover the unspoken assumptions in the world around us. In further articles, I hope to use these questions to explore trends and perspectives that are relevant to us today.

To live in this world as Christians, we must be able to identify and understand the ideas we encounter daily. The ideas that are embedded in so much of what we consume are usually part of a worldview, a perspective on how to answer the big questions of life. Similar to a map which helps the navigator chart a course through an otherwise stormy sea, a worldview helps one to navigate life and make sense of what is happening. If we do not identify the assumptions and ideas which underpin so many of the messages we receive in our media-saturated culture, we risk being taken captive by them. The Apostle Paul explicitly warned us against this in his letter to the Colossians:

 See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the elemental spiritual forces of this world rather than on Christ. Col 2:8.

We can only defend ourselves against worldly wisdom and deceptive philosophy, if we can detect it. James W. Sire in his excellent book The Universe Next Door outlined seven such questions which are especially well suited to this purpose. In this article, I aim to introduce these probing questions with short examples to illustrate, I will go into more detail in my next articles.

1. What is prime reality – What is really real?

Is there an aspect of reality, the beginning point for all existence, that does not depend on anything else for its existence? If you follow the chain of causation backwards, will you at some point find something that just exists and has no cause? Does only the universe exist? Is our entire experience of reality just an illusion? Consider the Matrix. In this movie, the main character Neo transcends reality and can control the world around him when he realizes that it does not exist. This teaches the idea that all of reality is an illusion. In contrast, Christianity affirms that God has created a real and discoverable world which exists separately from our perception of it.

2. What is the nature of external reality?

This question is related to the first, but tries to draw in ideas related to our perception by questioning if anything is real outside of ourselves. Is the world around us created or independent (un-created or self-created), chaotic or orderly, physically real or just made up out of spirit? Is our own subjective experience of reality the only important thing or is there an actual real world out there? The movie Inception suggests that reality can be subjective, a world you create for yourself and which only exists in your dreams can be just as good as the real one. Christianity argues that God is the source of all reality. Everything comes from him and because he is the creator, he can define what is real or not

3. What is a human being? What does it mean to be human?

In essence, this question is about identity. Possible answers might be: a complex biological machine, a god, an illusion, a person in the image of God, a blank slate. For example, the idea that an individual is a blank slate is related to the philosophical debate of being and becoming eloquently explained in the movie Batman Begins. Bruce Wayne (as Batman) explains to his friend, “It’s not what I am underneath but what I do that defines me”. Bruce is defining himself by being the Batman, a hero who defeats evil and saves the helpless. This expresses the culturally relevant idea that we create our own meaning and that each person must decide this for themselves. On the other hand, Christianity holds that each person is created by God in his image with the purpose to love and serve God and man. We do not choose our purpose, it is given to us.

4. What happens to a person at death?

When we die, are we annihilated or reincarnated? Does the person who dies transcend reality or just go to be on the “other side”? This is an important question because it has a large role to play in answering what the purpose of life is. Logically, if we all end up in the same place (non-existence), it does not matter how we live. Without lasting consequences, our choices in life are meaningless because everyone dies no matter if they were a good or bad person. Greta Thunberg and extinction rebellion accept that life ends in death, but reject the logical conclusion of this fact. They argue that because all we have is this life, no measure is too great if it stops our extinction. If Christianity is true however and there is life after death, then how we live now may have lasting consequences beyond death. Maybe saving the environment is not the only thing to be worried about.

5. Why is it possible to know anything at all?

Are we able to know things because we are made in the image of God and endowed with rationality? Or rather, are our rational faculties the result of the long and gradual process of evolution? Though obscure, this question is critical.  Before we can start making conclusions from what we know, we must first answer why it is possible to know anything at all. One contemporary school of thought argues that your destiny in life and worldview are primarily determined by how you were brought up. A logical consequence of this view is that objective reality is impossible to grasp, you can only see it through the lense with which you were raised. This stands in contradiction to Christianity, which holds that knowing Christ is to know the truth and to be set free from the corruption of this world.

6. How do we know what is right and wrong?

Every worldview has a perspective on whether right and wrong is grounded in reality or illusion. No one can deny the existence of right and wrong; the mere fact of living forces us to make moral choices every day. How you live shows what you think is good or bad, right or wrong. But how do we distinguish right from wrong? Right and wrong could simply be determined by human choice or by whatever produces cultural or physical survival. In the Star Wars movies, there is no good or bad, only balance. The light and dark sides of the Force must remain in balance, it is bad for either side to gain dominance. Christianity, however, teaches that we are created in the image of a good God with a conscience that helps us to tell right from wrong.

7. What is the meaning of history?

Christianity would argue that history is a linear series of meaningful events that shows God’s redemptive work of reconciling man to himself. This is the purpose or meaning of history. However, others might argue that history is a meaningless collection of events or an eternal cycle of rebirths, where in each life you are living out the karmic consequences of the previous. A modified version of the last option is expressed in the movie Groundhog day. Phil Connors is not able to escape the same day until he becomes a better person. The meaning of history according to this film is to escape the endless cycle by improving yourself.

These seven questions are by no means exhaustive, but, when applied, provide insights into the many different worldviews we encounter and open up further avenues of inquiry. Further, it is not possible to stand neutral on any of these questions. If we refuse to pick a worldview, then we have unknowingly already assumed a worldview. Moreover, living in the world forces us to act, and how we act shows what our worldview actually is. We cannot escape answering these questions, the only decision we have is whether or not we will try to answer them. To not do so means that we are living with blinders on. Life is important. Living it in an ignorant manner is surely more dangerous and risky than not.

So when you find yourself surrounded by a cacophony of news and entertainment, don’t forget to ask a few questions of what you are learning. No message stands on its own, it is always connected to a series of deeper beliefs which we need to expose if we are to sort the truth from the lies. As Paul said:

But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good; 1 Thess 5:21

May this be true of us in our daily lives.

As Covid-19 spreads around the planet, religious people everywhere will be asking themselves the same question. If the universe is supervised by a loving God, why are such horrible things allowed to happen? After all, if God is all-powerful, He could stop a pandemic; and if He is all-good, He would surely want to. Our unease is only intensified as places of worship worldwide are shut down. The religious suddenly find themselves unable to seek God in the way they believe He has commanded them to—and at precisely the time they need Him the most.

The Problem of Evil and Higher Order Goods

Theologians and philosophers offer different solutions to this age-old puzzle. The most plausible solution has been refined over the centuries but remains essentially the same: God allows human suffering because it brings about, “higher order goods.” To give one representative example: Only if someone eventually loses his possessions in a fire does someone else have an opportunity to feel compassion and make personal sacrifices to provide for him. Suffering, in other words, provides us with opportunities to manifest various virtues and these virtues are more valuable than the uninterrupted ease, security and comfort that would prevail in a world without suffering. With this idea in mind, consider three higher order goods which the Covid-19 pandemic has made widely available.

COVID-19 and Higher Order Goods

–

Opportunities to Manifest Virtue

Anyone who has been reading the news lately will be aware that the pandemic has brought out the best and the worst in humanity. There are stories of people offering to do grocery runs for those most at risk, and stories of people price gouging others on toilet paper and hand sanitiser [1]. As intimately interconnected creatures with both moral awareness and free will, we are continually faced with choices that have moral consequences for others—choices to make the lives of others better or worse. And every choice we make not only affects others but helps to shape our own moral character [2].

It is a great good in itself that we should have this power of “moral self-determination”—even if we fail to exercise it for the good. To appreciate this point, it is helpful to consider the distinction between innocence and virtue. Innocence is a mere ignorance of evil; virtue requires that one has faced a significant choice between good and evil and freely chosen the good. And while innocence is good, virtue is better. Plausibly, then, a world filled with suffering in which everyone has opportunities to manifest virtue is better than a world without suffering in which no one has such opportunities. And this holds even if some of us fail to manifest virtue and instead manifest vice [3].

I think it is clear that the Covid-19 pandemic has made available many more opportunities for us to shape our moral character. The next time you browse the news, look for stories of compassion, self-sacrifice, heroism, forbearance, generosity, patience and faith—as well as stories of selfishness, indifference, cowardice, impatience and greed. This is the human soul under increased pressure to exercise its God-given faculty of moral self-determination. God does not allow us to live out our lives in a sort of moral slumber. Nor does God force us to be who He wants us to be [4]. Rather, God pays a deep respect to our personhood by continuously offering us the choice. And natural evils—earthquakes, accidents, pandemics, and so on—are the medium in which this faculty operates.

A Sharpened Awareness of Our Interconnectedness

While the precise details are still unclear, it seems probable that somewhere in Wuhan late last year a single individual contracted a novel coronavirus that would later be dubbed Covid-19. Today, the virus is spreading almost everywhere in the world and, before this is over, each country may be counting its dead in the thousands and the global economy will be on its knees.

It is interesting to reflect that this worldwide catastrophe may have begun with a few microscopic droplets of human spittle passed from patient one to patients two and three; and then from patients two and three to patients four to nine—and so on until the virus had achieved global reach. In this way, the pandemic has reminded us of our profound interconnectedness as a species; of our shared biology and vulnerability; our shared desire for self-preservation and wellbeing, and that which threatens it for all of us.

This, too, produces a higher order good: The good of having it forcefully pressed home that our wellbeing as individuals ultimately depends on the wellbeing of our fellow human beings. The threat posed by Covid-19 is therefore similar to the threat posed by the destruction of our common habitat. It is logical: Anything that threatens the ability of the human species to flourish threatens the ability of the human individual to flourish. For this reason, global threats are morally corrective: They help to correct the unfortunate human tendency to division, exclusion and conflict along national, cultural and individual lines—uniting us as a species in our fight against a common enemy and inspiring us to work towards a common good.

A Call to Spirituality

An innate habit of asking Big Questions about the meaning of life sets human beings apart as a species—it is what makes us special. But for many of us this habit remains undeveloped. Perhaps we despair of finding answers and so try to distract ourselves with superficialities—with celebrity gossip, material goods, and social media. This is what Soren Kierkegaard believed. “The philistine,” he said, “tranquillises himself with the trivial.” But in tranquillising himself, the philistine also pays a heavy price—he ignores the sacred mystery of the universe [5].

The question arises: Does suffering and death force human beings to think more deeply about the meaning of life? Reason and experience suggest that the answer is yes. Pleasure and comfort are good and our world, of course, contains generous amounts of both. But a life that offered nothing else would make many of us complacent, hedonistic, idle and shallow. The Covid-19 pandemic has shocked and frightened the world. For many, that shock and fear will force them to raise their consciousness to a higher plane—to confront questions about the ultimate meaning and purpose of their existence and so to exercise their most unique and most human faculty.

Conclusion

We must remember, finally, that God is the consummation and source of all knowledge, beauty, rationality and love lying at the heart of Ultimate Reality. An eternal love relationship with God is therefore the greatest conceivable good available to us—the highest of all the higher order goods. An event which turns our mind to God is an event that may bring about our eternal wellbeing. And in this light it is no more difficult to understand why God would allow temporary suffering than it is to understand why a parent would allow a doctor to stab their child with a needle—knowing that, after the pain and tears have subsided, the child will enjoy lifelong immunity to a dangerous pathogen.

Postscript

In closing, I need to emphasize this strongly. My heart breaks every time I read the news these days and I pray this pandemic will soon be over. Nothing I have written is meant to downplay the terrible burden of death and suffering the pandemic has placed upon the world. Nor am I suggesting that the pandemic is in some way “good.” Nor am I suggesting that God caused the pandemic. Theologians sometimes speak of God’s “perfect will” and His “permissive will”—the things He directly causes and the things He permits by sustaining in existence the processes that cause them. The pandemic surely belongs to the latter. But what I am suggesting is that the pandemic does not prove the nonexistence or indifference of God. My concern has been to show that God may have good reason for allowing widespread, but temporary, human suffering.

Ben Mines was born in Wellington, graduated from college in Auckland, and then spent almost two decades living in South Korea. Until the age of 35, he was what Andrew Klavan called a “practicing atheist”: He did not know if there was a God but lived his life on the assumption that there was not. However, in 2015 he began to study the philosophical arguments for the existence of God and the historical argument for the Resurrection of Jesus. Ultimately, he was persuaded by both. The existence of God is a subject of the profoundest imaginable importance. He is therefore committed to discussing it with others. In 2017, he finished his book “Through a Glass, Darkly” which sets out the rational grounds for Christian theism; later that same year, he began to write for Thinking Matters.

–

1.  Other stories include as-yet-uninfected millionaires trying to buy ventilators for themselves; a 7 year old boy using his savings to buy coronavirus care packages for seniors; students ignoring health officials and partying in the streets; and four people offering themselves as a test subjects for a vaccine—without any animal trials. There are, of course, many, many more.
2. These changes are accumulative and lasting. As Oxford professor of philosophy Richard Swinburne notes, humans are so made that when we choose to do good, it becomes slightly easier to choose to do good again at the next opportunity; and when we choose to do evil, it becomes slightly easier to choose to do evil again at the next opportunity. In this way, over time, we are able to freely change the desires that influence us and form either a good or a bad character. Emerson put the point more pithily when he said, “Sew a thought, reap an action; sew an action, reap a habit; sew a habit, reap a character; sew a character, reap an eternal destiny.”
3. It is tempting to think that God could give us moral freedom of choice and prevent wrongdoing. But it makes no difference to my moral character whether I A) give my coat to a shivering foreigner or B) invite him into my house for hot soup if these are my only possible choices. Without the possibility of wrongdoing—ignoring the foreigner, or robbing him, or whatever—my choice is morally insignificant.
4. In a like case, it is good that parents should give one child the significant responsibility of looking after his or her younger siblings even if this entails a risk. A world in which children are taught responsibility by their parents—even though this sometimes results in harm—is better than a world in which parents never give their children responsibility and, as a result, the risk of harm is removed.
5.  Kierkegaard’s fine phrase is quoted and discussed by Ernst Becker in The Denial of Death.

Why don’t we hear more about doubt? Could it be that we don’t talk about our doubts because some well-meaning people we looked up to told us that doubt was the opposite of faith and should be avoided? Maybe we believe that if we have enough faith, we will no longer struggle with doubt.

I don’t see evidence for that in the Bible. Doubt seems to be a common occurrence, even among those closest to Jesus.

John the Baptist is the prophet who boldly proclaimed upon seeing Jesus “Look! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!  He is the one I was talking about when I said, ‘A man is coming after me who is far greater than I am, for he existed long before me’”[i]. However, in the seventh chapter of Luke, while John the Baptist was in prison, he began to doubt. He sent two of his disciples to ask Jesus if he was really the Messiah they had been waiting for. How does Jesus respond? Does he condemn him for doubting? He certainly could have.

No! Instead of condemning John, Jesus reminds him of the evidence: “Go back to John and tell him what you have seen and heard—the blind see, the lame walk, those with leprosy are cured, the deaf hear, the dead are raised to life, and the Good News is being preached to the poor.[ii]” Jesus offers two lines of evidence. Firstly, that these demonstrations of power are proof that Jesus speaks with God’s authority, and secondly that they are consistent with what Isaiah the prophet said about the future Messiah. After John’s disciples left, he speaks of John to those around him, “I tell you, of all who have ever lived, none is greater than John.”[iii] Jesus affirms that John is even now a great man.

Doubting Thomas is another well-known instance of doubt in Jesus’s inner circle. Have you considered how Jesus responded when Thomas said he would not believe that Jesus was alive unless certain conditions were met? “A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” 27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.” [iv] Jesus shows us that the response to doubt is to examine the evidence and determine for yourself what it means. Thomas responds with one of the powerful statements recorded about  Jesus’s identity. 28 Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!” [v] Doubt is not a sign of weak faith. Doubt is part of the normal experience of being human.

As humans we experience two kinds of doubt: emotional doubt and intellectual doubt. We pride ourselves on being Enlightenment driven “rational thinkers” and believe that the majority of our doubt is intellectual, but the scientific literature paints a far different story. The reality is that about 80% of our doubts are emotionally driven.

Emotional doubt occurs when we experience painful feelings of loss, or confusion. Maybe we don’t feel close to God, or we don’t feel loved by Him. Maybe we feel like our prayers are unheard because they aren’t answered in the timing and the manner that we want. As people well aware of some of the arguments for our faith, we can often respond to someone who is experiencing emotional doubt with intellectual arguments. As Mary Jo Sharp shared with us two years ago, we would be better off asking “Do you need answers right now, or do you just need a hug?”. When we don’t feel comfortable expressing our inner emotions, it can present as an intellectual argument. Are we willing to take the time to discover what’s really going on beneath the surface?

I remember having many vigorous debates with an atheist friend of mine around the Problem of Evil and Suffering. It felt like we never got anywhere because we both returned to the same arguments and at times, we both grew frustrated. Then one evening, an infrequent attendee of our meetings asked him why he had left the Christian faith.

He shared how his grandfather had suffered with a terrible cancer before he finally died. He admitted that he couldn’t believe in a God who allowed that kind of suffering.  All of my arguments had missed the mark because I hadn’t taken the time to learn his story and find the root cause of his pain.

When you doubt, don’t be afraid to explore the doubt more deeply, and to be honest with yourself about the kind of doubt you are experiencing. Find trustworthy people to talk to. Ask thoughtful questions. Engage with the evidence and see where it leads. A warning: if you only seek support for what you are feeling, you will find it and it might lead you away from faith if you don’t hear both sides. However, I am confident that if we genuinely seek answers, if we listen humbly to those who have gone before, God will lead us to a stronger, more vibrant life of trust in Him and His goodness.

If I hadn’t doubted the existence of God or my reason for believing, I wouldn’t have discovered the vast world of historical, philosophical and scientific evidence for the Christian worldview. My faith would have remained superficial, if it survived at all. Instead, I have faith that withstands the staunchest skeptical arguments because I made many of the same questions and then looked for answers. This enables me to also walk alongside others who are working through their own doubt. This doesn’t mean I no longer struggle with these questions. Sometimes they come back in new forms. But I have learned that although I have doubts about my faith, I have greater doubts about all of the alternatives.

Sean McDowell in his recent trip to New Zealand with his father Josh told a story that when he began to experience doubt, he was concerned about his father’s reaction. When he finally told his father, Josh responded with “Great! Now you can discover for yourself what you believe and why you believe it”. (I’m paraphrasing). Josh demonstrated a great way to engage with the doubts of his children. If we follow his example, perhaps the next generation will grow up with a robust faith that can last a lifetime.

–

Bruce Fraser is a Software Architect, lay Pastor, husband, father. He spent several years learning apologetics from good friends Mike Licona, Nabeel Qureshi, David Wood and Mary Jo Sharp, while living in the U. S. There he learned much about the arguments and demeanour that best communicate the Great News of Jesus to those hostile to Christianity, presenting the truth of Jesus in a way that is gentle and respects their intellect.

–

–

[i] Tyndale House Publishers. (2015). Holy Bible: New Living Translation (Jn 1:29–30). Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers.

[ii] Tyndale House Publishers. (2015). Holy Bible: New Living Translation (Lk 7:22). Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers.

[iii] Tyndale House Publishers. (2015). Holy Bible: New Living Translation (Lk 7:28). Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers.

[iv] The New International Version. (2011). (Jn 20:26–27). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

[v] The New International Version. (2011). (Jn 20:28). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

A recent fluff piece in my local paper carried the headline: Newest Millionaires Say 16 Million Dollar Win Has Changed Their Lives. No one, I think, will find this very astonishing. But reading the article that followed I realised something important. I realised that I no longer envy winners of lotteries. On the contrary, they fill me with a sort of spiritual unease.

Analysing that unease, I find myself thinking of Leo Tolstoy. In 1901, the first Nobel Prize for Literature went to the French poet Sully Prudhomme. History seems to have forgotten Prudhomme and the “lofty idealism” which the Nobel committee declared itself to be recognising in awarding him the prize. Tolstoy was also nominated for the award but was passed over because of his radical religious and political views. That did not sit well with everyone. Following the decision, Tolstoy received a letter from a group of Swedish artists and critics who were scandalised that he had not won. But critical opinion had no discernible influence on the committee. The very next year, 1902, Tolstoy was passed over again.

Tolstoy’s feelings about all this are well-known: He was relieved not to have received the award because of the hundred thousand dollars that came with it. “It has saved me the predicament of managing so much money,” he wrote of the second snub. “Such money, in my opinion, only brings evil.” [1] In fact, the prospect of winning troubled Tolstoy so much that upon his third nomination—and aware that this time he was favoured to win—he wrote a letter to his friend Arvid Jarnefelt, a Finnish writer, entreating him to do everything in his power to ensure that he did not win.

Why did Tolstoy think money might bring evil? I think he was afraid that by gaining money he would risk losing something of immeasurably greater value than money—aware, as I think he no doubt was, of the complicated relationship between material and spiritual goods.

Few people today will immediately appreciate the point. There is a widespread assumption that material goods are always good and the lack of them is always bad. Surveying the distribution of wealth in our world, for instance, we observe what appears to be a notorious injustice. There are good people who are poor and bad people who are rich. And what is more: The bad people are often rich because they are bad—having gained wealth through greed, dishonesty and exploitation. For theists this seems to pose a riddle. If an all-powerful and all-good God superintends the universe, why does he permit this obvious injustice?

Aquinas, who considers the question, cautions us to identify and avoid the operating assumption. Neither poverty nor wealth are good or bad in themselves. Everything depends on the associated circumstances. God, suggests Aquinas, can punish with poverty and reward with wealth as is commonly supposed. But Aquinas suggests that God can also punish us with wealth and reward us with poverty. And the idea, while counterintuitive, is easily reasoned out.

Consider two parallel cases,

A. John is greedy by nature and succeeds in amassing enormous wealth. Thereafter, all his energy goes into guarding and increasing that wealth. Perhaps he also finds himself surrounded by flatterers and gold-diggers. He accordingly becomes suspicious of everyone and trusts no one and does not have any true friends. Plausibly, too, all manner of hedonistic indulgences tempt him—drugs and alcohol, promiscuous sex and prostitutes, extravagant but vacuous parties. It does not occur to him to give to the poor, or else it does occur to him and by consistently ignoring the deliverances of his conscience he grows morally callous. His wealth, moreover, blinds him to spiritual truths—to the good of humility, virtue, compassion, chastity, prayer. He develops an exaggerated notion of his own importance and agency. He does not have occasion to reflect on his finitude and mortality but it remains a fundamental truth about him that he is finite and mortal. He dies and, like everyone else, stands empty-handed before God to face judgment.

B. David is greedy by nature but fails to amass any wealth; he lives, in fact, a life of poverty. Flatterers and gold-diggers see right away that they have nothing to gain from him and so have nothing to do with him. Anyone who does continue to associate with him perceives some intrinsic good in him and the association brings this good to his attention and provides him with an opportunity to cultivate it. If there is pleasure in his life it is of a simple sort and obtained through having a grateful, frugal heart—a tasty walnut, a visit to the sea, a beautiful bird on his lawn. His plight, moreover, primes him to develop compassion for his fellow human beings and fosters in him a spirit of stoicism, forbearance and patience. He does not develop an exaggerated notion of his own importance and agency. On the contrary, he is acutely conscious of his finitude and mortality. At some point his suffering may even goad him into wondering at the ultimate purpose of his existence—which in turn may lead him to God. He dies and, like everyone else, stands empty-handed before God to face judgment. 

There may be a third scenario in which poverty is either man’s downfall because it leads him into a life of crime. And there may be a forth in which wealth is either man’s salvation because he eventually discovers the good of philanthropic generosity. But recall: Aquinas is not arguing that wealth and poverty are good or bad ipso facto. That is precisely the point he is arguing against. Everything depends on the associated circumstances.

Why, if that is so, did Tolstoy abhor the prospect of sudden wealth? I think it is because when we think carefully about poverty and wealth it is clear that wealth entails a more serious moral and spiritual risk than poverty. If we are wealthy we have a moral obligation to be generous. “If you have two coats in your wardrobe,” Saint Ambrose of Milan admonished his Christian reader, “one belongs to you and one belongs to the man with no coat.” [2] But human nature is corruptible and there is every chance that we will ignore the plight of the poor and grow morally callous as a result. We will also need to resist the indulgences and distractions which wealth brings in order to obtain spiritual goods. And again, there is every chance that we will fail. The point was made by Jesus himself. “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle,” he said, “than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” [3]

And there can be no doubt that Tolstoy had already reached the top of Maslow’s Hierarchy [4] and discovered a truth about spiritual goods that the modern world seems to have forgotten. God does not enjoin us to seek them because he is a puritanical miser who begrudges us worldly pleasure. He enjoins us to seek spiritual goods out of generosity: Because they are intrinsically and infinitely better than worldly goods. And God, being perfectly good, wants to give us the very best things he has to give. “The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy,” Jesus said. “I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.” [5]

Ben Mines is a Christian Apologist and author based in Auckland, New Zealand.

—————————————————————————

[1] Quoted here on the website for the Intercultural Institute of Languages.

[2] Quoted in The Strangest Way: Walking the Christian Path by Robert E. Barron.

[3] See Matthew 19:24.

[4] See here. Abraham Maslow, the American psychologist, organized human needs into a now-famous hierarchy where basic bodily needs sit at the bottom, social and intellectual needs sit in the middle, and spiritual needs—self-actualization, transcendence—sit at the top. Each need is built on the one below but true human fulfillment is realized only when one reaches the top of the hierarchy where spiritual goods are obtained. Interestingly, near the end of his life, Tolstoy went far beyond refusing literary prizes. He sought to renounce his own wealth, both inherited and earned, as well as the copyrights to his own works.

[5] See John 10:10

“Ask the animals, and they will teach you, or the birds of the air, and they will tell you; or speak to the earth, and it will teach you, or let the fish of the sea inform you. Which of these does not know that the hand of the Lord has done this? In his hand is the life of every creature and the breath of all mankind.” (Job 12:7-10)

As a Christian biologist I’m often asked: “Why would God make creatures that only destroy and annoy?” I myself have struggled with this question, especially just after being nipped by a particularly mouthy horsefly. I once asked this question to a Christian medical doctor and her response was simply, “I guess God gave Satan his own paintbrush.” Her response grieved me even more than my question had. Surely the Prince of Darkness was not co-Creator of our world, but the Prince of Peace. Yet the death and suffering we observe due to a myriad of seemingly evil micro-critters bids us seek an answer. This article will explore the trifecta of organisms most well-known for their destruction and annoyance of the human race; namely, mosquitos, viruses, and bacteria.

MOSQUITOS

Mosquitos are positively ubiquitous. They live 8,000 feet high in the Himalayan mountains, and deep below sea level in the California desert. As recently as 1870, the idea that a mosquito could kill was considered preposterous. Today we understand that a million people die each year from malaria alone. Dengue fever (which I have personally enjoyed, along with malaria), Zika virus, Chikunguya, and others have resulted in countless lives lost. If God chose to make mosquitos, why on earth? Our answer lies in the mosquito’s natural history.

Females perch daintily on the surface of the water and lay eggs in two long rows. The eggs bow upwards at the ends, giving it the appearance of a tiny canoe made of pearls. When the eggs hatch, mosquito larvae serve to clean the water of their aqueous habitat because they eat detritus (waste material). Larvae also feed on fallen bug carcasses, thus cleaning the surface of the water. While larvae benefit aqueous ecosystems, most of our qualms with mosquitos have to do with this stage: the successful production of offspring.

Interestingly, most mosquitos will never bother you. There are more than 3,000 species of mosquitos, but only 200 bite humans. It’s important to realize that, as a rule of thumb, only the females bite, and only when they are reproducing. It is estimated that only one in a million mosquitos at a given time will bite. Females need protein to make eggs, and without a blood meal they will be unable to reproduce. Male mosquitos are usually purely nectarivorous. Females also stick to nectar when they are not trying to produce eggs. This drinking of nectar is very important ecologically, as mosquitos are major plant pollinators. In fact, some plants are only pollinated by mosquitos! Also, mosquitos are basically little buzzing candies. Birds, frogs and fish enjoy eating those sugar-packed insects.

Mosquitos have benefited science in many ways, the most major being the design of their proboscis. This has inspired scientists to design less-painful hypodermic needles. Work is also being done on insertion guides for placing electrodes into the brain, and a study of mosquito saliva to determine its special properties.

VIRUSES

Everywhere we find life, we find viruses, and in staggering abundance. 1 mL of ocean water contains about 100 million virus particles. Estimates indicate there are 1031 viruses on Earth. If we could weigh all the viruses on Earth, they would equal the weight of 75 million blue whales. At the offset, this sounds like a major concern. Indeed, viruses like influenza, herpes and measles kill 10 people every hour globally . Yet virologist AJ Roberts writes: “The vast majority of viruses on planet Earth are not associated with disease or suffering. In fact, they are critical for sustaining balance in Earth’s ecological webs.”

But just how do viruses provide this delicate balance of Earth’s ecology? At every level, it would seem. Bacteriophage, for instance, help keep our bodies’ microbiomes in balance so that we don’t become overrun by bacteria.

Also, the next time you enjoy a gentle rainstorm, thank a virus. We would not have the same precipitation cycle without them!

Aerosoled viruses hang out in the upper atmosphere and help create nucleation (clustering) to initiate precipitation. Viruses are also essential for our ocean ecology. Viruses split open 40-50 percent of the bacteria in Earth’s oceans on a daily basis, releasing gobs of organic molecules into the food chain for other organisms to survive on.

The vast majority of virus activity has a symbiotic effect . These viruses help plants, insects, and many other organisms to survive under otherwise impossible environmental conditions. Certain viruses even protect plants from the infection of detrimental viruses.

Viruses have enabled us to make leaps and bounds in science. At least 15 Nobel Prizes have been awarded for research based on virus-dependent work. Viruses were used to discover the triplet base codon nature of the genetic code, RNA splicing, and tumor suppressor genes. The virus used in the polio vaccine helped lessen global cases from over 350,000/yr in 1988 to less than 500/yr in 2013. Today viruses are used to fight cancers, genetic illnesses, and chronic infectious diseases.

As AJ Roberts said: “Although a few viruses are remarkably bad, we dare not put all viruses in that category. In fact, life as we know it would not be possible…without the vast array of viruses that fill the planet.”

BACTERIA

Similar to the viruses and mozzies, we are often only aware of the detrimental ramifications of bacteria. ‘Bad’ bacteria are extremely bad, especially when they are resistant to antibiotics. According to the CDC, at least 2 million people in the U.S. are infected with antibiotic-resistant bacteria every year, leading to the death of at least 23,000 people.

Yet, on the whole, bacteria are key organisms in biogeochemical and metabolic processes. They play an essential role in the earth’s biodiversity, both on terra firma and in aqueous environs.

We have found extensive populations in the Arctic and the Antarctic, and everywhere in between. Bacteria appear wherever other organisms are, and they are sometimes found where there is no other evidence of life. Bacteria are essential for human existence. In fact, there are 10 times more microbial cells than human cells inside a human being. So in a sense, you are more bacteria than you are human! But don’t think about that too much or it might make your stomach hurt. And speaking of your stomach, the highest numbers of microbial species in a human are found in your gut. Helpful strains of E.coli and Streptococcus aid in digestion, stave off harmful pathogens, and help develop the immune system. The disruption of gut bacteria has been linked to many disease conditions. We are dependent on the services of commensal bacteria for not just digestion, but for many aspects of our health.

CONCLUSION

We have much to learn about mosquitos, viruses, and bacteria. The hand of God crafted each of these creatures with a lovely purpose. We can solidly say of this trifecta, as God said, “It is good”. Yet we can also see the destruction they cause and say, “It is fallen”. This sinful, broken world is not as it should be. But if we look close enough, we still see God’s fingerprints on the gently buzzing mosquito, the wandering virus, and the fastidious little bacterium.

WORKS CITED

Burnie, D., & Wilson, D. E. (2005). Animal: The definitive visual guide to the world’s
wildlife. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (U.S.). (2000). Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Corno, G., Modenutti, B. E., Callieri, C., Balseiro, E. G., Bertoni, R., & Caravatia, E. (July
01, 2009). Bacterial diversity and morphology in deep ultraoligotrophic Andean lakes: The role of UVR on vertical distribution. Limnology and Oceanography, 54, 4, 1098-1112

Fazale, R., Roberts, A., & Zweering, J. (2018). Building Bridges: Presentations on RTB’s
Testable Creation Model.

Guarner, F., & Malagelada, J.-R. (February 01, 2003). Gut flora in health and
disease. The Lancet, 361, 9356, 512-519.

Relman, D. A. (June 01, 2012). Learning about who we are. Nature, 486, 7402, 194-
195.

Spielman, A., & D’Antonio, M. (2004). Mosquito: The story of man’s deadliest foe. New
York: Hyperion.

Thien, L.B. (1969), MOSQUITO POLLINATION OF HABENARIA OBTUSATA
(ORCHIDACEAE). American Journal of Botany, 56: 232-237.

Turnbaugh, P. J., Ley, R. E., Hamady, M., Fraser-Liggett, C. M., Knight, R., & Gordon, J. I.
(October 01, 2007). The Human Microbiome Project. Nature, 449, 7164, 804-810.

Tyler, A. D., Smith, M. I., & Silverberg, M. S. (January 01, 2014). Analyzing the human
microbiome: a “how to” guide for physicians. The American Journal of Gastroenterology, 109, 7, 983-93.

World Health Organization. (2016). World Health Organization publications:
Catalogue. Geneva: The Organization.

Xiao-Feng, Z., Jiangbo, G., Xiuchun, Z., Tea, M. (October 20, 2015). Random Plant Viral
Variants Attain Temporal Advantages During Systemic Infections and in Turn Resist other Variants of the Same Virus. Scientific Reports, 5.

Zimmer, C. (2015). A planet of viruses. Chicago : The University of Chicago Press

Zobell, C. (1942). Bacteria of the Marine World. The Scientific Monthly, 55(4), 320-
330. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/17937

Do we really need five reasons to do apologetics? Isn’t it enough that God commands it? 1 Peter 3:15:

“but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defence to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence.”

Discussion over! We don’t need five reasons! God says it so that settles it, right?

Yes, God’s command is all that we need, but just saying we have to defend our faith (otherwise known as apologetics) is not helpful at all. What does it mean to defend the Christian faith? What does that look like today? As we begin the new year, I would like to give five reasons why apologetics is critically important for every Christian, no matter who or where you are. My hope is that by showing you how apologetics is useful, you will be encouraged to prepare yourself to defend your faith, the gospel of salvation in Christ.

To Share the Gospel

The first practical reason to do apologetics is to help with sharing the gospel. The apostle Paul in his first letter to the believers in Corinth wrote:

“For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them. To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some” (1 Co 9:19-22).

Paul is explaining that for him, to win people to Christ, he had to approach them on their own terms when sharing the gospel. He knew that if he did not present the gospel message in terms that the unbeliever could understand, his message would not reach them. Paul was speaking into a culture that did not understand the Christian message, but rather sought to stomp it out. Our societies are not much different, general knowledge of what christians believe is declining and the volume of objections against the christian faith is increasing. If it is necessary for missionaries to learn the language and culture of the foreign country in which they are serving, is it not also important for us to learn the language and culture in our own country?

For us to be able to share the gospel today, we must be able to communicate it in a way that other people can understand.

To Answer Objections

However, it is not enough to explain our faith in a culturally relevant way. We must also be ready to answer the objections they have, to make a defense for what we believe. Many christians are afraid to share the gospel with unbelievers. What would happen if they said that Christianity is just a fairy tale? What if they argued that God was just invented by people who wanted power? These also used to be my fears. Nonetheless, when I realized that there are good answers to these objections, my confidence grew, and I felt able to share the gospel. God uses us as ambassadors for him, to clear away false teachings and arguments that people use to reject God. Ravi Zacharias defines the process of answering objections in this way:

“Pre-evangelism is sort of – the Australians like to put it something like this: Bush clearing, clearing the obstacles so the listener can take a direct look at the cross of Jesus Christ. In a pluralistic society – a secularized society – in an almost hostile environment now towards things sacred, it is important how we do this and where we do this.”

To Defend the Public Image of Christianity

Clearing away the objections people have against our faith is also good for the reputation of Christianity in society. The public image of Christianity has been tarnished over the last few years through scandals in the church and is often perceived to be more against things than for them. When people think of christians, they may be more likely to associate us with hard-nosed opposition to homosexuality and abortion (the latter implying we are anti-feminist and as such against women) than with love and service for the needy. Not only that, but news, media and entertainment pillory christians on a regular basis. They communicate, contrary to reality, that christians are narrow-minded and hateful because we follow the Bible and have conservative/orthodox beliefs.

Knowing what we believe and why it is true therefore, helps us to counter false representations of the faith. The truth of Christianity is not shown to be false because christians are sinful. Christians are imperfect but that is not the point – the point is that Jesus is perfect. We must not get the two mixed up. Further, when we defend our faith to those outside the church, we must communicate the truth with love and respect.

Without love and respect, we will do more harm than good.

People will not remember anything from what you have said if they do not feel respected. Apologetics, however, is not merely an outward facing venture, it also has applications for the body of Christ.

To Combat Apostasy

Answering objections against our faith also helps to keep ourselves and others from leaving the faith. Studies by the Barna research group have shown that many young people are leaving the church.

“Based on interviews with 22,000 adults and over 2,000 teenagers in 25 separate surveys, Barna unquestionably quantified the seriousness of the situation: six out of ten 20-somethings who were involved in a church during their teen years are already gone [given up Christianity]. Despite strong levels of spiritual activity during the teen years, most 20-somethings disengage from active participation in the Christian faith during their young adult years—and often beyond that” (Ham, Beemer, 2009).

Some of the reasons why they leave are as follows:

• Shallowness. One-third call church boring, about one-fourth say faith is irrelevant and Bible teaching is unclear. One-fifth say God is absent from their church experience.
• Anti-science. Up to one-third say the church is out of step on scientific developments and debate.
• Doubters. The church is not a safe place to express doubts say over one-third of young people, and one-fourth have serious doubts they’d like to discuss.

The tragedy in all of this, is that there are good answers to these doubts. If only those who left the church had known about the answers for their questions, some might have stayed.

Knowing why what we believe is true and being open to discussing it creates a safe environment in our churches and youth groups where doubts can be raised, and doubters answered. However, there is also another use for apologetics within the church.

To Fight False Teaching

We are not only called to care for those who may want to walk away, but also to combat those who spread false teaching. The Apostle Peter, speaking of the challenges of false teaching warned:

“But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.” (2 Peter 2:1)

False teaching requires an answer, but to be able to answer it, one must first know what one believes, why it is true, and how to defend it. This brings the tools and methods of apologetics together with what are more traditionally known as Theology and Doctrine.

Summary

In closing, I would like to return to the passage quoted at the beginning of this article:

“But sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defence to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence” (1 Peter 3:15).

To defend our faith is our privilege and joy, an opportunity to talk about the hope that we have in Christ. People have questions and doubts which hold them back, so if we want to share Jesus with them, we must also show them respect by doing our best to answer their questions.

The more I have learnt about what I believe and how to defend it, the more I have discovered that sharing my faith is one of the most exciting things I can do. As we begin a new year, I hope and pray that you too would discover the joy of sharing the good news of Christ with your friends and family.

David Billing is a Data Analyst. He was born in New Zealand and now works in Europe. Reading, current-events, playing computer games, anything sci-fi related, listening to music, and cracking dry jokes (especially puns) are among some of his favorite things to do.

Ham, K., & Beemer, B. (2009). Already Gone: Why your kids will quit church and what you can do to stop it. Green Forest, AR: New Leaf Publishing Group.

‘What Child is This?’ is a favourite Christmas hymn. It is based on the poem The Manger Throne by William C. Dix and sung to the tune of Greensleeves.^[1] The combination of religious lyrics and a 16^th Century folk tune result in a powerful song evoking a sense of expectancy and awe over the scene of a baby born in a stable in the Middle East almost two millennia ago.

The wonder, the questioning that must have dwelt in the hearts of those who were part of and involved in the birth story of Jesus is expressed well in the words of this song. This was an extraordinary event at the end of a line of extraordinary events that involved angelic visitations, a miraculous conception, prophecy, and a moving star from the east that guided three gift bearing visitors from far off lands.

What Child is This?

What Child is this, who, laid to rest,
On Mary’s lap is sleeping?
Whom angels greet with anthems sweet
While shepherds watch are keeping?

This, this is Christ the King!
Whom shepherds guard and angels sing;
Haste, haste to bring him laud,
The babe, the son of Mary!

Why lies he in such mean estate
Where ox and ass are feeding?
Good Christian, fear; for sinners here
The silent Word is pleading.

Nails, spear shall pierce him through,
The cross he borne for me, for you;
Hail, hail the Word made flesh,
The babe, the son of Mary!

So, bring Him incense, gold, and myrrh;
Come, peasant, king, to own him.
The King of kings salvation brings;
Let loving hearts enthrone him.

Raise, raise the song on high,
The virgin sings her lullaby;
Joy, joy, for Christ is born,
The babe, the son of Mary!

These words are sung with meaning by Christians during the Advent season – a season of expectant waiting. It is during this time we look forward to celebrating the birth of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. We also look forward to His promised second coming – the time when He will return to put all things in order including ridding the world of evil and suffering once and for all.

However, why believe any of this?  Unlike the Resurrection of Jesus, an event with an overwhelming number of historical evidences,^[2] the nativity is a miracle story that at first looks to have none. Or does it?

By looking closely at the material, we do have and using Abductive Reasoning^[3] to get a better perspective of this story, we can deduce if it is merely a myth or if it could possibly be true.

First, let’s look at the possibilities found in the stories. These are that either the nativity story is true, including the miracles and belief that Jesus is the Son of God. Or the nativity story is a myth found in a book of myths and that Jesus had a fully human father and grew into a man who was crazy enough to believe he was the Son of God.

Second, we can compare the possibilities against the information we have: The nativity narratives found in two independent sources, Matthew 1 and Luke 2; the likelihood that both Mary and Joseph lied about Mary being a virgin pregnant with a child conceived by a miracle through the Holy Spirit; and the influence Jesus has had on the world.

As a religious book, the New Testament is revered by Christians as much as it is disdained by sceptics. Sceptics have tried to convince us that it is a book of myths. But, is this true?

The New Testament is comprised of letters and accounts created to communicate and preserve eyewitness testimonies of the events surrounding the birth, life, death and resurrection of Jesus and the experiences of and encouragement and guidance for the early Church. We see this as Luke reveals his purpose in writing at the beginning of his Gospel account:

¹Many have undertaken to compile a narrative about the events that have been fulfilled among us, ²just as the original eyewitnesses and servants of the word handed them down to us. ³It also seemed good to me, since I have carefully investigated everything from the very first, to write to you in an orderly sequence, most honourable Theophilus, ⁴so that you may know the certainty of the things about which you have been instructed. (Luke 1: 1-4 HSCB)

What is fascinating about the New Testament is that, apart from maybe the apocalyptic language found in Revelation, none of the manuscripts are written using the conventions found in typical mythology.  The literary forms used contain parables, creeds and poetry, however, these are grounded in the reality of time, place and people familiar to their audience. In addition, the accounts were written within decades of the events described, for example, where authors encourage readers to verify what is written with the living eyewitnesses to the resurrection appearances of Jesus.^[4]

Another proof of the reliability of the New Testament is the huge number of available manuscripts – over 5800 complete or fragmented Greek manuscripts, compared to, for example 600 for Homer’s Iliad^[5] – that allow historians and scholars to examine and compare texts across the centuries. The result has been that most New Testament textual critics, including atheist and textural critic Bart Erhman, agree the accuracy of the New Testament we read today is around 99% of the original autographs.^[6]

Next, we can observe Mary’s story. It is notable that Mary did not waiver in her convictions that this was a baby conceived through the Holy Spirit. She did not understand it, but it appears she knew it to be true and we see this in that she kept to her story. Mary did not claim (justifiably if it had been true) that some unknown man forced himself on her or even that she and Joseph had acted consensually outside of marriage. Surely, either of these two ideas would have been more plausible than the story that she was made pregnant by the Holy Spirit – a story less likely to be believed and which would result in a very precarious social position for her at that time. Despite the shame that went along with being pregnant with another man’s child, or simply being pregnant with no husband – Mary took the risk and kept to her story, insisting she was still a virgin and this child was conceived through the Holy Spirit.

And then we can look at Joseph who is described as a good man. He had the turmoil of finding out his betrothed was now pregnant by someone else.  But, something happened to him, that convinced him that this baby was special. He had an experience that meant his obedience to God overrode any feelings or fear he had. In Joseph’s culture men expected their betrothed to be virgins at the time of marriage. For Mary to turn up pregnant was a shameful thing for Joseph and going through with the marriage would adversely affect his standing in the community. It was a terrible predicament and yet again, the Scriptures say he was a good man who had already decided to send Mary away quietly and not publicly humiliate her to keep his own good name. BUT he then had an encounter with an Angel that was so convincing that he went ahead with the marriage knowing the negative effect this decision would have on his reputation for the rest of his life.

And now we turn our focus on who the baby grew into – Jesus, and who he claimed to be. In several places in the New Testament Jesus states that he is equal with God the Father (John 10: 25-33) or working with the Father (John 5: 17 & 18). Or simply when he stated that he was, I AM (John 8: 57 – 59). These claims so enraged the religious leaders at the time that they accused him of blasphemy and demanded he be put to death. These were Jewish men well-schooled in the nuances of the words Jesus spoke and the related prophecies contained in their Scriptures.^[7] They understood Jesus was claiming to be God and had him crucified for it.  And that should have been the end of the story. But it wasn’t. Jesus rose again and his followers were so affected by their experiences with him, their lives were radically changed to the point that they were willing to give their lives to spread his message of hope. Most importantly, unlike followers of mythological gods, Christianity continues to this day.

As we can see, the probability that this story is true is high. This child grew up to have such an impact on humanity that we can never call him normal. His influence for good has surpassed any other. As the popular quote from CS Lewis^[8] suggests, we can call him a liar, or a lunatic, but his life does not bear that out, and yet we can’t call him a prophet or merely a great teacher – he did far more than any of those two things.  So we are left with one choice – we must call him Lord, God incarnate. A God so loving and broken-hearted over his creation and the awful mess we make of things when left to our own devices, that instead of stepping  god-like into history, He was born as one of us.

This, this is Christ the King!
Whom shepherds guard and angels sing;
Haste, haste to bring him laud,
The babe, the son of Mary!

[1] For more information on the hymn What Child is this? please see this Wikipedia page.

[2] For information on the evidences of the Resurrection I recommend the book  The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus by Garry Habermas and Michael Licona.

[3] Wallace, J Warner, Cold Case Christianity, 2013. Abductive Reasoning involves taking the most reasonable possibilities you have and comparing those to the information you have and logically working your way to the most likely explanation.

[4] Example of verses where eyewitnesses are mentioned: 2 Peter 1:16; Acts 1:21-22; Mark 5:16; Luke 1:2

[5] Page 56 of Evidence That Demands a Verdict: Life Changing Truth for a Sceptical World by Sean & Josh McDowell, has a table listing the number of surviving manuscripts of major classical works the majority of scholars believe are authentic to the original autographs of the works.

[6] Please see Dr William Lane Craig’s critique of Bart Ehrman’s approach in this video.

[7] McDowells, Evidence that Demands a Verdict: Life Changing Truth for a Sceptical World. Pages 175-179 list examples of Jesus claiming equality with God, and where he received worship as God – also see Matt 14:33, John 9:38, Matthew 28:9.

[8] “I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic—on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg—or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronising nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to. . . . Now it seems to me obvious that He was neither a lunatic nor a fiend: and consequently, however strange or terrifying or unlikely it may seem, I have to accept the view that He was and is God.” (C S Lewis – Mere Christianity, 55-56)

The Mama Bear Apologetics book is an essential resource for Christian parents, it dives deep into the ideals that are shaping the Western world today. A world that has the power to shape the minds of our children, unless we first teach them to critically engage this warzone with the Christian worldview. I use the term warzone because yes, we are at war! Our faith is continually being attacked and we need to understand the underlying reason for this. When we understand what we are fighting, then we can stand firm and show with truth and grace that our view is in fact the best and most reasonable way of viewing the world. Ephesians 6:12 says, ‘For we do not war against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.’

Empowering your kids to challenge cultural lies is your physical sword for this battle, and I love how the Mama Bear book has also added in our spiritual weapon, prayer. The acronym ‘PAWS for prayer’, (Praise, Admit, Worship with thanksgiving, and Supplication) is written after each cultural lie is exposed. Here is a prayer, under the heading Supplication, from the chapter ‘God Helps Those Who Help Themselves’:

‘Lord, as I move from the lie of self-helpism to God-helpism, I ask that You help me bring every thought captive to You. Empower me to discern Your gifts from the rights I demand. Help me to teach my children the balance between independent thinking and dependence on You. May I foster in them the desire to seek Your Holy Spirit as their ultimate helper. Expose, and help me to recognise, the wolves in sheep’s clothing – to recognise psychology disguised as theology so I can protect my children. May I teach my children to make the Bible their first self-help source. Help me to be a good steward of my mind and gifts, and to point others to You as the source for their help. In the name of Jesus, my Helper, amen.’

The main topics covered in Mama Bear Apologetics are: Feminism, Marxism (surprisingly, I realised, very much an underlying view in this nation of New Zealand), New Spirituality, Postmodernism, Skepticism, Self-helpism, Naturalism, Moral Relativism, Emotionalism, Pluralism and Progressive Christianity. By teaching these issues in a clear and exampled way, Hillary has made true on her statement ‘this band of Mama Bears offers you tools to train yourself so you can turn around and train your kids.’ The training part with my kids has become quite fun, this book has lots of interactive suggestions for you and your children to recognise underlying messages together and weigh them up beside what the Bible says.

Hillary Morgan Ferrer, founder of the ministry Mama Bear Apologetics, has brought together a team of well-known women apologists to help her write this book, there is a real depth of information and also a great mix of wit and personal stories. After several email interactions, following Hillary on social media for a few months, and reading many of her blogs on her website, I can tell you she is deeply passionate about providing apologetics resources for mothers. Hillary has a heart to protect our children from being snatched up by the enemy and falling away from the Church. She has a master’s in biology and speaks regularly at apologetics events. Her online blogs cover many of the topics the Church is facing today and will help you to answer the toughest questions raised in parenting Christian children.

This is the sort of book you won’t be able to put down and then will happily reread with a group to discuss the issues being raised. It truly is an amazing resource, one that will help you navigate the troubling waters of our time, confidently and fearlessly. I highly recommend you read it so you too can ‘ROAR like a mother’!

Part I | Part III

In this trilogy of articles I am highlighting the key features of an appropriate Christian response to the shooting in Christchurch. My first article focused on the victims; my second article focuses on the perpetrator; and my third and final article shall focus on the problem of evil. Overall my concern shall be to show that Christianity provides a map to understanding and preventing human evil and is also able to meet the philosophical challenge presented by its occurrence. 

1. The Christian Command to Love One’s Enemies Promotes the Dignity of Persons

In my previous article, I spelled out the Christian teaching on hatred and violence. Jesus taught that we are to love others self-sacrificially and irrespective of their nationality, religion or creed. In fact, we should love even our enemies. This has two implications for a Christian response to the massacre in Christchurch. The first, already discussed, is not controversial. We are to condemn the massacre in the strongest possible terms. The second, which is the subject of the present article, is rather more problematic. We are to show the same self-sacrificial love to the man who carried out the massacre.

On superficial inspection the command to love our enemies would seem psychologically impossible to obey. The generally accepted definition of love is, “an intense feeling of affection for someone or something.” And I would suggest that no morally normative person is capable—nor should be capable—of feeling this for an unrepentant evildoer.

But the difficulty only arises because the English word “love” collapses important distinctions between different kinds of love. In Greek, the language of the New Testament, there are four words for love. Eros signifies the romantic passion of lovers; philia the platonic affection of friends; storge the natural empathy between family members and agape the unconditional love of God for his fallen creature. “The first step to wisdom,” according to a Chinese proverb, “is getting things by their right names.” And this is surely correct. For we see right away that it would indeed be perverse and irrational to love an evildoer in all but one of these ways.

Among other reasons, eros, philia and storge all involve a feeling of warmth and affection for the beloved. But agape, importantly, need not. Thomas Aquinas said that to love with agape it is sufficient that we should “will the good of the other” as God wills the good of his sinful creatures. [1] Agape is therefore perfectly consistent with recognising and loathing evil in others. We love the evildoer with agape insofar as we have a concern for his welfare. And since it would be as good for the evildoer if he were virtuous, our concern for his welfare includes a wish that he were not evil. At no point need we experience warm feelings for him; we merely wish that he were the sort of person for whom we could experience warm feelings. 

This is a point well-understood by C. S. Lewis. In Mere Christianity, he wrote,

We must try to feel about the enemy as we feel about ourselves—to wish that he were not bad, to hope that he may, in this world or another, be cured: in fact, to wish his good. This is what is meant in the Bible by loving him: wishing his good, not feeling fond of him nor saying he is nice when he is not. 

The question arises whether agape occurs in relevant contexts in the Greek of the New Testament. And so it does. When Jesus commands us to love our enemies during the Sermon on the Mount; when John informs us that, “God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son,” and when in 1 John 4:8 we read that “God is love”—it is the Greek word agape that is being used in each case. The distinction is particularly salient in John 21. When Jesus asks Peter three times, “Do you love me, Peter?” and Peter answers, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you,” Jesus is using agape and Peter philia—thus explaining why Jesus repeats his question. Jesus is enjoining Peter to love more deeply. [2]

In my previous article I also claimed that Christianity promotes the dignity of persons. I think it is fairly obvious that agape towards evildoers protects human dignity and that hatred and vindictiveness towards evildoers does not. Some evildoers, it is true, will need to be imprisoned to ensure that they do no harm to others. But a society in which agape prevails is a society in which the good of all persons will be sought and the dignity of all persons will be upheld. And lastly, while I have been at pains to point out that agape need not include warm feelings, it need not exclude them either. When agape is developed in one’s spiritual life it may eventually produce a totalising affection for humanity in which even the evildoer is caught up.

2. Christianity Teaches a Conditional Forgiveness that Promotes the Welfare of Both Victims and Wrongdoers

At the first court appearance of the man who carried out the Charleston Church massacre in South Carolina, relatives of those who died announced that he was forgiven. The shooter, notably, had not asked for this forgiveness. Nor had he expressed any remorse for his actions. Granted that we are commanded to “will the good” of our enemies, is it really good to forgive them immediately, totally and unconditionally in this way? In what follows, I will first argue that the answer to this question is a carefully qualified no. I will then argue that it is not obvious from Christian teaching that we are commanded to do so. And finally, I will suggest an appropriate Christian response to unrepentant evildoers. 

According to Richard Swinburne, forgiveness has four components: repentance, apology, reparation and penance. [3] If I have stolen your watch, I must return it to you or give you something of equivalent value. This is reparation. In criminal cases reparation may be enforced by the legal system and deals with the effects of wrongdoing. But it does not deal with the fact of wrongdoing—that someone sought to harm you. For us to be reconciled, I must also distance myself from my wrongdoing by means of repentance and apology. Often this will suffice to remove my guilt but in cases of serious wrongdoing something extra may be required—a gift or service as a token of my sorrow. Swinburne calls this “making a penance.” The process is completed when you agree to treat me, insofar as you can, as one who has not wronged you. And this is to forgive me. 

Swinburne then suggests that it is morally wrong to forgive someone who has hurt us and never shown repentance. In doing so, he says, we treat those who wrong us like small children. We fail to take them seriously as moral agents who are responsible for their actions. We also deny them an opportunity to directly confront the hurtful consequences of their wrongdoing and be reconciled to us. And if, what is quite plausible, that confrontation is something that could influence moral change in them, then that is something we deny them too. 

To illustrate his point, Swinburne invites you to imagine that Professor Green has murdered your wife. Imagine also that Professor Green does not regret his actions and has powerful friends who set him beyond the reach of the law. Later, you meet Professor Green at a cocktail party. Recall that to forgive someone is to treat them, insofar as you are able, as one who has not wronged you. But it would be wrong, Swinburne says, to enjoy Professor Green’s company and laugh at his jokes. By doing so you treat human evil with levity; you deny the evildoer an opportunity to be reconciled to you and you dishonour the memory of your wife. Let us call this kind of forgiveness “unconditional” and forgiveness that is offered only after repentance “conditional.”

I think it is helpful here to connect the idea of conditional forgiveness to agape—to the welfare of the evildoer. For even if it helps you to forgive Professor Green immediately, totally and unconditionally it does not help Professor Green. He remains an unrepentant murderer who is perilously far from the moral good. It follows that there is a sense in which unconditional forgiveness is selfish. True forgiveness is not solitary. It draws the wrongdoer into a process of reconciliation and redemption. [4] [5] This too has important entailments for our response to the Christchurch massacre. If we could speak to the shooter, we should not say, “We forgive you.” We should say, “You have done an evil thing and you need to repent and be reconciled to the world.”  

After careful consideration, it is my view that the bible teaches conditional forgiveness. Note first that in the bible our forgiveness of one another is to follow God’s model of forgiveness (“Forgive one another,” we are repeatedly told, “as God forgives you,”) and that God’s forgiveness is conditional on repentance. Indeed, one of the central activities of Jesus’ ministry was calling sinners to repentance so that they could receive God’s offer of forgiveness—not announcing that everyone was already unconditionally forgiven. 

Even one of the most promising passages that can be cited in support of unconditional forgiveness is repeated elsewhere with repentance as an explicit condition. In Matthew, Jesus says that we should forgive each other “seventy times seven times” (18:22), a phrase that means, “without limit.” Clearly, then, the bible teaches unlimited forgiveness. But notice that the author does not actually specify whether such forgiveness is conditional or not. The author of Luke, meanwhile, repeats the same story and adds in 17:3, “and if they repent, forgive them.” And I think this is precisely what we should expect from God given the importance of conditional forgiveness to the welfare of evildoers.

A final issue to consider is how we should respond to an unrepentant evildoer. On this subject Matthew 18:15-17 seems to provide clear instructions. If your brother wrongs you, confront him. If he refuses to repent, go away and return in the company of a mediator. If the he still refuses to repent, bring the matter before the church. And if he still refuses to repent, avoid direct involvement with him. It is here that something similar to the response to the Charleston Church massacre is appropriate. We should now “forgive” the unrepentant wrongdoer insofar as we regard him with agape. We do not indulge in thoughts of retribution or hatred. We wish and pray for his good. [6]

—————————————————————————

[1] Summa Theologica, Part II-I, Question 26.

[2] John 21:15-17. Poignantly, the last time Jesus asks the question he also uses philia. 

[3] See Richard Swinburne’s Was Jesus God? 

[4] It has been noted that the idea forgiveness is a therapeutic exercise designed to “set free” the one who has been wronged does not occur in the Bible but belongs to 18th century moral philosophy and modern pop psychology.

[5] “There are some people,” said Lord Reith, “whom we have a duty to offend.” These are people who have wandered so far from the truth that the truth offends them. In such cases we have a duty to offend them in an attempt to bring them back to the truth.

[6] I believe that is what people really mean when they say, “I forgive you,” to unrepentant evildoers. One of my concerns in this article has been to show that, strictly speaking, this is agape and not forgiveness.

In this trilogy of articles I shall be highlighting the key features of an appropriate Christian response to the shooting in Christchurch. My first article shall focus on the victims; my second article on the perpetrator; and my third and final article on the problem of evil. Overall my concern shall be to show that Christianity provides a map to understanding and preventing human evil and is also able to meet the philosophical challenge presented by its occurrence. 

1. Christian Teaching Illuminates the Connection between Hatred and Violence

In 1 John 3:15, we find these strange and startling words: “Whoever hates his brother is a murderer and you know that no murderer has eternal life in him.” The verse does not stand alone. It fact, it is a paraphrasing of Jesus’ own teaching in Matthew 5:21-22 where insulting or even being angry at others is set next to murder in terms of moral seriousness. [1] 

On its face, all this sounds like an absurd exaggeration. On what reasonable assessment is an insult, let alone an unkind thought, approximately equivalent to murder? But Jesus’ teaching actually demonstrates his profound knowledge of human moral psychology; knowledge which helps to illuminate the specific causal mechanism by means of which hatred in thought and speech can escalate to violence—so salient a feature of the tragedy in Christchurch.

To properly understand this we need to first consider how people develop a moral character. Richard Swinburne, the Oxford professor of Philosophy, is helpful here. Humans are so made, he says, that when we freely choose to do good, it becomes slightly easier to choose to do good again at the next opportunity; and when we freely choose to do evil, it becomes slightly easier to choose to do evil again at the next opportunity. In this way, over time, we strengthen and weaken desires of various kinds and so form our moral character. [2] [3] This is a view that goes right back to Aristotle (“A man becomes brave by acting bravely, just by acting justly”) and appears to be confirmed by modern neuroscience. [4]

Murder, I therefore suggest, cannot be adequately explained by proximate causes—malice, motive, means. It needs to be traced upstream to its point of origin: A secret unchecked fear or hatred that may have gestated for decades before culminating in actual violence. And while I hasten to add that hatred is not a sufficient condition of violence, it is a necessary condition: Not every unchecked hatred leads to a massacre, that is, but every massacre begins with an unchecked hatred. It is therefore wisdom, and not prudishness, which moves Jesus to warn us so solemnly against unkind thoughts and words. In front of the man who indulges even petty hatred opens a path which, should he continue along it, terminates in suffering, bloodshed and sorrow.

2. Theism in General, and Christian Theism in Particular, Provides the Most Coherent Metaphysical Framework within which to Affirm the Dignity of Persons and Condemn Hatred and Violence

To understand this, first note a precept familiar to every theologically literate Christian. The universe is not like a house which God built and from which he can then withdraw his attention. Rather, the universe and its inhabitants stand in the same relation to God as the piano sonata to the pianist. He sustains each of us in being from moment to moment with painstaking care and, at each of those moments, observes and monitors us with an intensity of perception next to which Ireneo Funes with his passion flower is but a pale approximation; anxiously bends over us, so to speak, and holds us in his abyssal gaze—waiting with a heart ablaze with divine love for us to turn to him.

For now it does not matter whether any of this is true; it matters only whether it has relevant entailments for human behaviour among those who believe it is true. And so it does. For it entails that human relations have the profoundest imaginable moral and spiritual importance.

Most of us would approach an ancient artefact of immeasurable value in an attitude of quiet reverence—especially when under the gaze of the museum curator. But on theism every person you meet exists under the burning gaze of God and is of immeasurable value to him; the thrice-holy God who, in the person of Jesus Christ, literally died for love of them. For any rational and sincere Christian, abusing or even insulting another human being (let alone murdering them) should be as unthinkable as entering a church and desecrating a holy relic. 

It is also a fundamental principle of Christianity that humans are made imago dei or “in the image of God” inasmuch as we have a God-given capacity for reason, spirituality and moral awareness. To express this sightly differently, something of what God is exists as an essential part of each person—meaning that each person is intimately associated with the most tremendous and holy thing at the heart of Ultimate Reality. In contrast to atheism, which reduces man to a concretion of atoms shaped by mindless natural processes, Christianity affirms and vouchsafes the eternal mystery and sacredness of persons. [5]

3. Christianity Provides the Strongest Possible Reason and Motive for Treating Others with Self-sacrificial Kindness

To understand this last claim you will first need to note the distinction between an obligatory act and a supererogatory act. 

An obligatory act is one which it is wrong not to do. People have an obligation to feed their children, for instance, and under normal circumstances are morally culpable if they do not do it. A supererogatory act, on the other hand, is one which is good but not obligatory. It is good in this way to volunteer at the local soup kitchen but you are not morally culpable if you do not do it.

Importantly, obeying a reasonable command from an authority is an obligation—particularly when significant benefits have been received. A teenage boy, for instance, has an obligation to mow the lawn when his father instructs him to do this because his father is an authority from whom he receives important benefits. Something interesting therefore happens when an authority commands us to perform a supererogatory act: He or she elevates it to an obligation. And when the benefit received is life itself and the command comes from the Ultimate Authority—that obligation is very serious indeed.

The question is whether God has commanded us to perform supererogatory acts for our neighbour. And the answer is yes: In the clearest and strongest possible terms.

When Jesus was asked the Greatest Commandment, he replied that there are two. “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind” and “You shall love your neighbour as yourself.” It follows from John 14:12 (“Those who accept my commandments and obey them are the ones who love me”) that loving your neighbour is a necessary condition of loving God—the two commands are mutually inclusive. Jesus himself insinuates this when he says the Second Greatest Commandment is “like unto” (i.e. synonymous with) the First; and 1 John 4:20 explicates the point: “If anyone says ‘I love God’ but hates his brother or sister he is a liar.” 

And there is no possible doubt that “loving one’s neighbour” here means performing supererogatory acts. To the man with two coats in his closet, Saint Ambrose of Milan said, “One belongs to you and one belongs to the man with no coat”—a gloss on Jesus’ teaching in Luke 3:11. This is a very challenging admonition (it is rightly said of the gospel that it is, “a comfort to the afflicted and an affliction to the comfortable”) but it is also an inescapable requirement of obeying Jesus. If my neighbour is in need and I have the means to help him but prefer to let him suffer to avoid a diminishment of my material goods, then I cannot be said to love him as I love myself. I have failed to obey the Second Greatest Commandment and, ex hypothesi, I have failed to obey the Greatest Commandment also. 

Nor can there be any doubt that our neighbour is any fellow human being—for the question was put directly to Jesus in Luke 10:25-29. After teaching the Greatest Commandments, a lawyer asks,  “But who is my neighbour?” And in response to this question Jesus narrates a parable in which a Jew is saved from peril by a passing Samaritan. 

The Jews and Samaritans of Jesus’ time hated one another—to such a degree that the Jews had destroyed the Samaritan temple on Mount Gerizim and the Samaritans had desecrated the Jewish Temple at Passover. For this reason the message of the parable is clear. “Jesus,” explains Swinburne, “is commanding us to show love to our fellow humans of whatever race or creed, just as the Samaritan showed love to the wounded Jew” [6]—which is perfectly consistent with Jesus’ famous command to “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.” 

Christianity, therefore, does not simply forbid a hatred of others by divine command and under pain of eternal loss; nor does it simply recommend treating them with kindness. It imposes a solemn moral obligation to treat others—Muslim, Jew, Hindu or atheist—with self-sacrificial love.

————————————————————————————

[1] “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’ But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire.”

[2] Emerson made the same point more pithily when he wrote: “Sew a thought, reap an action; sew an action, reap a habit; sew a habit, reap a character; sew a character, reap an eternal destiny.”

[3] See Swinburne’s Providence and the Problem of Evil.

[4] See The Brain That Changes Itself by Normal Doidge and neuroplasticity and hypofrontality generally.

[5] I am not denying that atheists can and do abhor violence and value persons. In fact, I claim that there will be no outward difference between a Christian response to the massacre in Christchurch and that of a morally normative atheist—both will be united in shock, heartache and condemnation. What I am suggesting is that the Christian response here will differ in being undergird and intensified by a coherent metaphysical foundation—something “secular humanism” is conspicuously lacking.

[6] See Swinburne’s Revelation: From Metaphor to Analogy.

It is often suggested that the Christian doctrine of Hell is morally unconscionable. Understanding this doctrine to be that the nonbeliever is sent to a physical location where for his non-belief he is burned for all eternity, the skeptic makes the point that this is incompatible with the moral perfection of God. The claim that God is all loving and the claim that God punishes his creatures eternally for finite offences seem at odds. In what follows it will be my concern to show that this objection is based on a crude caricature of Hell that is quite different from what the church actually teaches. And we shall see that when that doctrine is properly understood there are no indefeasible moral objections against it.

The Problem

How will a morally perfect and all powerful being deal with those who by the end of their life have become incorrigibly bad? Let us first understand “incorrigibly bad” to describe a person who has exercised his free will to do evil to such a degree that he has finally developed an evil character. His natural desire is to perform bad actions and in particular to hurt and dominate others. God has good reason to allow moral evil while people form their moral character in this world. But there is no good reason for God to allow people to continue hurting others forever. I will now briefly discuss two alternative views about the fate of the incorrigibly bad before defending, but carefully qualifying, the traditional teaching of the church. My conclusion will be that while we may reasonably hope that Hell is empty its possible existence must be affirmed in view of human freedom.

Universalism

Why does God not simply force upon such people a good moral character? Some hold that God does just this—including Origen, an influential Church Father, and several contemporary theologians. [1] This view, because it entails that all people go to Heaven, is called Universalism. But forcing a good moral character upon an evil person is forcing upon them a character which they have persistently and knowingly chosen not to have. And if God is to respect the free will of persons in choosing their own moral character he must finally respect the moral character they have chosen. To do otherwise would be to rescind the free will he had originally given: God would then be a sort of moral totalitarian who ensures that, in the end, whatever choices people make, they become the sort of people God wants them to be with no ultimate freedom to determine the sort of person they want to be.

I have argued elsewhere that incorrigibly bad people are a possible outcome of any world in which all people enjoy significant moral self-determination; and that naturally good people will be naturally happy in loving communion with a morally perfect being. By contrast: Allowing oneself to become a collection of evil desires whose fulfilment is eternally frustrated by an all powerful being would be a deeply unhappy state. The question arises: If God will not force a good moral character upon such people, what is he likely to do with them?

Annihilationism

Christian theology holds that all things are sustained in existence by God from one moment to the next. Each one of us therefore stands in the same relation to God as the piano sonata to the pianist: The moment God ceases to consciously and deliberately sustain us in existence is the moment we cease to exist. This doctrine helps to introduce a second view on the fate of the incorrigibly bad: Annihilationism. Annihilationism holds that at the end of the world God simply ceases to sustain the incorrigibly bad in existence; and the incorrigibly bad, as a result, simply cease to exist.

Proponents of this view suggest that Bible verses which speak of evildoers being thrown into a lake of fire in fact symbolise their annihilation. “If talk of fire is to be taken literally or even as an analogy for the destiny of the wicked,” writes Oxford Professor of Philosophy Richard Swinburne, “the consequence of putting the wicked in such a fire would be their speedy elimination.” We have just noted that having all one’s desires frustrated by an all powerful being would be an inherently miserable state. And so perhaps God would eliminate evil people—particularly if that is what they wanted. It is this fate, annihilationists insist, that Jesus warned us to avoid in many places in the New Testament, such as Matthew 10:28,

And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

However, others have objected to Annihilationism on the grounds that, much like Universalism, it puts God in the role of a moral totalitarian. God does not force a good moral character upon those who have freely chosen evil; rather, he refuses to allow them to exist at all. And so, in the end, whatever choices people make, they either become the sort of people God wants them to be or God destroys them.

Hell

Let us consider finally the traditional teaching of the church that the incorrigibly bad are in danger of Hell. How can we understand this idea in light of the moral perfection of God? We can begin to do so by first recognising that Hell is not a physical location to which people are sent and actively tormented by God. It is, rather, an existential state that results from freely rejecting the divine love. Indeed, Augustine believed the suffering of Hell is compounded because God continues to love the sinner who is not able to return the love. “The massive beauty of an opera,” writes Peter Kreeft, illustrating the same point, “may be torture to someone blindly jealous of its composer. So the fires of hell may be made of the very love of God; or rather, by the hatred of that love among the damned.” Whatever the torments in Hell, the church emphatically teaches that, “they are not imposed by a vindictive judge.” [2].

Recall our three operating assumptions. One: In Heaven naturally good people freely submit themselves to the will of God; two: God, being all loving, wishes for all people to be happy in so doing (happy in reverencing what is holy, loving those who were formerly enemies, selflessly cooperating with others and so forth); and three: All people are given radical freedom in determining their own moral character. It follows from all this that at least some people may eternally resist the invitation to participate in the divine love, preferring instead to hate their enemies and the God who enjoins them to let go of that hatred. As Dallas Willard expresses it, for some people, “the fires of Heaven, we might suspect, are hotter than the fires of Hell.” C. S. Lewis before him made a similar point. “The gates of Hell,” he wrote, “are locked on the inside.”

It should also be kept in mind here that any person who finds themselves in Hell was not thrust there suddenly upon death; Hell, rather, is the ultimate logical consequence of the pattern of choices an evil person made throughout his earthly life. God provides each of us with a conscience and countless opportunities to exercise our free will for good or evil. An incorrigibly bad person therefore owes his character to his prolonged and decisive refusal to heed the deliverances of the conscience which God gave him in preference for evil. Lewis understood this too. “There are only two kinds of people in the end,” he said. “Those who say to God, ‘Thy will be done,’” and those to whom God says in the end, ‘Thy will be done.’”

Conclusion

Understood in this way, Hell has a surprising, ironic but entirely logical entailment: It pays deep respect to persons. Faced with the incorrigibly bad, God does not force upon them a good moral character and he does not destroy them. God accepts the person they have chosen to be and provides a place in his created order for them to live out the reality of being that person. Only in Hell can the free will and so the personhood of the incorrigibly bad be preserved. “Hell,” as Willard puts it, “is God’s best for some people.” And it was the unhappy possibility of finding ourselves forever in this state that Jesus is warning us of when he speaks of the eternal torments of Hell.

In discussing the possibility of Hell it is important to remember that it is no part of Christian doctrine that any particular person, or that any person at all, is actually in Hell. Not many people, I would think, allow themselves to become incorrigibly bad and only God can know what transpires in a human heart in the final moments of life and in the first moments of the afterlife. A private moment of redemption in extremis or even in articulo mortis is always possible and no one knows what opportunities are available beyond that.

Reflections similar to these led the twentieth century theologian Hans Urs von Balthasar to say, “We may reasonably hope that all people will be saved.” Balthasar’s position thus draws right back from the deep pessimism of Aquinas and Augustine, who both held that the mass of humanity will be lost, without quite affirming the Universalism of Origen and others. Balthasar instead suggested that we entertain Universalism with a cautious optimism. Why?

The optimism was justified, Balthasar said, in view of the radical expression of divine love manifest in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus—that God should send his Son all the way to the limits of God-forsakenness in order to bring back into the divine life all those who had wandered far from it. But the caution was necessary in view of the radical freedom God entrusted us with—a freedom which, if it is to be honoured and upheld by God at all, must include at least the possibility of eternally rejecting God. The Catholic author and theologian Bishop Robert Barron agrees. A Christian, he says, must accept the existence of Hell as a possibility because of human freedom. “But” he adds, “we may pray, and may even reasonably hope, that all people will be saved.”

————————————————————————–

[1] See Love Wins by Rob Bell for a contemporary defence of Universalism. Origen, for the record, taught that even Satan and the demons would be reconciled to God—a view known as apocatastasis.

[2] See The Creed: The Apostolic Faith in Contemporary Theology by B. L. Marthaler.

Given the Christmas cheer and the anti-Christian, anti-Jesus rhetoric one typically hears around this time, I thought I might do a simple defence of Jesus’ existence using some of my favourite sources. Out of interest, you might appreciate this small opinion piece in the New York Times involving an interview with Dr. William Lane Craig. It’s always nice to see the media occasionally stepping out to question a mainstream Christian representative and well-respected scholar, instead of promoting the vitriol coming from a community of 30 people in the state of Kansas.

In my experience, the sooner you can get people reading the gospels for themselves the better. I have encountered countless testimonies involving the powerful effects of reading the gospels with an open mind. However, getting people to read or do anything in our instant-gratification, sceptical society can be incredibly difficult. On top of this, how can we possibly get people interested in Jesus if people believe he was just a made-up story? Or if people think that the scriptures are riddled with fantastical exaggerations?

In this article I will present an approach for helping people get past Jesus Mythicism, followed by several links for dealing with other sceptical beliefs that typically follow this extreme scepticism.

The General Approach

Before going on this journey of discovery with anyone, realise that to genuinely help someone change their mind, it is highly recommended that you converse in person. Any written exchange requires a high level of work and skill to communicate accurately without coming across as dismissive. Regardless of whether you decide to engage in written or face to face exchange, I highly recommend that the entire engagement is filled with questions on your side.  When desiring to get a point across, try to think of questions that might lead them to genuinely ask you to share what you know. Typically, this involves questions that portray your genuine interest in the justification or validity of what they know.

Remember, the best way to communicate is to genuinely treat the person you are talking with as if they know a lot of things that you don’t. Pretend you are learning from a tutor and must write an examination essay tomorrow on the truth of their position. Chances are they do know a lot of things you don’t. Recognising this will likely help you focus on the kinds of questions that help get to the core of the truth, instead of an infinite number of wild goose chases.

In my experience there are several stages sceptics typically go through when rejecting the Jesus narrative.

1 – Jesus was a Myth

2 – The scriptures are unreliable

3 – Jesus was just some dude, not God

4 –The resurrection is unreasonable

Now, not everyone is going to defend all 4 of these unjustified positions, but I typically get the impression that these are the most likely conclusions people will draw, each of which people will defend independently of one another. The first involving the highest scepticism, moving down to the fourth as being the least sceptical. This all being said; most people may present their position as being generally reasonable to accept without much evidence. This happens when people reject Christianity for some other reason more important to them. This means they won’t change their mind based on the evidence you present. Helping them to see that their position isn’t very robust may be where you need to stop, no evidence required, move on to the next doubt they may have.

We recently had a student from the University of Auckland spend an entire year discussing all the evidence for God with our student leaders. Each argument individually was easy to dismiss without justification. However, at the end of the year, when reviewing the broader summary of the Christian story with a street evangelist, the weight of all the evidence became overwhelming. He said it was because of his many conversations throughout the year that the arguments, which were easy to individually dismiss without evidence, became overwhelming evidence to the Christian story when put together with the message of Christ.

Agnostic biblical scholar Bart Ehrman, who has written books like “Misquoting Jesus” and debated Dr. William Lane Craig on the resurrection of Jesus, openly admits that “It was really the problem of suffering that lead [him] to becoming an agnostic”. So just remember that having this conversation about Jesus being a Myth may just be an important part of a bigger picture for whoever you may be talking to. You cannot expect people to become Christian from this one conversation, so don’t continue shoving evidence in people’s faces in the hopes that they will convert to Christianity right there and then.

Was Jesus a Myth?

Before getting into some of the push-backs you might want to use in a conversation with a Jesus Mythicist, it is very helpful to ask a range of questions to establish where someone is coming from. Even someone who is equipped with their reasons to lecture you on how Jesus never existed should struggle with the following questions. Being a sceptic with a sceptic is the best approach.

• What is an appropriate standard of determining the historical accuracy of anything?
• How can we have any confidence in this standard as an appropriate standard for evaluating history?
• Do you know of any historical scholars anywhere in the world who agree with or teaches this standard?
• Where should mainstream scholarship be adopting this standard and why aren’t they currently?

These questions may not persuade the sceptic out of their position. However, it may open them up to hearing the following information.

In 2014, Bart Ehrman attended a conference called “Freedom From Religion” where he gave a lecture regarding “what it is like to be an agnostic who writes about religion”. At the end of this talk he was questioned by an audience member who said “I do not see evidence in archaeology or history for a historical Jesus”. Bart Ehrman’s response was scathing. Addressing the audience of sceptics and Atheists, Bart said, “There is so much evidence”, “In the crowds you all run around with it is commonly thought that Jesus did not exist. Let me tell you, once you get outside of your conclaves there is nobody who [thinks this]”. Now appealing to the authority of a single academic is not a good argument, but if someone raises this point, you must emphasise that this is not the point of quoting Bart Ehrman. What you want to get across to the sceptic is that even the most sceptical of any academic scholar will tell you that the Jesus Mythicism movement is a joke. You are using the quotes of Bart Ehrman as testimony and evidence to the reality that academic scholarship is entirely against Jesus Mythicism.

One could go into arguments demonstrating the evidence of why historians come to the conclusions that they do. However, the average person isn’t likely to trust your interpretation of Biblical scholarship let alone understand the significance of well-established principles that undergird the evidence for Jesus’ existence. Therefore, the questioning of the Mythicist’s assumptions and principles is so essential. So long as they think they are justified in their conclusions, it doesn’t matter what counter perspective you may have, most people are unlikely to listen, and it is unlikely to change their mind. What you want to demonstrate is that they have no grounds for asserting anything they currently believe to be true and then demonstrate that there is a vast majority consensus among historians going against their relatively uneducated perspective. Always remember, you have just as much right to play the sceptic of anything they say as they do to you. Make sure to use that as much as possible. Ask them how they came to their conclusions and why you should believe the claims they make, even about the sources of their claims and how you can independently verify their claims and sources. But do this with genuine curiosity, for all Truth is God’s and God has given us the tools and moral witness of the Holy Spirit to discover His Truth.

Bart Ehrman goes on to say in the Q&A “This is not even an issue for scholars of antiquity. There is no scholar in any college or university in the western world who teaches classics, ancient history, new testament, early Christianity, any related field, who doubts that Jesus existed… I think that Atheists have done themselves a disservice by jumping on the bandwagon of mythicism because, frankly, it makes you look foolish to the outside world.”

Now, with the understanding that the objective of quoting Bart Ehrman is to provide evidence of a consensus, what we want to do is help our sceptic friend understand that if we are to go against the entirety of a peer reviewed academic industry, we better have a very good piece of evidence ourselves before demanding people explain away our baseless assertions of what is and isn’t appropriate.

If the person you are speaking with then wants to dispute their arguments and evidence that exist for Jesus Mythicism, first ensure that they establish how their views are defended by people who are well educated and scrutinized by others devoting their lives to this study. Maybe encourage them to go into the field of study and prove to the world the accuracy of what they are saying if they are so certain they are correct. Be a loving encouragement throughout. Remember to love your enemies. And if all is lost, propose that you spend time together going through the evidence presented by agnostic and self-proclaimed Atheist scholar of ancient history, Bart Ehrman. He wrote a book just for this called “Did Jesus Exist?”

The Other Stages

When dealing with the other stages of scepticism you will encounter, many of the principles are much the same. Treat the person like they are a subject matter expert from whom you eagerly and innocently want to understand how they came to their conclusions. You should genuinely want to know what evidence they’ve found which lead them to believe what they say, and where you can personally find the sources for such evidence. Although these other stages of scepticism don’t have as much consensus on the subject, they still have very good arguments which have been refined and made easily accessible for the public. This is where having good resources to go through with the person you are discussing with will be very helpful. However, this is probably a series of blogs for another time. For now, I would just recommend watching any of the following to get a solid summary of the arguments. Particularly for guidance around what direction you might want to take a conversation through asking tactful questions.

For people who think ‘The scriptures are unreliable’

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0OWYAf2TNA

“Jesus was just some dude, not God”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSQDov6NNp0&index=

“The resurrection is unreasonable”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9k3CBwj-ut0&t=

In this series of posts I have been considering an argument from The Resurrection of God Incarnate by Oxford professor of philosophy Richard Swinburne. Swinburne disagrees with Dawkins that the idea of an incarnation is incongruous and improbable on its face;¹ in fact, Swinburne thinks that there are at least three good reasons for thinking that, if there is a God, He will become incarnate in response to the obvious general fact of human sin and suffering.

In the first post we saw that God would plausibly become incarnate and live a human life filled with great suffering in order to discharge a moral obligation to share in the human suffering which, though for a good reason, He allows; in the second post, we saw that living a perfect human life would allow God to provide humanity a means of making atonement for moral wrongdoing; and in the third post we saw that God would plausibly meet humanity face to face to help us live morally good lives by instruction and example.²

If Swinburne’s reasoning is sound, he has shown that an Incarnation is not only not incongruous but precisely the sort of thing we would expect God to do if God exists. However, no matter how good the reasons why God would become incarnate, the argument will be of limited force if we cannot make any sense of how he became incarnate. For this reason, we also need to consider whether the Incarnation of God as spelled out in Christian doctrine is logically coherent. Swinburne’s account of this is the subject of my last post.

The Incarnation

God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, eternal. He has these and other properties essentially and this means he cannot cease to have one and remain God any more than a square can cease to have four sides and remain a square. How could God become human in the person of Jesus and so limited in agency, knowledge, space and time?

“To be human,” explains Swinburne, “is to have a human way of thinking and acting and a human body through which to act.” To become human God would therefore need to acquire a human way of thinking and acting in addition to his divine way of thinking and acting. Freud, the founder of psychoanalysis, showed how a person can have two independent systems of belief; and how, while all the beliefs of such a person are accessible to him, he refuses to admit to his consciousness the beliefs of the one system when he is acting under the other.

The Freudian account is derived from cases of self-deception: a pathetic state of which that person needs to be cured. But it helps us to see the possibility of a person willingly keeping a lesser belief system separate from his main belief system and performing different actions under different systems of beliefs—all for some very good reason.

In becoming incarnate God allowed himself to develop a second and separate system of human-beliefs acquired through the sensory experience of his human body. The separation of these two belief systems would be a voluntary act—known to his divine mind but not to his human mind. Thus we have a picture of a divine consciousness that includes a human consciousness and a human consciousness that excludes the divine consciousness.

It is important to emphasise that God would not have limited his powers by becoming incarnate. He would simply have taken on an additional limited way of operating. And in so doing he would remain divine while acting and feeling much like ourselves.

The Virgin Birth

The doctrine of the Virgin Birth claims that God caused Mary, the mother of Jesus, to conceive Jesus without that conception involving any sperm from a male human. It is not difficult here to give an account of how this occurred; for, “it would not have taken a very large miracle,” notes Swinburne, “for God to turn some of the material of Mary’s egg into a second half-set of chromosomes, which, together with the normal half-set derived from Mary, would provide a full set.” But is there any reason why God would choose to become incarnate in this way?

Yes. “It would mean that Jesus came into existence as a human on Earth partly by the normal process by which all humans come into existence and partly as a result of a quite abnormal process. It would thus be a historical event symbolizing the doctrine of the Incarnation: That Jesus is partly of human origin and so has a human nature and partly of divine origin and so has a divine nature.” In this way the Virgin Birth would help those who learnt about it later to understand the doctrine of the Incarnation.

The Ascension

Christian doctrine claims that at the end of his life on Earth Jesus, “ascended into the heavens.” Just as, “coming down from the heavens” is clearly to be understood as, “acquired a limited human way of operating,” so “ascended into the heavens,” should be understood as, “abandoned his limited human way of operating.” In the New Testament this event is symbolised by his body rising upwards into the sky until covered by a cloud—something which readers of the Old Testament (in which God manifests as a cloud) would understand as a return to God. Thereafter he remained, “seated at the right hand of the Father”—a phrase which must be understood as, “honourably united to his Father,” since God has no spatial location. The Ascension, like the Virgin Birth, helps those who witnessed it and those who learn about it later to better understand the doctrine of the Incarnation.

Conclusion

We have seen that there are three good reasons for thinking that God, if He exists, will become incarnate in response to human sin and suffering and we have seen that the Incarnation of God as spelled out in Christian doctrine is logically coherent. Because the life of God Incarnate would be limited in time and space, the fulfilment of all three purposes outlined by Swinburne further requires the establishment of a worldwide institution—a Church—both to tell future generations what God Incarnate has done and how they can avail themselves of it. And, of course, the Christian belief in the Incarnation of God comes down to humanity through the worldwide Christian Church which fulfilled this purpose after it was established by Jesus and promulgated by his followers at his command.³

In closing it is worth pointing out that Swinburne’s a priori argument for the Incarnation has important implications for other areas of the philosophy of religion: It gives us grounds in advance of any historical evidence for thinking that an event like the Resurrection will occur. In other words, if it can be shown that there is good historical evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus, the coincidence of the two lines of argumentation (a priori and a posteriori) will make it very probable indeed on the total evidence that there is a God and that Jesus was God Incarnate.⁴

—————————————————————————

Part I | Part II | Part III

[1] In The God Delusion, Dawkins writes: “If God wanted to forgive our sins why not just forgive them, without having himself tortured and executed?”

[2] It may seem unlikely that anyone would develop an a priori argument for the Incarnation unless they had had some contact with the Christian tradition. Swinburne concedes this point but then adds that, “Unless I had been brought up in the tradition of Western mathematics, I would be unlikely to believe that there is no greatest prime number; for I would not even have the concept of a prime number.” But, “once I have derived from tradition the relevant concepts, I am in a position to assess the proof that there is no greatest prime number.” And likewise, “we need first to be taught what a religious system claims; only then are we in a position to assess whether or not it is true.”

[3] See The Great Commission, Matthew 28:16–20.

[4] You can read my summary of Swinburne’s a priori Argument for the Incarnation in a single post here. See next the Historical Argument for the Resurrection of Jesus. Of course, before presenting these arguments one would first need to establish the rational warrant for Bare Theism. See the Modal Cosmological Argument, the Kalam Cosmological Argument, the Ontological Argument, as well as the arguments from Cosmic Teleology, Biological Teleology, Consciousness, Adequation, Moral Experience, Desire and Religious Experience.

In this series of posts I have been considering an argument by Oxford professor of philosophy Richard Swinburne. In The Resurrection of God Incarnate, he argues that, contra Richard Dawkins,¹ there are good a priori reasons for thinking that if there is a God he will become incarnate in response to the obvious general fact of human sin and suffering.

In my first post I presented the first of three reasons Swinburne gives: We might reasonably expect God to become incarnate and live a life filled with great suffering in order to discharge a moral obligation to share in the human suffering which, though for a good reason, He allows. In my second post I presented the second reason: To provide humanity a means of making atonement. And in this post I will consider the third and final reason: A morally perfect being may become incarnate to help us live morally good lives if we have seriously failed to do so. My last post will consider whether an incarnation in general, and the Incarnation of God in the person of Jesus in particular, are logically coherent.²

The Divine Revelation of Moral Truths

Making atonement helps us to deal with past wrongdoings. But God also wants us to live morally good lives in the present; indeed, God wants us, as Swinburne puts it, “to become saints.” This is something most of us fail to do. It is therefore plausible that God would become incarnate for a third reason: To reveal knowledge and found an institution to help us become morally good.

Swinburne suggests that the knowledge revealed by God Incarnate to achieve this purpose would be of three kinds.

The Nature of God

Firstly, we need knowledge of what God is like and what he has done in order to express appropriate gratitude and adoration. For example, that he is a Trinity and shares in our suffering and wishes to provide us with a means of making atonement. Even if we learned these things through a priori arguments, we would still need to know when and as whom God became incarnate so that we can appropriate that atonement to ourselves. And we also need to know something of his future plans for us so that we can make a right response—for example, that there are serious consequences for those who become incorrigibly bad. All this requires a “propositional revelation” from God—a revelation of certain specific propositions (God became incarnate in Jesus Christ) by a trustworthy source.

Obligatory and Supererogatory Actions

Secondly, we need moral knowledge about which actions are obligatory and which are supererogatory. Humans, the Bible already affirms, have a natural sense of right and wrong.³ But having moral intuition no more guarantees moral living than having a sense of direction guarantees that one will never get lost. It has already been noted that humans have an inherited propensity to wrongdoing. And this can manifest as a tendency to conceal moral truths from ourselves or to interpret them in our preferred way. A parent who sets their child a difficult and risky task (perhaps thinking it is best for the child to learn some things for themselves) may decide to intervene at a critical moment. Seeing that we have failed to live good lives according to what moral awareness is natural to us, it is likewise probable that God would intervene to provide us with moral instruction.

The Commandment of New Moral Obligations

Further, because God is our creator and sustainer he has the right to create obligations for us; that is, to issue commands which, if they had not been commanded, would be supererogatory, but, having been commanded, become obligations; i.e., Keep the Sabbath holy. Why would God burden us with these further obligations? Swinburne suggests there are two reasons.

The first is to ensure coordination of good actions. Consider, by way of illustration, that it is important that drivers travelling in opposite directions agree to keep to opposite sides of the road but unimportant which side they agree to—so long as they do all so agree. Likewise, we have a moral obligation to show gratitude to God as our benefactor through worship, though doing so on a particular day is only obligatory because God commands it—and God commands a particular day to help ensure that the main obligation is fulfilled.

The second reason for creating obligations is to help us form the habit of doing what is supererogatorily good. For this same reason a parent may tell a child to do the shopping for a sick neighbour—making a nonobligatory good action obligatory in the hope that the child will develop a habit of doing good beyond what is obligated and so become a morally exemplary person. “If anyone forces you to go one mile,” Jesus instructed, “go with them two miles.” This command may belong to the kind under discussion.

To Demonstrate the Morally Good Life

This brings us to the third and final way in which an incarnation may help us to live a morally good life. “It would be a lot easier to understand how to live a perfectly good life,” notes Swinburne, “if we have an example of someone doing this.” Thus by becoming incarnate and living a perfect life himself (a life of perfect compassion, pacifism, generosity and love) God provides valuable knowledge and encouragement to his creatures seeking do the same: He not only tells us how to live but shows us—and thereby demonstrates that it can be done and inspires us to emulate him.

Conclusion

Swinburne argues that becoming incarnate is precisely what we might expect God to do if God exists. In this post I have presented the last of three reasons: By becoming incarnate in Jesus, revealing important moral truths and living a morally exemplary life, God provided us with help in living morally exemplary lives ourselves. Since most of us have failed to live morally good lives helping us live morally good lives is something that a morally perfect being would plausibly undertake to do. And again: Since the human life of God Incarnate would be of limited duration, all these purposes would not be realised and continue into the future unless God Incarnate established a worldwide institution—such as the Christian Church—to record, interpret and promulgate his life story and teachings.

——————————————————————

Part I | Part II | Part IV

[1] In The God Delusion, Dawkins writes: “If God wanted to forgive our sins why not just forgive them, without having himself tortured and executed?”

[2] You can read my summary of the entire argument in a single post here.

[3] Romans 2:15

The biologist Richard Dawkins suggests that the Christian claim God became incarnate and was crucified is incongruous and improbable on its face. [1] The Oxford professor of philosophy, Richard Swinburne, takes the opposite view: In The Resurrection of God Incarnate he argues that there are good a priori reasons for thinking that, if there is a God, He will become incarnate in response to the obvious general fact of human sin and suffering. In other words, not only is the Incarnation and Crucifixion of Jesus not incongruous, it is precisely the sort of thing we might expect God to do if God exists. [2]

In my previous post I presented the first of three reasons Swinburne presents in support of his view: Given two preliminary axioms (the moral perfection of God and the sin and suffering of man) Swinburne argues that we might reasonably expect God to become incarnate and live a life filled with great suffering in order to discharge a moral obligation to share in the human suffering which, though for a good reason, He allows. In this post I will present the second reason why an incarnation follows naturally from these same axioms: To provide humanity a means of making atonement

Obligation, Guilt and Atonement

Swinburne first divides good actions into two broad types. Obligations are good actions that we owe to others: It is good in this first sense for you to feed your children and tell others the truth. Supererogatory actions are nonobligatory good actions: It is good in this second sense to volunteer at a soup kitchen. We do not wrong others when we fail to perform supererogatory actions but we do wrong others when we fail to meet our obligations—to respect each other’s property and personhood, for example, or to keep our promises. For wronging others we are blameworthy and so incur guilt. And in order to remove our guilt we need to “make atonement.”

Atonement, Swinburne says, usually has four components: repentance, apology, reparation and penance. If I have stolen your watch I must return it to you or give you something of equivalent value. Such reparation deals with the effects of my wrongdoing but it does not deal with the fact of my wrongdoing—that I sought to harm you. I must also therefore distance myself from my wrongdoing by a sincere apology and repentance.

Often this will suffice to remove my guilt but in cases of serious wrongdoing something extra may be required: a small gift or service as a token of my sorrow. Swinburne calls this “making a penance.” The process is completed when the victim agrees to treat me, insofar as he can, as one who has not wronged him: And this is to forgive me.

All Humans Have Wronged God

It is an obvious general fact, claims Swinburne, that all humans have wronged God. We have wronged God directly by failing to show reverence and gratitude to him as the holy source of our existence and we have wronged him indirectly by wronging each other. If I hit my wife I abuse the free will and responsibility entrusted to me by God and I also hurt a creature he created—just as I wrong you if I hit your child because I hurt someone upon whom you have lavished your loving care and attention.

In addition to incurring guilt through our wrongdoing we inherit a general propensity to wrongdoing. This is partly social (you are more likely to abuse your children if you yourself were abused) and partly genetic: Evidence has emerged that what a person does and has done to him at an early age affects the genes he hands on to his children.

Swinburne suggests that we also inherit something analogous to guilt: We are indebted to our ancestors for our life and for many benefits that come down to us through them; our ancestors, in turn, are indebted to God for their own wrongdoing. We therefore incur an obligation to help atone for their guilt. “Even the English law,” notes Swinburne, “requires that before you can claim what you inherit from your dead parents you must pay their debts.” Thus while the guilt itself is not ours, the obligation to atone for it is, and our failure to meet this obligation can be a further source of guilt.

It would seem, then, that human beings have a serious obligation to make atonement and are in a poor position to do so—owing to both the size of the moral debt and the propensity to continued wrongdoing. How might a morally perfect God respond to this? Swinburne suggests that God would likely respond by helping us to make a proper atonement.

The Appropriate Reparation to God

Earlier I made the obvious point that if I steal your watch I owe you a watch—or something of equal value. The question arises: What is the proper reparation for a wrongdoer to offer God? What has gone wrong, says Swinburne, is that we have failed to live good lives. One proper reparation would therefore be a perfect human life which we can offer to God in repentance. And while that one perfect human life may not morally counterbalance all the wrongdoing of n number of morally bad human lives, it is up to the injured party to determine when a sufficient reparation has been made. And one truly perfect human life would plausibly enable a merciful and morally perfect being to justifiably make that determination.

What is the proper reparation for a wrongdoer to offer God? What has gone wrong, says Swinburne, is that we have failed to live good lives. One proper reparation would therefore be a perfect human life which we can offer to God in repentance.

Making Sense of a Reparation Received from and Offered Back to the Wronged Party

Here the skeptic may still object that a third party cannot make restitution for the offences of another. No one would consider justice done if a judge were to have an innocent man seized off the street and thrown in jail for the crimes of the murderer who himself remained free. Correct. But the problem lies not with the argument but the analogy. Consider a more helpful one.

Suppose Mrs Hall hires a man, John, to paint her house. John is paid in advance but procrastinates providing his services and finally spends the money on a ski trip during which he breaks his leg. Ideally, he would either return the money or find someone else to paint the house on his behalf. But if he is incapable of doing either of these things (because, say, he is broke and and doesn’t know anyone prepared to paint the house) he finds himself in the position of having an insoluble debt.

Plausibly, Mrs Hall could dismiss the whole matter with an airy wave of her hand and hire a new painter. But now suppose the following: That Mrs Hall is a morally conscientious woman who thinks it important that John should take his wrongdoing seriously; that she is very generous; and that she knows someone who is prepared to paint her house on John’s behalf. No one would consider the matter resolved if she were to call this third party and engage him to paint her house without John’s knowledge: By every reasonable assessment John would still be in her debt. But she might consider the matter resolved to her satisfaction if John himself were involved in the arrangements—if, for example, he were to express remorse for the situation and then, having been provided with the contact details, were to call the third party in order to explain the problem and ask for his help.

In this analogy, needless to say, Mrs Hall represents God, John a human wrongdoer, and Jesus the third party whose assistance we must solicit. As Aquinas noted, confession and contrition must be shown by the sinner himself but, “satisfaction has to do with the exterior act and here one can make use of friends.”

Two final points.

The first is that there could by chance appear many prophets falsely claiming to be a divine offer of atonement for human wrongdoing. A prophet making the claim truthfully would therefore need the “signature” of God upon his work—an effect that only God can bring about and which can be taken as a mark of endorsement. This would show us that God, the injured party, was willing to accept the reparation. One obvious way God could do this would be to violate the laws of nature—such as by raising the prophet back to life three days after his death. [3]

The second final point is that the means of atonement God offers makes no difference to us unless we associate ourselves with it. Just as John, in my analogy, needs to both repent and himself solicit the assistance of the third party in order to discharge his debt, so a wrongdoer needs to ask God to accept the life of Jesus as a reparation for his sins. And this again entails the necessity of a worldwide institution to announce that God has provided a means of atonement and to enjoin us to avail ourselves of it.

Conclusion

Swinburne suggests that the Christian claim that Jesus saved us from our sins is to be understood in the above way. By becoming incarnate in Jesus and living a perfect life, God provided a means of atonement. Thus, “God was both the wronged person and also the one who, thinking it so important that we should take our wrongdoing seriously, made available the reparation for us to offer back to him.”

——————————————————–

Part I | Part III | Part IV

[1] In The God Delusion, Dawkins writes: “If God wanted to forgive our sins why not just forgive them, without having himself tortured and executed?”

[2] You can read my summary of the entire argument in a single post here.

[3] See the Resurrection of Jesus.

“If God wanted to forgive our sins,” complains Dawkins in The God Delusion, “why not just forgive them, without having himself tortured and executed?” I will confess that, before I became a Christian around three years ago, I shared Dawkins’ perplexity. In fact, the Christian claim that, “Jesus died for our sins,” (understanding this to mean that before God could forgive us for wronging him he needed to become a man so we could murder him) was finally as strange as the claim that, “Honi the Circle-Drawer philandered for our monogamy.” If it was not utterly nonsensical then it was so impenetrably obscure that only a religious mystic could fully understand it—and even then he would then be unable to explain it to others. [1]

The Oxford professor of philosophy, Richard Swinburne, would not share this view. In The Resurrection of God Incarnate, he argues that there are good reasons for thinking that, if there is a God, he would become incarnate in order to live a perfect life filled with great suffering that ends in a miracle. In other words, not only is the crucifixion of God Incarnate not incongruous; it is precisely the sort of thing we would expect God to do if God exists.

Swinburne begins his argument with two preliminary axioms. The first is that if God exists God is by nature morally perfect—that is the sort of being whose existence we are postulating. The second is that human sin and suffering is a necessary feature of the universe God has created. Swinburne argues that such suffering is something which God (if God exists) has good reason to allow but is also something to which God (being morally perfect) is also likely to respond in a dramatic way.

In this first post it will be my concern to argue for the necessity of human sin and suffering and then discuss the first of three a priori reasons for thinking that God would become incarnate in response to it. The two remaining reasons that make up the rest of Swinburne’s argument will be presented in subsequent posts.

The Sin and Suffering of Man

Suffering is an unpreventable feature of any world in which virtue and moral self-determination are widely attainable for finite agents. This was a point I discussed in a previous post.  Again, briefly: Free will ensures that we have a choice between doing good and doing evil while humans are so made that when we do good it becomes easier to do good again at the next opportunity and when we do evil it becomes easier to do evil again at the next opportunity. [2] In this way, we gradually strengthen or weaken desires of different kinds and so form a moral character.

Without free will none of this would be possible. And while God is omnipotent, his omnipotence needs to be understood in a way that allows for the constraints of logical possibility. It is logically impossible for God to create agents with free will and ensure that they do no evil. And so human suffering is a potential feature of any world in which virtue is widely attainable.

It is only because God wants us to freely become good people that he permits temporary moral evil and suffering. But it needs to be noted that it is not free will alone, but free will and moral evil together, that provide an opportunity to manifest most virtues. In other words, only if someone eventually exercises their free will to assault or abuse you can I exercise mine to show you empathy; only if you are robbed can I make personal sacrifices to provide for you. The question arises whether moral evil alone would afford adequate opportunities for everyone to form a virtuous moral character. Swinburne suggests that it would not. A world in which opportunities to obtain virtue are universally available must therefore contain natural evil.

Consider a world without disaster, disease and decrepitude; a world in which the only cause of injury and death is, respectively, assault and murder. It is a mathematical certainty that such a world would provide far, far fewer opportunities for compassion, self-sacrifice, courage, forbearance, and so forth, and highly probable that some of us would have no such opportunities at all. Pleasure and comfort are good and our world, of course, includes both. But a life that offered nothing else would make us complacent, hedonistic, idle, selfish and shallow.

The initial conditions of the argument are therefore as follows: Human beings are misusing their free will to do evil. As a result, many individuals and societies are developing a bad moral character. This fact, together with the natural evil necessary to ensure that opportunities to obtain virtue are universally available, causes human suffering that is often widespread and profound. God, meanwhile, is morally perfect. How is he likely to respond? Swinburne argues that God will likely respond by becoming incarnate. Let us now consider the first of the three arguments he gives.

To Fulfil an Obligation to Share in Human Suffering

Parents often subject their children to suffering for the sake of some greater good. Mrs Bell, for instance, may put her overweight daughter on a stringent diet. Mr Wild may ask his son to attend a “difficult” neighbourhood school for the sake of good community relations. Under such circumstances, it is good but not obligatory for the parent to show solidarity with their child by taking a share in the suffering that has been imposed. Thus Mrs Bell may decide to join her daughter in eating a green salad for dinner even though Mrs Bell herself is not overweight. And likewise Mr Wild may present himself at the “difficult” neighbourhood school to enrol in the parent-teacher association or offer to coach the soccer team.

In both examples the suffering imposed is mild. But Swinburne suggests that when the suffering imposed reaches a certain level of intensity the good of sharing in that suffering for the one who imposes it rises to an obligation. In this connection he offers the following example.

Suppose, firstly, that England has been unjustly attacked and the government has conscripted all men between 18 and 30 to defend it; suppose, secondly, that a parent may “veto” the conscription of their son if he is under 21; suppose, thirdly, that older men under 50 may volunteer. Most parents with teenage sons veto the conscription but Swinburne, in view of the gravity of the situation, refuses to do so: He insists that his 19 year old son enlist. Suppose finally that Swinburne is 45 and so himself eligible but under no obligation to serve. “Since I am forcing my son to endure the hardship and danger of military service,” concludes Swinburne, “I have a moral obligation to him to volunteer myself.” And of course in circumstances of this kind the sharing could not be incognito. “The parent needs not merely to share the child’s suffering but to show him that he is doing so.”

The relevance of all this to the doctrine of the Incarnation can be spelled out as follows: Given the amount of pain and suffering which God, though for a good purpose, permits us to endure it is very plausible to suppose that he incurs a moral obligation upon himself to share in that suffering; and given that God, being perfectly good, always performs the morally best available action, it is very plausible to suppose that he would discharge that obligation. This could be achieved by means of an incarnation; that is, by becoming human and, “living a life containing much suffering and ending with the great crisis which all humans have to face: the crisis of death.” And one way to ensure that he has shared in the very worst suffering humans must endure is to live a life that ends in a brutal and unjustly imposed execution.

A moment ago it was noted that the obligation to share in the suffering one imposes on another can not be discharged in secret. Thus an incarnation would not fulfil its purpose unless the knowledge that it had occurred were made widely available to the future human race. And since the human life of God Incarnate would be of limited duration he must also found an institution—such as the Christian Church—to proclaim his message.

Swinburne therefore argues that the terrible suffering of Jesus, including his betrayal and his brutal and unjustly imposed execution, is not incongruous on the assumption that Jesus was God Incarnate; rather, it is precisely the sort of thing we might expect of God given his moral perfection and the great human suffering which, though for good reason, he allows.

The next post in this series will discuss the second of three a priori reasons for thinking that God would become Incarnate: To provide a means of making atonement.

—————————————————

Part II | Part III | Part IV

[1] Here one thinks of Buddha’s famous Flower Sermon. Zen Buddhism is said to have begun when Buddha held up a white lotus flower to his followers and said—absolutely nothing. No one understood the meaning of this, except for one disciple, who smiled subtly and with that subtle smile Zen Buddhism was born.

[2] As Emerson put it, “Sew a thought, reap an action; sew an action, reap a habit; sew a habit, reap a character; sew a character, reap an eternal destiny.”

One of the skeptic’s most familiar complaints about Christianity is that it asks us to believe in a lot of mythological nonsense that has been scientifically falsified—such as parting seas and virgin births and men who walk on water. It is certainly true that the Bible contains accounts of miracles. And it true that a Christian is committed to taking at least some of these literally. Indeed, Christianity stands or falls on the truth of the claim that Jesus rose miraculously from the dead—a point realised by the Apostles themselves.¹ But can the skeptic justify his claim that it is absurd and irrational to even entertain a belief in miracles? In this post it shall be my concern to show that the answer to this question is: No.

Let us begin by defining a miracle. A miracle is a claimed event which, if it occurred, would constitute a violation of the laws nature. By this definition it is not even certain that all of the extraordinary claims in the New Testament are miracles. In Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion and Naturalism, for example, the American analytic philosopher Alvin Plantinga includes a Quantum Mechanical account of the transformation of water into wine—sportingly provided by the atheist physicist Bradley Monton. GRW, for what it is worth, refers to the Ghirard-Rimini-Weber approach—one of a set of collapse theories in quantum mechanics. Morton says,

The wave function for each particle is spread throughout an unbounded region of the universe at every time except perhaps momentary instants of time. This means that for each particle there is at most a finite region where it couldn’t be localised by a GRW hit. Some, probably even most, particles could be localised anywhere. So for changing water into wine, it’s not a big deal—you’ve got a bunch of individual particles that are composing the water, and they can all have GRW hits such that their positions are redistributed to the locations that would be appropriate for them to compose wine.

Monton’s final assessment is that, “all of the other miracles are unproblematically compatible with quantum mechanics.”

Morton helps to show that even the most extraordinary claims in the New Testament are not in principle beyond the purview of science but such speculations are, in the end, beside the point. And this is because the Christian claim is not that the miracles recorded in the New Testament are Quantum anomalies—even ones orchestrated by Jesus. Christians claim that the miracles of Jesus, and in particular the Resurrection of Jesus, did violate the laws of nature. This is the precisely the point of the miracle: Since violating laws of nature is something which only God can do, the Resurrection constitutes a divine signature on the life and teachings of Jesus.

I will now briefly discuss three standard objections to the belief in miracles and show that each one is ultimately without warrant.

The Objection from Scientism

The first objection holds that the scientific method is the only valid source of true beliefs about the world. Its proponent claims: If something cannot be empirically measured and quantified, or proven by means of a repeatable experiment, then we cannot hold a justified belief in it. And since miracles, by definition, lie beyond the scope of the scientific method (i.e., are unquantifiable, untestable, etc.) we cannot hold a justified belief in miracles.

The problem with this view, dubbed “scientism” by its critics, is that it is self-referentially incoherent. Consider: The claim that the scientific method is the only valid source of true beliefs about the world is a metascientific claim—a belief about the world that cannot itself be empirically measured and quantified, or proven by means of a repeatable experiment. Perhaps one could attempt to demonstrate the validity of scientism with a philosophical proof. But since any such proof would both advocate the scientific method as the sole source of truth, and originate outside the scientific method, it would invalidate itself.

In recent times scientism has enjoyed an unselfconscious resurgence in the writing of the New Atheists but it can be traced back to a mid-twentieth century movement in Western philosophy called Logical Positivism. Logical Positivism held that the only meaningful statements were those capable of being verified through sense experience or (as in pure logic and mathematics) those that are true by tautology. All non-tautological claims were subject to the “verifiability criterion” championed by A. J. Ayer in his 1936 book, Language, Truth and Logic. The existence of God, interestingly, was not rejected outright; it was simply excluded from the conversation. Ayer said that it was just as absurd to be an atheist as to be a theist. The statements, “God exists” and “God does not exist” simply had no meaning.

By 1945, Logical Positivism had been abandoned by its own founders. The first problem with the verifiability criterion was that it forbade the metascientific precepts necessary to formulate a theoretical framework for scientific inquiry. The second problem was the fatal one already noted: The verifiability criterion is itself neither tautological nor verifiable. As the mathematician David Berlinski puts it, “All such arguments, when self-applied, self-destruct.”

The Objection from Hume

A second influential objection against the belief in miracles goes back to the Scottish philosopher David Hume. Hume claimed that the inductive confirmation of natural law in everyday experience is so overwhelming that no eyewitness report of a violation of natural law could ever outweigh it. For instance: The fact that heavy objects are always and everywhere observed to fall to the Earth is overwhelming background evidence against a report that, say, a marble bust of Mozart had levitated into the air. Whether this miracle had really occurred or not, a rational person would be compelled to reject the report of its occurrence on the basis of his everyday experience of gravity.

Contemporary philosophers of religion identify two flaws in Hume’s argument, both of which are discussed by Oxford professor of philosophy Richard Swinburne in his influential book The Existence of God. Swinburne first notes that, even granting Hume’s assumption that the only relevant background evidence is our experience of the laws of nature, there is no reason to suppose that this evidence always counts decisively against the report. “Maybe,” Swinburne writes, “so many careful witnesses report very clearly what happened that their evidence can outweigh the evidence from the normal operation of laws of nature.”

You might object that people lie, hallucinate and are easily deceived. But in support of his point that, very occasionally, we may be rationally compelled to accept evidence for a miraculous event from multiple, credible witnesses, Swinburne appeals to two fundamental principles of rationality: The Principle of Credulity and the Principle of Testimony. 

The Principle of Credulity states: If to a subject S it seems that x is present then, in the absence of special considerations, probably x is present. If Mr Green has the experience of it seeming to him that there is a German shepherd on his lawn then that is good evidence for his believing that there is a German shepherd on his lawn. “The principle of Credulity,” Swinburne asserts, “is a fundamental principle of rationality and unless we allow it to have considerable force, we quickly find ourselves in a skeptical bog in which we can hardly know anything.”

In ordinary experience we also use a wider principle: Other things being equal, we believe that what others tell us is probably true. “Most of our beliefs about the world,” observes Swinburne, “are based on what others claim to have perceived—beliefs about geography and history and science and everything else beyond immediate experience.” Swinburne argues that such beliefs are justified even when (as per usual) we do not personally vet witnesses for their reliability. Thus the Principle of Testimony: The experiences of others, in the absence of special considerations, are probably as they report them. In his book Swinburne enumerates and discusses various special considerations and shows that none of them can be universally applied to religious experience.²

Contra Hume: On these two principles of rationality detailed reports of a miracle from several credible witnesses may outweigh the inductive evidence of natural law from everyday experience—even without including the evidence of natural theology in our total background evidence.

“But Hume’s main mistake,” continues Swinburne, “was his assumption that in such cases our knowledge of what are the laws of nature is our only relevant background evidence.” Equally relevant to our assessment of a purported miracle is any background evidence for the existence of God.³ For if on the total background evidence it is plausible or even probable that there is a God, then it is plausible or even probable that there exists a being with the power to violate the laws of nature. Evidence that there is a God is evidence that laws of nature can be violated—which will have particular relevance in cases where the reported event is of a kind that God, if God exists, would have good reason to bring about.

What reasons might God have to cause an event that violates laws whose regular operation he usually ensures? Swinburne suggests that there are reasons of two kinds. The first is to answer human prayer. “A world in which everything occurred in accordance with natural laws,” he notes, “would not be a world in which God had any living interaction with human beings.” The second kind of reason why God might violate natural law is, “just occasionally to put his signature on the work or teaching of some prophet in order to show that that work or teaching was God’s work or teaching.”

Swinburne argues elsewhere that, on the assumption that God exists, an Incarnation authenticated by a divine miracle has a certain likelihood given the moral perfection of God and the obvious general fact of human sin and suffering.⁴ And when this consideration is combined with the evidence for the existence of God from natural theology, a multiply and independently attested miracle of the right kind under the right circumstances may outweigh the inductive evidence that, when natural laws operate in the usual way, such things do not occur. Hume’s attempt to show that a miracle is always unworthy of credit fails.

The Objection from the Laws of Conservation

The third and final objection to miracles is the claim that special divine action in the world would violate the laws of physics. Plantinga asks us to consider this example of a miracle: God creating an adult horse ex nihilo in the middle of Times Square. During such an event the laws of conservation of energy, momentum, and so forth, would all be violated. Physics, meanwhile, tells us that this is impossible. The objector concludes miracles are impossible.

However, the laws of conservation apply to systems that are causally closed—closed to causal influence from without. But as Plantinga reminds us it is no part of standard physics that the universe is causally closed and whether or not it is depends on whether or not God exists. For consider: If God does exist then there exists an omnipotent being who can act upon the universe from without. Evidence for the existence of God is therefore, equally, evidence against the causal closure of the universe. And likewise: any system in which a miracle occurs is, ipso facto, not constrained by the various conservation laws. One cannot reject a miracle on the unproven assumption that God does not exist and therefore the universe is causally closed; indeed, the reported miracle may be evidence against the assumption on the basis of which the skeptic is rejecting it.

We have seen that there is no indefeasible objection to the possibility of miracles and so no way for a skeptic to prevent at the outset a rational inquiry into their occurrence. Whether it is rational to believe in the foundational miracle of Christianity—the Resurrection of Jesus—cannot be settled a priori. It needs to be settled in the court of historical analysis.⁴

——————————————————–

[1] Paul writes, “And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.” 

[2] See my summary of his argument here.

[3] See the Modal Cosmological Argument, the Kalam Cosmological Argument, as well as the arguments from Cosmic Teleology, Biological Teleology, Consciousness, Adequation, Moral Experience, Desire and Religious Experience. All nine lines of evidence for the existence of God are also lines of evidence for the possibility of a being who can violate the laws of nature and so for the possibility of miracles. They must therefore be included in our total background evidence for a purported miracle. 

[4] There is no space to detail the argument here. See his book The Resurrection of God Incarnate. I summarise the relevant part of that book here.

[5] See the historical argument for The Resurrection of Jesus.

Many Christians believe that we have a moral obligation to obey what God commands. Since God commands us not to murder or commit adultery (Exodus 20:13-14), we are obligated not to do those things. Since God commands us to love our neighbours as we love ourselves (Matt 22:39), we have a duty to do just that. In fact, many Christian theologians and philosophers take this notion a step further, arguing that our moral duties are actually rooted in God’s commands. On this view, if God commands something, then we have a moral duty to follow that command. On the other hand, if God didn’t command anything, then we wouldn’t have any moral obligations or duties. This view, called ‘divine command theory’ (or DCT for short), is appealing to Christian scholars and laypeople alike since it grounds moral duties and obligations in God. In addition, it squares well with what we read in scripture.

A moment’s reflection, however, reveals an obvious objection to this view. If God commanded someone to torture a child, would torturing the child be the right thing to do? If our moral duties are determined by what God commands us to do, then it follows that if God commanded us to do something wicked like torture a child, it would be our moral duty to torture that child. We might spell out the objection like this:

(1) Our moral duties are determined by what God commands us to do.

(2) God can command us to torture children.

(3) Therefore, if God commanded us to torture children, we would have a moral duty to torture children.

Plainly the idea of having a moral obligation to torture children conflicts with our moral intuitions. It seems absurd, or at least strange, that a command from God could transform a wicked and evil action into a morally obligatory one. One might conclude, then, that since grounding moral duties in God’s commands leads to such absurdities, they are likely not the foundation for our moral duties and obligations. As sceptics argue, there must be some other way to ground moral duties.

However, philosopher Matthew Flannagan thinks that this conclusion is unwarranted[i]. According to Flannagan, the defender of divine command theory has reason to deny premise (2). This is because when Christians refer to ‘God’, they are referring to a being who is holy, just, righteous, loving, etc. As such, what premise (2) really states is that a holy, just, righteous, and loving being can command us to torture children. However, assuming that torturing children is essentially unholy, unjust, unrighteous, and unloving, it is not at all clear that God can issue such a command. If commanding unjust actions makes the commander unjust, then it follows that if God (a perfectly just and righteous being) issues such a command then he is both just and unjust, both righteous and unrighteous—which is a contradiction. Therefore, Flannagan argues, premise (2) is false.

In fact, as Flannagan points out, in order for the objection to succeed, one must implicitly assume that no just, righteous, loving person would command wicked and evil acts. He states “the very reason… sceptics cite this objection is they think… ‘no informed, morally sensible person would ever endorse this [kind of behaviour]’”[ii]. In other words, the notion of having a moral duty to torture children conflicts with our moral intuitions and simply isn’t the type of thing a reasonable, just, loving person could command. But, given that God is a reasonable, just, and loving person, he could not issue such a command. Therefore, premise (2) is false.

With this in mind, it seems that divine command theory is a tenable view for Christians to hold.  In answer to the question, then: God cannot command wicked acts, as the question assumes, and therefore no dilemma arises.

Endnotes:

[i] [BiolaUniversity]. (2013, Sep 14). Matthew Flannagan: Can God Command Evil? The Problem of Apparently Immoral Commands. [Video File]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gjf4AfuilWk&t=253s

[ii] ibid

It is part of human nature to doubt. In a world in which the prominent worldviews are contrary to Christianity, it is no surprise that many followers of Christ have doubts about their faith. I know from personal experience that doubts can often seem overwhelming, and that it is extraordinarily easy to blow them out of proportion. What should simply prompt reflection and consideration instead causes one to become anxious and defensive both internally—emotionally and intellectually—as well as externally—in one’s interactions with others. In such cases, there are two missteps that believers should beware of. Firstly, we can mistakenly perceive an objection as undermining a particular Christian belief, when in fact that belief has little or nothing to do with the objection. Secondly, we can assign far more importance to a given belief than it truly has. As a result of these two missteps, doubts and objections can appear to have implications that they do not necessarily have.

As an example of the first misstep, take the so-called slaughter of the Canaanites. Critics often argue that God’s command to the Israelites to kill the Canaanites[i] was immoral, and therefore the God of the Bible cannot be good. Obviously, this conclusion is troubling for all who believe that God is essentially good. Must we accept it, or is there an alternative? One option would be to repudiate the argument. This, in my opinion, has been successfully done by a number of apologists[ii]. Another alternative would be to grant the argument, but deny the conclusion. Let’s see what happens if we explore this route.

Suppose that God’s command to kill the Canaanites was immoral, and that an essentially good God could not have issued such a command. Rather than inferring that God is not good, the Christian could instead conclude that the Israelites were mistaken in thinking that God had issued such a command. If we draw this conclusion, then the objection does not undermine God’s goodness, but rather biblical inerrancy, since the command is recorded in scripture. Clearly this is still a troubling conclusion for most believers. Nonetheless, it serves as an example of the first misstep that doubting Christians can fall into; namely, perceiving an objection as undermining a particular Christian belief (e.g. God’s goodness) when it actually does not necessarily do so.

This brings us to the second misstep: assigning more importance to a belief than it warrants. In the Christian worldview, some beliefs are more central—more important—than others. For example, the belief that God exists is vital, while beliefs regarding the rapture and tribulation are far less significant. Philosopher William Lane Craig offers a helpful analogy that emphasises this point. He states:

Our system of beliefs as Christians can be compared to a spider’s web which radiates out from a central point. These strands of the web represent different doctrines or affirmations that we as Christians believe. Some of these doctrines are more central to the web of belief. If one of these doctrines were plucked out, the reverberations would be felt throughout the entire web and the web might even collapse. But if one of these peripheral strands were to be removed, there would be little reverberation in one’s system of beliefs.[iii]

If we picture Christian beliefs like a web, then the existence of God would be a core strand, along with the deity of Christ and his bodily resurrection. If these claims turned out to be false, then so would Christianity.

Returning to our earlier example, then, which belief is more central to the Christian faith—belief in God’s goodness, or in scripture’s inerrancy? Although giving up either would send colossal tremors through one’s web of beliefs, I believe that abandoning the former would do more damage than the latter. That is to say, belief in God’s goodness is more central to Christianity than belief in biblical inerrancy. The danger is that, in constructing our web of beliefs, one might place more importance on a doctrine than it warrants. Then, when that doctrine is challenged, the accompanying doubts appear to strike far closer to the heart of the Christian faith than they should. The moral of the story is that, when in doubt, we should think carefully about what belief an objection undermines, and make sure that we place that belief in its appropriate place in our ‘web of beliefs’; neither attributing more significance to it than is warranted, nor underestimating its importance.

Endnotes:

[i] See Deuteronomy 7:2; 20:16-18.

[ii] For some responses to the so-called slaughter of the Canaanites, click here and here.

[iii] https://www.reasonablefaith.org/podcasts/defenders-podcast-series-3/s3-doctrine-of-revelation/doctrine-of-revelation-part-7/

Has pornography really become morally and socially acceptable? If a fluff piece reposted on the Herald website is any indication, the answer is: Yes, it has, and for your information, it is now opposition to pornography that is morally and socially abnormal.

The article in question informs us that an American woman by the name of Claire Dolton was recently pilloried online after jilting her fiancé for the stupidest of reasons. “And the reason?” asks lifestyle reporter Vanessa Brown and then answers her own question: “Well, the guy liked to watch porn—gasp!”

Consider that sarcastic, editorialising gasp. It leaves the reader in no doubt of Venessa’s opinion. Claire Dolton is a pearl-clutching prude and her decision to break up with her fiancé over pornography is absurd. If pornography is to be approached with any moral reservation at all (and it is not clear from Vanessa’s article that it should) then, presumably, it is on a level with double-parking and the late return of library books: A naughty foible unworthy of serious concern.

If it is absurd to be solemnly opposed to masturbation and pornography then the Christian Church has been absurd for twenty centuries. The Catechism of the Catholic Church declares that, “pornography does grave injury to the dignity of participants,” and lists masturbation as a mortal sin—where “mortal” means serious enough to destroy one’s relationship with God. Luther and Calvin believed likewise as is clear from their voluminous writings. And there is no possible reading of Matthew 5:27-28 (in which men are forbidden to, “gaze at a woman to lust after her,”) that does not proscribe pornography for any man who wishes to obey the teachings of Jesus. [1]

In the digital age, meanwhile, pornography has never been more abundant, more accessible and more accepted. [2] Clearly, then, there is a chasm between what the Church teaches and what society practices. In what follows it will be my concern to show that Christian teaching on this issue is morally coherent. My argument will be that the Church upholds and promotes an ideal of human sexuality that is most conducive to the production of virtue and happiness while forms of human sexuality that deviate from this ideal, and in this instance pornography and masturbation, are productive of vice and therefore morally wrong.

It Is Disordered

Let me begin with a modest claim about masturbation and pornography: It is highly doubtful that a good counterargument can be mounted against the view that it is disordered—where “disordered” is understood to mean, “contrary to the normal and healthy functioning or purpose of something”—in this case, human sexuality.

Clearly enough, a boy who discovers that he enjoys rubbing his genitals has not discovered the unitive and procreative ends towards which the motivating urge is directed. Who can deny that he still has an important further fact to learn about sex? Or, if the masturbator is an adult man, who can deny that what is missing from the room when he masturbates is as critical to the completion and fulfilment of human sexuality as is an opponent to a solitary man on a tennis court who wishes to play a game of tennis?

The theologian Peter Damian has even suggested that masturbation is a form of low-grade homosexuality—a point which entails masturbation is disordered ipso facto for heterosexual men whose sexual desires are directed at the female sex. [3] I will admit that I initially laughed at Damian’s suggestion—but it is nevertheless reasonable on reflection. For consider what is happening when a man masturbates: In a room in which a woman is nowhere to be found, a male hand is bringing a penis to orgasm—so be it that the hand and penis belong to the same man. In The Porn Trap, Wendy and Larry Maltz make the further point that, for this very reason, heterosexual boys have always tried to use pornography to “heterosexualize” masturbation,

Rather than focus on the fact that they are stimulating male genitals, they can focus on the reassuring presence of a female.

The obvious qualification that no female is actually present gives the lie to the attempted deception: For in the final analysis masturbating to heterosexual pornography is no more a form of “heterosexual sex” than a shoe is “food” if while eating it I look at pictures of bread.

Here an objector may simply allow that pornography and masturbation are disordered and ask: Is what is disordered necessarily wrong? Thomists think the answer to this question is Yes and their position, called Natural Law Morality, is not as easy to refute as you might think. But showing that masturbating to pornography is wrong does not depend on a defence of Natural Law Morality. There are far less scholastic and more obvious objections at hand.

It Is Paradigmatically Selfish

That the act of sexually pleasuring yourself is paradigmatically selfish is, I hope, fairly obvious. John Paul II, in his Theology of the Body, argues that, “pornography and masturbation represent the destruction of the symbolic and nuptial meaning of the human body.” For, as he says, “God gives all men and women erotic energy,” that, “forms part of that attraction between men and women.” That, of itself, is a profound good. But it follows that,

Sexual energy needs to find its outlet in love, not lust: In masturbation that erotic energy is turned in on oneself. Masturbation, therefore, is a symbol not of love but of loneliness.

Here an atheist reader will object that I have smuggled God into my argument. But the point is scarcely affected by the substitution of “Nature” for God as the origin human erotic energy. It is an obvious general truth that when the pleasure of sex is shared it opens one up to erotic and romantic affection and, ultimately, family love. Thomas Nagel, himself an atheist, sees this reciprocity as being what is essential to human sexuality.

Nagel proposes that sexual interactions in which each person responds with sexual arousal to noticing the sexual arousal of the other person exhibit the psychology that is natural to human sexuality. In such an encounter, each person becomes aware of himself or herself and the other person as both the subject and the object of their joint sexual experiences. Perverted sexual encounters or events would be those in which this mutual recognition of arousal is absent. [4]

On Nagel’s criterion viewing and masturbating to pornography would qualify as, “perverted sexual events” since there is not and cannot be a mutual recognition of arousal between two conscious selves.

It Therefore Impedes Virtue

Consider, by contrast, a man in a loving and monogamous marriage who refrains from pornography and masturbation. Such a man constrains his sexual activity to one woman with whom he is in love. He thereby enjoys the imposition of what is probably one of the few constraints upon the male libido that is stronger than the male libido—love itself. In other words, a loving husband who enjoys sexual release with the woman he loves and in no other way quickly discovers that in the interests of cherishing and respecting her he will frequently need to overcome and set aside his carnal urges—to give up on the idea of fulfilling some erotic fantasy that his wife finds embarrassing, for example; or to give up on the idea of having sex altogether in order to nurse his wife because she feels unwell. In this way, over time, and by force of habit, his love and respect for the other must operate against and surpass his strongest instinct for pleasure. And as Plato said, “A man becomes brave by acting bravely.” He means that we shape our moral character over time by our moral choices. The implications of this should be obvious

You might object here that a loving husband who does not so constrain himself does all these things too only he also masturbates to pornography in private from time to time—perhaps the better to control his carnal urges. But this objection entirely misses the point. For the man who has an orgasm whenever he wants and with whatever fantasy or pornographic aid he wants does not enjoy any inter-personal constraint upon his sexual release. C. S. Lewis understood this well when he wrote,

The real evil of masturbation would be that it takes an appetite which, in lawful use, leads the individual out of himself to complete and correct his own personality in that of another and turns it back; sends the man back into the prison of himself, there to keep a harem of imaginary brides … For the harem is always accessible, always subservient, calls for no sacrifices or adjustments. Among those shadowy brides he is always adored, always the perfect lover; no demand is made on his unselfishness, no mortification ever imposed on his vanity.

And It Promotes Vice

Much of what I have said so far could be applied to masturbation alone. But masturbation is almost always coupled with pornography abuse—and this is much graver. Lewis himself wrote well before the spread of online pornography. But his warning has only become more relevant and more urgent.

It is logical: You cannot love, respect and will the good of another human being and simultaneously find pleasure in watching them do something harmful or have something harmful done to them. The question arises: Is choosing to become a pornographic actress a good thing for a woman to do?

The question can be brought home by imagining that your mother, sister, daughter or wife is the woman in question. Sexual intercourse has the potential to be the most wonderful experience of human life—from its romantic and unitive force in a loving relationship to its production of children and so of family love. Contrast this with the life of a pornographic actress for whom sex and love are alienated so that her body can be objectified for profit.

If you cannot with perfect equanimity entertain the prospect of one of your female loved ones becoming a pornographic actress then you are morally compromising yourself every time you watch and masturbate to pornography. For to enjoy pornography and masturbation one has to follow the opposite moral path of the man who constrains his sexual activity to one woman with whom he is in love; namely, he has to allow his sexual desires to eclipse his love and respect for the other; he has to view woman and girls with limited financial and emotional agency as objects worthy to be used and misused for the sake of his own sexual enjoyment. And to do so—and to make a habit of doing so—is, Plato reminds us, simply to become a perverse, selfish, callous and unloving person.

This argument holds with respect to any form of pornography whatever; but it holds a fortiori with respect to the sort of pornography that has become almost normative online in recent times. There are various studies that can now be found on the prevalence and frequency of verbal and physical aggression towards woman in pornographic videos today. A fairly typical example reviews 304 popular videos and reports that,

88% of scenes contained physical aggressive behavior, such as choking or hitting, and 49% contained verbal aggression, mostly name calling. Almost all (94%) of aggressive behavior was directed towards women and elicited a positive or neutral response.

The Herald itself should know better. A month before it posted the above article, it ran a story on an online discussion among pornographic actresses in which it was revealed that, “rape, abuse and exploitation are shockingly common.” And when it is remembered that viewing pornography online produces ad revenue for those that promulgate it, it is not an exaggeration to say that men who view pornography are helping to fund the rape, abuse and exploitation of vulnerable women and girls. In this light, Claire’s mortification at her fiancé’s enjoyment of pornography does not seem quite so absurd.

The coherence of Christian teaching on this subject is, I believe, a small item of further evidence for the truth of the Christian Faith.

—————————————————-

[1] In this article I address myself to the problem of heterosexual men viewing heterosexual porn with a focus on the exploitation of women. This is because it is primarily men that view porn and it is primarily woman who are exploited. However, the same arguments could with very little need of emendation account for viewers and actors of any gender and orientation.

[2] The Broadcasting Standards Authority would likely agree with Venessa Brown—having decided that a show in which headless human beings are selected worthy or unworthy of romance by an examination of their genitals was fit for prime time New Zealand television. You can read about their decision here.

[3] For the coherence of Christian teaching on homosexuality see Revelation: From Metaphor to Analogy by Richard Swinburne, p.303-306.

[4] Quoted from this article on the Philosophy of Sexuality.

It is not often that St Augustine and his wisdom are subjects of everyday conversation, but his thinking might be given more of an airing after US Christian apologist Mary Jo Sharp visited New Zealand. Mrs Sharp, a Professor of Apologetics at Houston Baptist University, spoke in Christchurch, Auckland and Tauranga recently, courtesy of Thinking Matters, a ministry that “encourages New Zealand Christians to think more deeply about what they believe, and why they believe it, so they can present the Christian faith as both rational and true”.

In Auckland, Mrs Sharp spoke at the Greenlane Christian Centre on May 25, with her main address titled “Encountering the Problem of Evil in Everyday Conversation”, at the start of a two-day conference on “Confident Christianity”.

She outlined a three-step approach for engaging people on this topic in a way that is aimed not at putting them on the defensive, but rather freeing them to think. The steps are essentially “refine the objections [to belief in God based on evil]”, “define the terms” and “outline your view”.

St Augustine’s treatment of the topic of good and evil was summarised under the second heading.

But Mrs Sharp, a former atheist, introduced the subject on a more personal note, sharing what happened on one occasion after she had given a talk at a women’s ministry event on life having meaning and purpose in God.

“At the end of my talk, a group of women came down to ask me some questions afterwards. There was one lady that just kept hanging towards the back of the group. She kept catching my attention because I noticed that her eyes were completely red. She had been holding back tears.

“As soon as everyone was gone, she made her way up to me and she said, I want to make sure that everyone else had a chance to talk to you because I’m having some real problems about my belief in God. My son died of leukaemia when he was three years old. And I can’t reconcile that with the Church’s teaching on God being good. So I just need to have some conversation with you on this matter.”

Mrs Sharp said this woman’s “questioning lament, her deep grief over the problem of pain and suffering in her own life, is something that is common amongst us as humans”.

“So while a person could say that the argument from evil seems purely academic . . . our experiences in this life continue to thrust it into the conversation, by means of our own suffering. We do not have the luxury of purely pontificating on the matter. We all experience evil and will have to handle it one way or another.”

“One of the first things we need to do,” Mrs Sharp said, “when we encounter this problem in conversation is help the person clarify their objection.”

“So what we are working towards is developing an environment in which both parties can add to the conversation in meaningful ways. So to help create the environment, we want to discover, how does the objector understand their objection? What do they think they mean. To do so we can ask questions, we should ask questions.”

Caveat

At this point, Mrs Sharp made a caveat, one of several that punctuated her talk.

“Because when the lady came to me and said, how can I believe God is good when my son died of leukaemia at three years old, I’m not going to launch into a series of questions to see if she knows what she is saying or what did she mean by that?

“The first thing I am going to do is figure out if this is a person who is grieving and they need me to console, or listen, or if this is a person who wants the answers. . . .

“So with the lady who came up to me, I said, what do you need? Do you need answers or do you need a hug, because I am good for both. She said I think I need a little of both. That’s my intro, that’s where I’m OK to keep going.

“You are going to hear me caveat this all the way through, because the problem of evil has been handled at such a philosophical level so removed from the experience of suffering, we feel that we can lay that philosophical bomb on people without considering where they are at.”

Having made sure her audience was absolutely clear on this point, Mrs Sharp continued: “One of the first questions I always ask is: What do you mean by that?”

“Do you mean to say that this particular instance of evil wouldn’t have happened if God was good?

“Do you mean to say that no evil ever happens if God is good?

“I will just keep asking clarifying questions until they find something that they can say, yes, that’s what I mean, and something I can understand too.” Having refined the objection in this way, the next step is to define terms, Mrs Sharp said, especially what is meant by “evil”.

“When someone makes an objection to God using the existence of some evil as the basis of that objection, they are making an assumption — they are assuming that evil is real.

“They have to believe that evil has some sort of real existence in order to make the objection.”

Mrs Sharp said she asks people making this objection to give their definition of evil and then she can respond with her own thinking.

“I suggest that in order for us to understand what is evil, we need to know what is good. The two concepts are inextricably tied together. For evil has a parasitic relationship to good.

“As St Augustine said, there can be no evil, where there is no good.

“Evil is not a thing in itself, evil is a corruption of some good thing, evil is a privation of good. That’s what we mean when we say ‘evil’ .

“There are various corruptions of good – physical, moral. . . .”

“So for objective or real evil to exist, some kind of objective good must exist as well,” Mrs Sharp said. “In order to make the objection to God on the basis of evil, we need to know what is good and where we get that from.

“What I hear most frequently are arguments that assume there is some kind of objective good and there is some kind of standard, without ever giving a basis for how we know something is good at all.

“What we need is a standard of goodness.”

Standard

Mrs Sharp explained what would be necessary for such a standard.

“Whatever they bring to you [as a source for a standard for goodness], what you are checking for in that source, is — does that source effectively establish a standard of goodness for all people, at all times, at all places, something that is unchanging and consistent, because that is what we mean when we say ‘standard’.

“Why? — so that everyone would have the potential to discover good, so that we can have can have intelligible and consistent discovery.

But some people might respond that there is no such objective standard, Mrs Sharp said.

“I might say something [to them]. . . along the lines of this seems to me to be a tremendously important issue to investigate. You seem to be a person who believes in good and evil, you seem to live like they are real, you also don’t seem to be the kind of person who wants to be deceived, or hold on to delusions, so it appears we might have to do some homework in this area between us. And I might suggest a book or a website article we both can read and then come back and discuss.”

But if people adamantly insist “there is no standard at all? Then there is no objection from evil [to the existence of God]”.

At this point in other, more fruitful conversations, it would be helpful to ask the person if the Christian view can be shared, Mrs Sharp said.

“I might say can I tell you why I believe Christianity offers an objective standard of goodness and why it further explains the presence of evil as well as offering answers to the problem?” she said.

Starting with Jesus’ statement that “no-one is good but God alone” (Mark 10:18), Mrs Sharp spoke on the goodness of God and how “objective moral values have their source in the eternal character, nature and substance of a loving, just and self-sufficient God” (quoting evangelical Christian philosopher Douglas Groothuis).

She then gave an outline of salvation history from an evangelical Protestant Christian perspective, finishing by stating: “God defeats the consequence of our evil, he defeats death. The way God does this is he steps into the experience himself.”

“Though the problem of evil is the greatest objection to the existence of God, as [philosopher] William Lane Craig says, paradoxically, at the end of the day, God is the only solution to the problem of evil. If God does not exist, then we are lost without hope in a life filled with gratuitous and unredeemed suffering.

“He said God is the final answer to the problem of evil, for he redeems us from evil, and takes us into the everlasting joy of an immeasurable good, fellowship with himself.” Mrs Sharp finished her talk by revisiting her conversation with “that lady I was talking to about the problem of her son”.

“I walked through this with her, and though I gave her a lot of answers, she has still got a long way to go.

“What I want to remind you of is it is not going to be that easy for people. The problem of evil is a very hard question. And though we can find the answers and say that makes sense, when you experience the problem of evil, when you experience pain and suffering in your own life, sometimes it is going to feel like it doesn’t make sense. So we need to remind ourselves of what God is doing on that cross for us.

“It is the most powerful event in human history.”

The Hypothesis

The concept of a computer simulation is familiar enough to the modern reader. It is a model world built by a computer scientist to test his or her theories of meteorology, the spread of diseases, economics and so forth. The proponent of the Simulation Hypothesis begins by supposing that there are no limits to the development of this technology: It may be that our scientifically advanced descendants will be able to build and run simulations that replicate life on Earth with exhaustive accuracy—digitally reconstructing not only the atomic composition of every object on Earth but also the neurological structure of every human brain. And this, they suggest, has the unsettling entailment that the postulated simulation might include a simulated but conscious version of you and me.¹

Present day simulations single out a particular natural phenomenon for analysis. What possible purpose could such unconstrained simulations serve? Westerhoff offers a suggestion.² We often wonder how history might have turned out if some small but crucial detail of the past had been different. What if, say, Mao Zedong had died of a heart attack during his famous swim across the Yangze River? To us such questions are unanswerable. But perhaps not to our descendants. They could (so the theory goes) run a simulation of Earth between 1875 and 2018, a simulation that matched to history at every point with one exception: Mao Zedong dies on July 16, 1966.

And here, claims Westerhoff, arises a still more unsettling possibility: The possibility that we are living in one of these simulations; the possibility that, say, Mao Zedong did die in 1966 and the architects of the simulation are interested to see how human history would have turned out had he lived. Nor should our ignorance of our unreality come as a surprise: Since the historical persons on which we are modelled did not believe they lived in a simulation, nor do we.

It is a wild hypothesis. But if we are willing to indulge for a moment its key presuppositions, it also has a certain probabilistic force. And this is because there is in principle no obvious limit to the number of simulations our descendants might choose to run. It is not unreasonable to suppose that they would run tens of thousands or even millions of simulations. And in that case the 100 billion actual humans who have ever existed on Earth might comprise a tiny fraction of the sum total of conscious beings—simulated and actual—who have ever existed. And in that case the probability that you are a simulated human being is on balance greater than the probability that you are an actual human being.³

On the face of it the Simulation Hypothesis (like Last Thursdayism, like Berkeleyan Idealism) would appear to be undisprovable: Faced with any datum advanced against the hypothesis, the proponent could claim that that datum is also part of the simulation. If that were how things stood the hypothesis would still be rationally unaffirmable.⁴ However, I am now going to argue that the Simulation Hypothesis is demonstrably false.

A First Pass: Westerhoff

Westerhoff himself considers an argument against the scenario.

Since the computer supervening over the simulation could not be infinite in its computational resources, there is, he says, a regress problem for any simulated world that can run its own simulations, which simulations, ex hypothesi, could run their own simulations in turn, and so on, infinitely. And so any world in which simulations are possible or even an accessible concept is probably not itself a simulation: The architects of the simulation, if they exist, would need to calibrate the program to avoid this scenario.

A Second Pass: Natural Theology

Westerhoff’s counterargument is of limited force. A proponent of the Simulation Hypothesis could just postulate that there is some undiscovered constraint in the simulated physics of our universe which prevents an infinite regress of simulations.⁵ But this need not trouble an opponent of the hypothesis which faces far more serious difficulties.

The first arises from Natural Theology. Since in its usual formulation, and also by definition, the Simulation Hypothesis imagines that our observable universe is a simulation of an actual universe, even allowing that we are in a simulation fails to discharge all the traditional arguments of Natural Theology. We can therefore argue of the actual universe (which we observe in the mirror image of the simulation) what philosophical theologians have always argued; namely, that Theism is an inference to the best explanation for the ex nihilio origination of material reality, the fine tuning of the laws and constants of physics, the origin of life and human mental and moral experience.

What possible relevance does Natural Theology have to the Simulation Hypothesis? It might be argued that the Simulation Hypothesist could simply set the question of the existence of God to one side. Its relevance is this: If these arguments obtain and God exists there are good a priori grounds for believing that a perfect moral agent would not allow fallible moral patients to themselves become moral agents over other moral patients in an unlimited and unconditional way—in the manner of Roko’s Basilisk. So the proponent of the simulation theory has an insupportable burden of proof to shoulder. To make his argument plausible he must prove that God does not exit.

Here, as a last resort, a Simulation Hypothesist might deny that our simulated universe bears any meaningful resemblance to the actual universe. The philosophical cost of this reply is high (since it would greatly attenuate the grounds for postulating the hypothesis in the first place) and profits him not at all. For the most forceful and indefeasible argument for the existence of God is the Cosmological Argument which obtains so long as a single finite and contingent particular is observed.⁶ And since the simulated universe, if it exists, is itself a contingent and finite particular, the Cosmological Argument obtains even if we allow that we can know nothing at all of the actual universe. As before, to make his argument plausible, the Simulation Hypothesist must first discharge the most forceful argument of Natural Theology in order to prove that God does not exit.

The Death Blow: The Hard Problem

The foregoing difficulties are considerable. But they are trivial compared to the central problem with the Simulation Hypothesis.

In postulating conscious minds that exist in a computer, the hypothesis presupposes that consciousness can be instantiated in a physical substrate and thereby presupposes in turn and without argument a solution to the so-called Hard Problem of consciousness. In fact, it can be shown that mental states are irreducible to the physical in principle. A key feature of the hypothesis is therefore falsifiable. To warrant serious attention, the proponent of the Simulation Hypothesis must first complete an insurmountable task. He must solve the Hard Problem by demonstrating how mental states (intentionality, qualia, first person ontology) are susceptible of reduction to the physical.⁷

The Simulation Hypothesis has a certain grip on the popular imagination— perhaps in particular among a generation who have grown up playing computer games. It does not, however, stand up to careful scrutiny.

————————————————————

[1] It is worth noting a problem that arises with the Simulation Hypothesis right out of the gate: Recovering enough information about persons long-dead to simulate them is fundamentally impossible since most of the information would have been dissipated as heat and radiated away from Earth at light speed. No finite computing power, however powerful, could complete the task.

[2] Jan Westerhoff, Reality: A Very Short Introduction.

[3] Others, while entertaining the outlandish hypothesis, are more conservative in their probabilities. David Chalmers has estimated the probability that he is living in a simulation at 20 percent.

[4] Hoffman and Rosenkrantz take the view that if something belongs to a universal and commonsense ontology, “then there is a prima facie presumption in favour of its reality. Those who deny its existence assume the burden of proof.” Swinburne has formalised this idea into a basic principle of epistemology which he calls the Principle of Credulity: We should, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, believe that things are the way they seem to be. An unprovable and undisprovable hypothesis that conflicts with our universal and commonsense ontology is therefore to be dismissed on pain of irrationality.

[5] On this view the discovery of such a constraint would provide inductive evidence that we are in a simulation.

[6] See The Cosmological Argument.

[7] See the Argument from Consciousness summarised here in five parts: Qualia, Intentionality, Privileged Access, Nonphysicality and the Conclusion.

“‘The Authority and Relevance of the Bible in the Modern World’ – centers in the truth of the basic assumption of Biblical Christianity that the Bible, the Old Testament and the New, is what throughout it claims to be, the record of an unfolding revelation of God.” – E. M. Blaiklock[1]

I was given my first Bible when I was 19 years old. At the time I was transitioning from years as a student and competitive swimmer, to a typical life of a young adult leaving a life of strict discipline. I struck up an unlikely friendship with a young Christian man who spent many months trying to convert me to Christianity. He didn’t quite convince me, but sometime in our friendship he gave me a Bible. It became my most treasured possession. Many years later when I became a believer, my Bible became essential as I navigated this radical way of living called Christianity.

Currently, a third of the world’s population identify as Christian[2]. Those 2.2 billion people recognise the Bible as the source of the doctrines of their Christian faith. Yet, despite its popularity, no book in history has been so viciously maligned, intensely scrutinised, misused (unfortunately sometimes for atrocities) and misrepresented.

In April 2018, GQ Magazine published an article: ‘21 Classic Books You Don’t Have To Read By The Time You’re Thirty.’ On the list at number 12 was the Bible. Part of it’s blurb read:

The Holy Bible is rated very highly by all the people who supposedly live by it but who in actuality have not read it. Those who have read it know there are some good parts, but overall it is certainly not the finest thing that man has ever produced. It is repetitive, self-contradictory, sententious, foolish, and even at times ill-intentioned…

Many Christians rushed to online forums to express their outrage. Yet, the blurb was nothing new, being reflective of the Bible’s standing in our western secular culture and this begs the question – was the author correct in his descriptions of the Bible?

While it is true many Christians in the West do neglect personal Bible reading, many of us do read it daily. There are also many Christians who risk their lives to own a Bible in countries where it is dangerous to be a Christian.

The Bible is not a single book with one author. It is an extraordinary collection of 66 individual books and letters. 39 books make up the Old Testament (or the Hebrew Scriptures), and the other 27 make up the New Testament. These books were put together in a Biblical Canon – books that meet the standard and criteria of authoritative inspirational writings[3].

The books of the Bible were written by around 40 authors over a time span of around 1600 years on three continents – Asia, Africa, and Europe, and in three different languages – Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. The authors came from different cultures, education, and socio-economic backgrounds, and included: Kings, prophets, battle-hardened military leaders, sea battered fishermen, a tax collector, a physician, and even a zealous Pharisee!

Miraculously, despite such diversity, there is a clear meta-narrative – a Golden Thread[4] – weaved throughout the books of the Bible, revealing the story of a creative, relational God and the Creation, Fall, Redemption, and Restoration of humanity. The Bible is beautifully unique in both its complexity and unusual unity.

Is the Bible repetitious?

Repetition is often used in the Bible, giving readers varied perspectives and a more thorough view of events. It also emphasises ideas and themes of importance such as the laws of the Old Testament, or God’s repeated patience with His rebellious people.  The Bible also contains many ‘undesigned coincidences’ where small details in one account of a story add further detail or meaning to accounts by other authors. These are more easily found in repeated narratives such as the Gospels[5].

An example of repetition often put forth by Bible detractors is the question of why there needs to be four Gospels. In the Gospels we are given four very different eyewitness accounts of Jesus. Matthew writes a theological biography of Jesus; Mark from a literal, discipleship perspective; Luke from an historian’s perspective; while John writes from the perspective of an evangelist, prophet and pastor seeking to strengthen the faith of Christians[6]. These four independent perspectives add depth and meaning to the life, death and resurrection of Jesus.

Is the Bible self-contradictory?

As the Bible is a collection of ancient near eastern texts they should not be read through the filter of our 21st century western perspective. Many so-called contradictions are not contradictions at all, they are differences or misunderstandings of the texts or textual variants. Most English Bibles add textual variants and explanations of differences in footnotes.

An example of a biblical contradiction is Mark 15:25 where Jesus is crucified on the third hour, whereas John 19: 14-15 has Jesus still standing before Pilate in the sixth hour.  Mark is using Jewish time reckoning – dawn to sundown – placing the crucifixion at around 9am. John, if using Roman time reckoning – midnight to midday – places Jesus before Pilate at 6am. John appears to use Roman time reckoning throughout his gospel.

Is the Bible sententious?

The Bible is full of moral sayings, proverbs, and parables. There are lessons to be learned and warnings are given, but always with the aim of improving the lives of communities and individuals to whom they were given. Biblical narratives, whether historical or proverbial, give examples of the need for moral laws by sharing the real traits of Biblical characters. Raw emotions, actions, reactions, and overreactions are laid bare in both Old and New Testaments. Sins, faults and shameful behaviour, along with their resultant consequences, are exposed rather than hidden.

Is the Bible foolish?

It is doubtful a ‘foolish’ book could continue the serious worldwide influence the Bible has maintained for over a thousand years. Ironically, this often maligned book continues to sell more copies than any other book in history. People have risked their lives to ensure the Bible reaches believers in countries where it is banned. Others have dedicated their lives to making sure it is translated into indigenous languages.

The Bible’s influence has brought more good to the world than any other book in history. A few examples are:

Martin Luther King Jnr., and his call for human equality; Christian missionaries and their selfless, determined education of the poor, indigenous people and women; William Wilberforce and his tireless and often seemingly hopeless work to end the slave trade; Kate Sheppard and her leadership in the Women’s Christian Temperance Union (WCTU) in New Zealand, resulting in the first votes for women in the world[7]; The incredible intensity and beauty found in Classical art, literature and music.

All of the above have their roots in a Christian worldview based on the truths found in the Bible. These truths reveal every human being as having intrinsic worth and purpose and created by an awesome loving God. Biblical Christianity was a dominant influence in forming our democratic western culture with all the freedoms we enjoy today.

Is the Bible ill-intentioned?

By its continued existence, despite constant opposition, the Bible proves its own worth and standing. It is a book of good intention and has offered direction, hope, and purpose for billions of people over thousands of years.

The Holy Bible is worth reading. It is a rich library of books and letters containing various literary genres from poetry and prose, through to history, philosophy, and theology. This great Book acknowledges and answers the questions of life, giving meaning and a salve to what C. S. Lewis describes as that ‘old ache[8].’

I opened this post with a quote from E. M. Blaiklock’s 1975 lecture and I will finish with his closing remarks:

J. G. Lockhart tells of Sir Walter Scott’s last days. The great writer was incapacitated by a stroke. Lockhart writes: ‘He desired to be drawn into the library, and placed by the central window that he might look down upon the Tweed. Here he expressed a wish that I should read to him, and, when I asked from what book, he said – “Need you ask? There is but one.” ‘  True. There is still but one.

Endnotes:

[1] E. M. Blaiklock, OBE, The Authority and Relevance of the Bible in the Modern World, The 2nd Olivier Beguin Memorial Lecture. 1975. E. M. Blaiklock was Chair of Classics at Auckland University from 1947 to 1968. He was a prolific writer of Christian Apologetics.

[2] http://www.pewforum.org/2015/04/02/religious-projections-2010-2050/

[3] These are the number of books in the Protestant Canon accepted by Protestants from the time of the Reformation, although all 66 books were accepted as authoritative from the first century.  There are several other books included in the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox canon’s such as the Old & New Testament Apocrypha. I will discuss these further in my next post. See also: Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, Klein, WW, Dr., Blomberg, C. L. Dr., Hubbard, Jr, R. L. Dr. 2004, Ch. 4, The Canon and Translations.

[4] John Dickson, A Doubters Guide to the Bible. 2014.

[5] Due to space I have not added examples of undesigned coincidences in this post but will in a future post as it is an interesting topic. The concept of coincidences that are undesigned was first discussed in William Paley’s Horae Paulinae, 1869, and followed further by John James Blunt in his Undesigned Coincidences, 1869. A contemporary book has been written by Lydia McGrew – Hidden in Plain View: Undesigned Coincidences in the Gospels and Acts, 2017.

[6] The Holman Concise Bible Commentary, B & H Publishing, 2010.

[7] https://nzhistory.govt.nz/files/documents/womenandthevoteinNewZealand.pdf

[8] C. S. Lewis, The Weight of Glory. “Apparently, then, our lifelong nostalgia, our longing to be reunited with something in the universe from which we now feel cut off, to be on the inside of some door which we have always seen from the outside, is no mere neurotic fancy, but the truest index of our real situation. And to be at last summoned inside would be both glory and honor beyond all our merits and also the healing of that old ache.”

This is the second in a series of posts examining the argument for God’s existence from contingent beings. Click here to read the first post.

In my previous post, I presented the cosmological argument from contingent beings[i], and defended the second premise. As a reminder, here’s how the argument runs:

1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence.
2. The universe exists.
3. Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence
4. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
5. Therefore, the explanation of the universe’s existence is God[ii].

In this post I’ll argue that (1) is plausibly true—that everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, and that nothing exists inexplicably.

Observation Supports (1)

As far as observation and evidence go, (1) is very well supported. We regularly observe that things have explanations. For example, we observe that a particular animal exists because its parents reproduced and gave birth to it, or that a house exists because a builder was contracted to construct it. Furthermore, history shows that in instances when humankind once lacked good explanations for some phenomena, an explanation has since been discovered. This gives us good reason to think that someday we’ll be able to explain things that we currently cannot.

Additionally, if (1) were false, then we would expect to observe things that don’t have explanations. But this is not what we observe. As noted above, when we search for explanations, we generally find them, and have good grounds to think we’ll discover one if we don’t. Edward Feser writes “[if (1) were false then] events without any evident explanation would surely be occurring constantly, and the world would simply not have the intelligibility that makes science and everyday common sense as successful as they are. That the world is as orderly and intelligible as it is would be a miracle”[iii].

The Self-Evidence of (1)

As well as being supported by everyday observation, (1) is also somewhat self-evident; consider this example. Imagine you’re tramping through Aotearoa’s native bush with a friend. Together you marvel at the beauty of tui and fantails, and your friend offers intriguing explanations of their behaviours. As you walk and talk, you also ponder the comparative rarity of kauri trees and explanations for their scarcity. Moments later, you spot a smooth, translucent sphere resting among the bushes. “What’s that?” you wonder aloud. Glancing momentarily, your friend responds, “Oh that? It just exists inexplicably” and continues along the track.

What conclusion would you draw? Unless your friend has a propensity for extreme literalism, you would surely assume that she’s joking, and just wants to keep walking. Since we know that things have explanations, no one would take seriously the claim that the sphere literally exists without an explanation.

Imagine further that the sphere was larger—large enough to encompass New Zealand. Would this negate the need for an explanation? What if it were the size of the earth, or as large as the universe? In both cases, it still calls for explanation. As William Lane Craig writes, “merely increasing the size of the ball does nothing to affect the need of an explanation[iv]”. Similarly, just as the sphere requires an explanation regardless of its size, so the universe seems to require an explanation, despite its immensity.

The idea that everything has an explanation of its existence, then, is supported both by our observation of the world around us, and by our intuitions regarding explanations. Several other arguments can be offered for this notion, and, if you’re interested in further reading, I recommend Edward Feser’s book “Five Proofs of the Existence of God” (particularly chapter 5). An obvious question raised by (1) is, “if everything has an explanation, then what is God’s explanation?”. It is to this question that I’ll turn in my next post.

Endnotes:

[i] Contingent beings are beings whose explanation lies in something outside of themselves. They are contingent upon another being for their existence. More on this, and why the argument is referred to this way, in the next post.

[ii] Craig, W. L. (2010). On guard: defending your faith with reason and precision. US: David C Cook, p. 54.

[iii] Feser, E. (2017). Five proofs of the existence of God. US: Ignatius Press, p. 149

[iv] Craig, W. L. (2010). On guard: defending your faith with reason and precision. US: David C Cook, p. 57.

This is my fifth and last post in a series on the Argument from Consciousness—the basic form of which should by now be familiar. The argument begins by presenting properties of consciousness which cannot in principle be reduced to the physical. It then argues that the existence of conscious agents with these mental properties implicates the existence of a Nonphysical Conscious Agent as their originating cause.

My previous four posts have presented four of these properties (qualia, intentionality, privileged access and nonphysicality) and demonstrated that they are in fact insusceptible of reduction to the physical. And since the last property—libertarian free will—is one that I have already addressed on this blog in a previous post, the reader familiar with that post is ready to consider how irreducible metal properties constitute evidence for the existence of God.

Irreducible Mental Properties and Theism

Suppose that a safe is robbed and our working hypothesis is John stole the money from the safe. During the investigation we may discover two kinds of evidence. First, we may find John’s fingerprints at the crime scene and a sum of money on him matching the sum that was stolen. This will be a posteriori grounds for the truth of the hypothesis; that is, consequences to be expected if the hypothesis is true. Second, we may learn that John has a history of robbing safes and is also in debt. These will be a priori grounds for the truth of the hypothesis; that is, factors that belong outside the scope of the hypothesis but nevertheless increase its probable truth.

In what follows I am going to argue that the existence of agents with irreducible mental properties provide a posteriori grounds for the truth of the hypothesis of theism and that the hypothesis of theism gives us a priori grounds to expect agents with irreducible mental properties.

A Posteriori Grounds

Naturalism holds that mindless particles organised in various ways by mindless forces is all that exists. Theism holds that, “Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth of the evolution of life, has always existed as the matrix and substrate of physical reality.” [1] It follows that irreducible mental properties are entirely to be expected if theism is true and not at all to be expected if theism is false. And this is because mind, while an intractable problem for the naturalist, is basic to a theistic ontology. God, the Basic Being, is a nonphysical conscious self with mental properties—such as intentionality, privileged access, teleology, rationality and free will. Irreducible mental properties therefore stand in the same relation to the hypothesis of theism as John’s fingerprints on the safe to the hypothesis that John robbed the safe. They are the consequences to be expected if the hypothesis is true and not at all to be expected if it is false.

A Priori Grounds

The Bible, moreover, teaches that God created man in his image. For this reason Abrahamic theists have a priori grounds for expecting irreducible mental properties to be instantiated if God exists. [2] It is no surprise on theism that our most novel and essential feature, our mental life, should be irreducible to the physical. And this is because it is imparted to us by our nonphysical creator. Free will, too, is provocatively suggestive of the imago dei since if man exercises libertarian causation he instantiates in miniature the principle of uncaused causation imputed to God in classical theism.

In Is There a God? Oxford professor of philosophy Swinburne finds further a priori grounds for expecting the existence of conscious agents on theism: If God is unlimited in power and intelligence, it is certain that he could create a universe that contained conscious agents; and if He is perfectly good, it is reasonably probable that He would. Writes Swinburne,

We have some understanding of what a good person will do. Good people will try to make other people happy, happy in doing and enjoying worthwhile things (but not happy in causing pain to others). Good people try to help other people for whom they are responsible (for example, their own children) to be good people themselves. Good people seek to share what they have with others and to cooperate with others in all these activities.

God, in other words, might reasonably be expected to create a universe in order to share with us the good things He has—a mental life, knowledge, freedom, love. All of these things require consciousness. And if all humans are to have access to the greatest good of all, knowledge of God himself, they will need to be able to develop sophisticated metaphysical and theological concepts which will require rational intuition and to undergo religious experiences which require conscious perception. It is therefore credibly probable that agents with these abilities will exist if there is a God but incredibly improbable that they would exist if there is not. [3] The benevolence and omnipotence of God therefore stand in the same relation to the hypothesis that God created conscious agents as John’s debt and criminal past to the hypothesis that John robbed the safe: They are factors that belong outside the scope of the hypothesis but increase its probable truth.

I conclude that the existence of conscious agents with irreducible mental properties provides evidence of two kinds that there is a God who created them.

—————————————————–

[1] I am quoting Anthony Flew writing in There Is A God.

[2] We need evidence of John’s criminal past before it can give us reason to expect him to have robbed the safe. Likewise, without independent reasons for thinking that a supreme being of the sort described by classical theism exists, this part of the argument would have no force. However, such independent reasons are available to the proponent of the argument—such as the nine lines of evidence for bare theism presented in Part II of this apologia. Thus the prior probability of the existence of God on evidence X (where God, if he exists, may reasonably be expected to create conscious agents whose existence is otherwise without available explanation) means that X makes the existence of conscious agents more probable. And since the existence of conscious agents with irreducible mental properties also makes the existence of God more probable a posteriori, the coincidence of the two kinds of evidence makes it very probable on the total evidence that God exists and created conscious agents with irreducible mental properties.

[3] Incredibly improbable since, as we have seen in the previous four posts, postulating that mindless particles organised by mindless forces is all that exists leaves us without the explanatory resources to account for our mental life. And of course this is no small matter: That we have a mental life of thoughts and perceptions is the most fundamental fact of human experience and the starting point for every other kind of inquiry.

Author: Lukas J. Wilde.

Translation is Impossible!!!!! (Or is it?)

In a scene of Studio Ghibli’s Whisper of the Heart, Shizuku laments her slide into cynicism. The difference in her monologue in the dub and in the subtitles is subtle, and both touch the same notes. However, the Shizuku of the subs closely pairs her cynicism with a self-condemnation, and she speaks less in terms of grades and vocation. She has a slightly heavier and more internal sense of guilt.

English-speaking anime viewers hotly debate dubs and subs. Clearly, most fans believe that at least some translations are good. Our experience of anime largely depends on translation.

Christianity, too, assumes that translation can work. Most of us do not know Hebrew or Greek. Nobody today is a native speaker of the ancient Hebrew or Koine Greek of the Bible. Why do we think translation can work? Should we?

Translation is like many tasks. Experience shows that it can be done, but if you list the difficulties, it seems impossible. In fact, not only translating the Bible from ancient Hebrew, but everyday translation in our world today would seem unworkable under a sceptical gaze. Let me explain, using examples from English and Chinese, my burgeoning second language.

To start with, a few vocabulary difficulties:

• The English please is often translated qing (?).
  
• Qing is often translated ask.
  
• Ask is often translated wen (?).
  
• Wen often forms half the word for essay.
  

So it is not a matter of substituting words; the vast vocabularies of each language are different systems. The translator cannot use the vocabulary system of the original sentence; he must fit the idea within his audience’s vocabulary system – they are the audience, after all! He must also change the grammar, for the same reason. And I have not even mentioned culture yet. Not only is the translator leaving behind the original systems of vocabulary, grammar, and culture, but the interactions between those systems. How can any message survive such radical linguistic surgery?! And all that is just a very simplified explanation of what translators must do!

Yet we see translation work all the time. Translating in your head is integral to learning a new language. Infants learning multiple languages translate in their heads without even realising they are achieving an intellectual feat. Adult language learners go through a more arduous and conscious process, but also manage to achieve it.

In New Zealand, many professionals learnt English as a second language. Their performance in an English-saturated society testifies to the human capacity to learn language – and, therefore, to translate. Sure, these professionals may make some mistakes, as everybody does, but all the time houses are sold, disputes settled, and medicines prescribed using English by people who would not know it unless they had been successful translators. They have performed translation exercises in language classrooms, they have paused and figured out how to ask for what they need in their multiple languages, they have made rapid half-conscious translations in their heads to keep up with the breakneck pace of native-speaker conversation. I do all these things in my continuing effort to learn Chinese, and I can tell when I converse in Chinese that it is working, slowly but surely. The social, as well as the professional sphere, shows translation in action.

Translation, then, works in spite of seemingly overwhelming difficulty. It is easy to to compose doomy rants about why It Can’t Be Done, yet is obviously being done all around us. This does not prove that any given translation is good. For example, it does not prove that the English Bible is translated well. However, it does give us a good reason to question those doomy rants in general.

In future posts, I will zero in on the translation of the Bible. As we will see, this task comes with special difficulties, but also with special advantages.

Whatever can be said about her strategy, it was without a doubt effective. Potter-mania still rages, and shows no sign of stopping. It is the most successful publishing event in history, breaking all records (of course this excludes the Bible). It has spawned thus far five successful films, and mid 2009 will see the release of the sixth. The seventh book Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows will be split into two films.

Still, the attitude persists. Almost everyone I talk to in Christian circles either shakes their head disapprovingly at the idea of reading such literature, or mentions their concern about the questionable content. “What about the witchcraft?” “Isn’t it a doorway to the occult?”

I have five major criticisms of this idea.

FIRST

The first I was made aware of the first at the height of the furore about Harry Potter. Craig Heilmann, currently director of Focus on the Family, New Zealand had written a book called Howarts or Hogwash?¹ The Harry Potter Phenomenon and Your Child, and was delivering a message on Romans, a Wednesday night meeting during the school holidays. He mentioned the book he had co-author with Peter Furst and briefly set forth the case they made. He argued we should not reject the story outright, but take from it what was good and use it as Paul did when he quoted Greek poets at the Aereopogus to the Epicurean philosophers in Acts 17.

In an interview on ABCTV, Sunday June 13 2004 he says of the stories,

“It rings true with people, it excites them, it energises them. Definitely I think the church at large has to figure out new ways of addressing the culture if it intends to have any real relevance to the culture. I think there’s a lot of good in the Harry Potter stories. . . . The vast difference between his world and ours is this issue that some people have magic skills and some people don’t. But really in terms of trying to grapple with questions like the imminence of evil, what are the purposes of evil, what is the nature of what is good, what causes people to go astray in life, what causes the suffering and the negatives that we see in the world. I don’t know that J K Rowling does any job really of answering those questions. . . . There’s just something a little bit flat and absent in it and I guess I can only simplify it by saying it’s like the supernatural world has simply collapsed into the present and I never get a really clear perception of evil.”²

Heilmann can be forgiven his uncomplimentary view. His rational voice laid a critical foundation for engagement with culture at a time when Harry Potter was being bashed brutally by fundamentalists. He let people know that there is much to consider and admire about the stories, even when the whole story had not been told.

SECOND

The criticism mistakes a caricature of witchcraft and wizardry portrayed in the books with the witchcraft and sorcery clearly condemned in scripture. Magic is the furniture of the world, rather than the feature. Its the characters that infuse the magic with the moral meaning. Like money, it is amoral – that is neither right nor wrong: without morality. It all depends on the hand that wields the wand.

The word ‘magic’ itself should not be cringed at. In Rowling’s work it is used as an artifice to say something else. Something deeper about the nature of the world and human beings. In Narnia and Middle-earth there is magic, and similarly the ‘magic’ used there is a devise to help us think about what is happening in life. The use of the word doesn’t mean you are interacting with the occult or satanic practice.

One of Rowling’s underlying objectives is to progress the discussion on the nature of man, laid out by all the great authors. Her contribution is perhaps not new, but is made accessible to a new generation and a much wider audience. Throughout she seems to say, you are the choices that you make. See the developments in the story about the sorting hat, the prophesy and what Dumbledore sees in the mirror of Erised (reflected desire).

Magic is used almost entirely for mundane purposes like lighting a fire, doing the housework, travelling and carrying heavy objects. Despite its mundaneness what makes it so wonderful a feature is that we imagine how great it would be to travel from one place to the next in a instant (as Jesus did?), or have the utility of a quick quotes quill. When Harry visits the Quiditch world cup he says, “I love magic.” As an objective feature of the world Rowling has created, in that instant magic becomes part of the beauty of creation.

Well-known forms of real witchcraft are often presented as silly. The one vampire we know of is quite comical. The author of the texts books they use are great fun (Magical Theory by Adalbert Waffling, A Beginners Guide to Transfiguration by Emeric Switch). The one subject that resembles familiar occult practices is Divination, and that is the one subject that Hermione hates and thinks is nonsense, that Harry and Ron mostly laugh at, whose teacher is inept at the subject, what McGonagall thinks is a worthless waste of time, and that Dumbledore considered dropping at one point. We find out he only keeps the subject in the end because he receives a true prophesy(something a Christian should not have any problems with per se) that turns out to be vital for the development of the back-story, the drama of the final allegory, and characters involved.

THIRD

Jerram Barrs, Professor of Christian Studies and Contemporary Culture as Covenant Theological Seminary in St Louis, Missouri said after the release of the fourth book, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, that he was convinced that Rowling was writing from within the Christian worldview – a conviction I share with him. I have outlined in my previous article (http://talk.thinkingmatters.org.nz/2008/harry-potter-and-the-deathly-hallows-–-a-christian-novel/) how this is so. Notice one need not necessarily be a Christian to write from within the Christian worldview. He also went on to say that while observing a child at play you will see many magical things.

we need to recognize that almost all children play imaginative games in their minds starting at a very young age and have no difficulty whatsoever in distinguishing between fantasy and reality.³

Imagination is something fundamental to who we as people made in the image of the God, the great creator. It is healthy and normal for a child to make-believe, and the child who does not imagine has a severely diminished capacity. And so children playing games with the fiction they enjoy is a overwhelming good and should be encouraged, rather than an evil.

Futhermore, children with no exposure whatsoever with the occult, Barrs says, will sometimes use devices such as sticks that touch toys an animate them in their imagination, making them come alive and start to talk like the animals and mythical creatures in the forbidden forest at Hogwarts. This indicates a lost clarity of the Image of God.

J.R.R. Tolkien who coined the term Mythopoeia in the 1930’s, commented to his friend C.S. Lewis days before his conversion that all the myths and legend and fairy stories are simply echoes, or distorted memories of real truths. If the lies move him so deeply, then what about the myth that was true? Lewis responded with the famous lines, lies “breathed through silver” and Tolkien dedicated the following poem to him. Here is a portion of it.

The heart of man is not compound of lies,

but draws some wisdom from the only Wise,

and still recalls him. Though now long estranged,

man is not wholly lost nor wholly changed,

Dis-graced he may be, yet is not dethroned,

and keeps the rags of lordship once he owned,

his world-dominion by creative act.⁴

Magic represents the rags of our lordship – a vision of the image of God that is distorted through the fall of man.

FORTH

The prevailing secular state-religion is naturalism. Into this cultural landscape Rowling delivers a radical presentation of a supernatural worldview. It is a devastating blow to the (intentional? well-meaning?) indoctrination agenda of the humanist. Rowling has given wind to the sails of the Christian worldview. Harry Potter, by delivering a shared text to a generation, has achieved something unprecedented. It is a pity that Christians have been slow on the uptake.

Perhaps one reason why the culture has devoured Harry Potter, and why Christians have generally stood back with critical eyes is because people have been given a taste of something cool and wet for a thirsty people starved of the supernatural. Like rain in desert. There is something about Harry Potter that draws in the crowds, its not overtly Christian, but its enough to act as a catalyst for the Christian to culturally engage, use in the task of evangelism, as salt on the tongue for the secular soul, and as a point of entry for the those who have not heard the gospel.

What makes the supernatural theme and its popularity so great is they are written intentionally and thoughtfully by an intelligent Christian. Though some slow mining may be required to discover the gold beneath (see point five). What is needed to enter into the text and discover the truth beneath is the a key of some kind. The Gryffindore common-room requres a password. The Ravenclaw common room requires you to solve a riddle.

So rather than being a doorway into the occult is a doorway into Christianity. It is also noted to be a doorway to classical  literature, to philosophy, and the Latin language.

Talking about doorways and keys, in Lewis’ Chronicles of Narnia you had to go through a wardrobe or a paining to get into Narnia and the experiences were only for a select few. Harry Potter novels run alongside the real world. The Magical world interacts with the Muggle (non-magical) world in a way that could be described as extra-dimentional.

In Harry Potter there are fantastical things that are real and objectively part of reality. If a Muggle were to look at some objective feature that was apart of the magical world they would look right through it, or pass right by. It would not even enter the cognitive faculites. There are things you can see, feel, touch, and experience – but only if you are a part of that world. That relationship in itself strikes a stunning analogy of the Christian view of a spiritual and the physical world.

FIFTH

These books are well written. The test is how easily they can be read aloud. It is true that the prose never rises to the sublime. There isn’t anything magisterial about the use of language. She does comedy well and weaves a great story that is accessible to a broad range of people. This might have the effect of sounding juvenile and cause her written works be ignored as a serious text to be analysed were it written by an Oxford don. It makes it easy to treat callously instead of careful consideration.

But what does make these works extremely well written is the careful consideration Rowling gave it. It took her seven years of planning before she started writing Harry Potter and the Philosophers Stone. What could have taken so long?

The whole seven books are remarkable intertwined. There are several back-stories which all infuse the main narrative. There is a overwhelmingly intricate details she has considered. The character arcs, especially the main characters of Harry, Ron and Herminone, (also second-tier main characters Neville Longbottom, Draco Malfoy, Severus Snape and Albus Dumbledore), progress smoothly throughout are realised thoroughly in the seven volume narrative.

But there is also the four levels which Rowling is writing on; the literal, the tropological (moral), the allegorical and the anagogical. As John Granger, Harry Potter scholar and author of several books on the literature (including Looking for God in Harry Potter, The Deathly Hallow Lectures, and the Hidden Key to Harry Potter), and critic in the school of symbolist literature, points out Rowling is intentionally writing in the tradition of the Inklings, the association of friends that included J.R.R. Tolkein and C.S. Lewis. Intentionally they all placed into their stories anagogical meaning.

Anagoge is a Greek word suggesting a “climb” or “ascent” upwards. The anagogical is a method of spiritual interpretation of literal statements or events, especially the Scriptures. George MacDonald, Jane Austen, John Bunyan, William Shakespeare (who are all Christians), and John Milton all intentionally wrote on this level. It differs from mere allegory, when a visible fact is signified by another visible fact. The anagogical is ‘leading above,’ when by a visible fact an invisible is declared. It is a transparency to transcendance. Take for instance the meaning of the broken stone table in the Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. 

John Granger points out many examples. Here is one of my favourites from early on in the Potter narrative, at the climatic scene of Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets. I’ll let John Granger describe and analyse it in his own way.

Chamber as Morality Play

Christian morality plays were the first theater in Western Europe. They were almost without exception either portrayals of Bible stories or ‘Everyman’ allegories of the soul’s journey to salvation through thick and thin. Imagine medieval street dramas at public markets and fairs by itinerant players putting onvariations of Pilgrim’s Progress and the Passion Play. The finish to Chamber of Secrets, as morality play, is the clearest Christian allegory of salvation history since Lewis’s The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. Let’s look at it in detail.

Harry, our ‘Every Man’, enters the Chamber of Secrets to find and rescue Ginny Weasley. He finds her but she is unconscious and Harry cannot revive her. He meets Tom Riddle. He had thought Riddle was a friend and asks for his help in restoring Ginny. No deal.

He learns then that Riddle is anything but his friend; Tom Riddle is the young Lord Voldemort, Satan’s ‘stand in’ in the Harry Potter books, the Dark Lord or Evil One. Far from helping him revive Ginny, Riddle has been the cause of her near death. Harry boldly confesses his loyalty to Albus Dumbledore and his belief that Dumbledore’s power is greater than Voldemort’s.

The Chamber is filled with Phoenix song at this point, heralding the arrival of Fawkes, Dumbledore’s Phoenix, who brings Harry the Sorting Hat of Godric Gryffyndor. The Dark Lord laughs at “what Dumbledore sends his defender” (page 316) and offers to teach Harry a “little lesson”. “Let’s match the powers of Lord Voldemort, Heir of Salazar Slytherin, against famous Harry Potter, and the best weapons Dumbledore can give him”(page 317). He releases the giant Basilisk from his reservoir and the battle is joined.

The look of the Basilisk is death so Harry, eyes closed, runs from it. The Phoenix attacks the charging Basilisk and punctures its deadly eyes. Harry cries for help to “someone – anyone -” (page 319) as the Phoenix and blind Basilisk continue to battle; he is given the Sorting Hat- by a sweep of the Basilisk’s tail. The Harry throws himself to the ground, rams the hat over his head, and begs for help again. A “gleaming silver sword” comes through the hat (page 320).

The Evil One directs the blind Basilisk to leave the Phoenix and attack the boy. It does. Harry drives the sword “to the hilt into the roof of the serpent’s mouth” when it lunges for him – but one poisonous fang enters Harry’s arm as the Basilisk falls to its death. Harry, mortally wounded, falls beside it. Phoenix weeps into Harry’s wound as Riddle laughs at Harry’s death.

Too late, Riddle remembers the healing powers of Phoenix tears and chases away the Phoenix. He then confronts the prostrate Harry and raises Harry’s wand to murder him. The Phoenix gives Harry the diary and Harry drives the splintered Basilisk fang into it. Riddle dies and disappears as ink pours from the diary. Ginny revives and they escape. Holding the tail feathers of the Phoenix, they fly from the cavern “miles beneath Hogwarts” to safety and freedom above. Harry celebrates with Dumbledore.

Now let’s translate this Morality Play. First, the cast of characters, the dramatis personae:

• Harry is ‘Every Man’
• Ginny is ‘Virgin Innocence, Purity’
• Riddle/Voldemort is ‘Satan, the Deceiver’
• The Basilisk is ‘Sin’
• Dumbledore is ‘God the Father’
• Fawkes the Phoenix is ‘Christ’
• Phoenix Song is ‘Holy Spirit’
• Gryffyndor’s Sword is ‘the Sword of Faith/Spirit’ (Ephesians 6:17)
• The Chamber is ‘the World’ and
• Hogwarts is ‘Heaven’

The action of the drama, then, goes like this: man, alone and afraid in the World, loses his innocence. He tries to regain it but is prevented by Satan, who feeds on his fallen, lost innocence. Man confesses and calls on God the Father before Satan and is graced immediately by the Holy Spirit and the protective presence of Christ.

Satan confronts man with the greatness of his sins but Christ battles on Man’s side for Man’s salvation from his sins. God sends Man the Sword of Faith which he ‘works’ to slay his Christ-weakened enemy. His sins are absolved but the weight of them still mean Man’s death. Satan rejoices.

But, wait, the voluntary suffering of Christ heals Man! Man rises from the dead, and, with Christ’s help, Man destroys Satan. Man’s innocence is restored and he leaves the World for Heaven by means of the Ascension of Christ. Man, risen with Christ, lives with God the Father in joyful thanksgiving.

If I look closely, I can imagine where different types of Christians might disagree with this thumbnail sketch of Everyman’s salvation drama in emphasis and specific doctrines. It would be a very odd Christian indeed, though, who could not understand what the story was about and would not admire the artistry of the allegory. Using only traditional symbols, from the ‘Ancient of Days’ figure as God the Father to the satanic serpent and Christ-like phoenix (‘the Resurrection Bird’), the drama takes us from the fall to eternal life without a hitch. Nothing philosophical or esoteric here (can you say ‘no alchemy’?).

Rowling illustrates here that her books are Christian and in bold opposition to the spiritually dangerous books our children are often given. Chamber of Secrets is an example in the genre of an engaging, enlightening, and edifying reading experience for children – and a powerful rebuke and wake-up call to her Christian critics.

What is Chamber of Secrets about? Rowling, perhaps in response to the absence of intelligent discussion of Stone’s meaning, in her second book clearly reveals to the discerning reader that she is writing Inkling fiction, i.e., stories that will prepare children for Christian spiritual life and combat with evil. Talk about baptizing the imagination with Christian symbols and doctrine!

She also points out to her Christian critics that their real enemies are not her counter-materialist magic but both the dark magic hidden in their children’s textbooks and the ‘good children’s books’ written by atheists and the worldly minded. Chamber of Secrets is a tour de force operating on at least three levels of meaning simultaneously. I can understand, consequently, Rowling’s struggle in writing it and I agree with her that it is the best single volume of the series.⁵

Footnotes:

1. For a review by Bill Muehlenberg, (a Baptist teacher of theology at several Protestant Bible colleges in Melbourne, and National Secretary of the Australian Family Association) of Hogwarts or Hogwash? by Peter Furst and Craig Heilmann, goto http://www.ad2000.com.au/articles/2002/feb2002p16_927.html

2. Craig Heilmann interview with three other authors discourse on the supernatural themes in Harry Potter. http://www.abc.net.au/compass/s1120233.htm

3. For the lecture by Jerram Barrs that first opened my eyes and gave me the gift of Harry Potter, goto http://www.bethinking.org.uk/your-course/intermediate/j-k-rowling-and-harry-potter.htm 

The lecture is about an hour followed by great discussion for another hour. I also recommend the other lectures by Jerram Barrs on Jane Austen and Shakespear found at the same website.

4. Bruce L. Edwards, C.S. Lewis: An Examined life, (http://books.google.com/books?id=8OskozFVBMYC&printsec=frontcover#PPA259,M1; Retrieved 6 December, 2008) p. 259. For the full poem you can read it at http://home.agh.edu.pl/~evermind/jrrtolkien/mythopoeia.htm 

5. John Granger is the ‘Hogwarts proffessor’ at http://hogwartsprofessor.com/ He blogs on the issues surrounding Rowlings works intelligently from an educated Christians perspective. An example chapter of one his books is at http://www.george-macdonald.com/harry_potter_granger.htm which includes the above description of the Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets morality play.

For more information and interviews:

7. A short article, J.K. Rowling, Inkling? on the expecto patronum charm and the climatic scene of Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban. Very Cool! Found at http://tmatt.gospelcom.net/column/2003/06/18/

8. The Hogs Head is another forum for people who take Harry Potter as serious literature, run by Travis Prinzi. http://www.TheHogsHead.org/  There are some interesting podcasts there called “Pubcasts”

Four audio files featuring John Granger, the Hogwarts Professor, are available:

9. Hog’s Head PubCast #60: John Granger Interview, The Deathly Hallows Lectures: with Travis Prinzi, from the Hog’s Head, on his book The Deathly Hallows Lectures: The Hogwarts Professor Explains Harry’s Latest Adventure. A conversation about the eye symbolism of Deathly Hallows and more.

10. “Are Joanne Rowling’s Harry Potter Novels Great Books?” was the question in a Biola University podcast featuring John Mark Reynolds, Paul Spears, with John Granger, in which the Torrey Honors Institute professors express their doubts and the Hogwarts Professor tries to keep up.

11. The same crowd try to decide “What Constitutes Harry Potter Canon?” John Mark Reynolds champions “text alone,” John Granger argues for “text first,” and the push-back is genial and furious.

12. Jerry Bowyer, talk-radio host calls for a catch up and to help promote How Harry Cast His Spell: The Meaning Behind the Mania. Here is an mp3 recording of that exchange.

The furor over J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter series in Christian circles is now a cause for shame-faced admissions of mistake. One is reminded of a similar stir caused by the release of C.S. Lewis’ Chronicles of Narnia series, seen then to be an advertisement for the occult and guilty of leading children astray. While many were crying foul, others were convinced that Rowling was writing from within the Christian worldview. With Rowling revealing herself a Christian after the release of the seventh book, perhaps it is time to cede her the award for the greatest Christian fiction novel ever written.

These books show the wonder and beauty of creation. They are full of life, love and laughter, fantasy and fun. Just consider the game Quidditch, the joy of soaring unfettered in the air with the wind in your hair; the delight of discovery; the cute and cuddly Pinkie-Puffs; the humour of Fred and George Weasley; the myriad of magical creatures that Hagrid adores, all set in the beautiful grounds of Hogwarts.

In these books is the awful reality of sin, evil and suffering. See the creeping shadow of a man possessed, sucking the blood of a dead unicorn; the Dementors breeding despair, administering the kiss of death and sucking out their victims’ souls; the corruption of human government where “Magic is Might”; the cruel bigotry towards House-Elves, Goblins and Centaurs; the pride of Percy and the tears of Mrs. Weasley tormented by a Boggart.

In these books is a longing for redemption. The deprivation of family imbues Harry with a sense that something is wrong with the world, and this acute awareness drives him to protect his friends when in jeopardy. Consider his love of life, tempered by the willingness to give it up for the ones he loves. He sees the world around him as it is, and this brings a constant challenge to overcome injustice and cruelty with courage, grit and determination.

The underlying message becomes explicit when Harry visits the graveyard in Godrick’s Hollow and finds his and Dumbledore’s family burial-plots. Engraved in stone are the words, “Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also,” and “The last that shall be destroyed is death” – two scriptures that encapsulate the Christian themes of the series: death and redemption.

Rowling deals with these sensitively, expressing in her imaginary world truths that parallel our own. Where death is like moving just beyond the veil and the reality of an afterlife is shrouded in mystery. Where defeating Death means for one wizard reaching for immortality, and for another wizard reaching out to greet Death as a friend. Where one boy, destined and set apart at birth, freely gives his life for his friends.

Almost every character receives redemption. Kreature is radically transformed in a manner akin to conversion. The despicable Snape unexpectedly becomes “the bravest man I ever met.” Dumbledore’s death is at first a defeat, but eventually revealed as his greatest victory. His deeply human flaws are covered by his wise choices. In the climactic conclusion emerges a staggering analogy. Harry freely sacrifices himself to save the wizarding world. He is then resurrected; the magic in his blood protecting all from the Dark Lord whose power is broken – rendered useless. The world is made anew as the sun rises and light floods the Great Hall.

For the literary novice, the fantasy can be seen as a lure into witchcraft. For the more sophisticated reader, the series – and in particular this final instalment – has been the most charming portrayal of powerful and profound Christian truth. There are few books as satisfying and enjoyable as Harry Potter.

The message of the first chapter of the Bible is arguably the most influential text the world has known.  It introduces a worldview that has shaped the modern world we know.  Without it there would be no modern science and technology, no consciousness of environmental and social responsibility, and no international cooperation for the common good. Human life would possibly be like living in a hostile jungle.

What is the message of Genesis 1?

Background:

Its writer and the initial readers, lived in a world uninformed by subsequent history, the Bible and especially modern science.  To understand it, we need to step into their world and their thinking.  To ancients the existence and function of the world was all a mystery.  They called it the heavens and earth. To help make sense of it they told stories of ‘gods’ or powers that influenced and shaped natural phenomena.  They believed a range of ideas along the lines that it is a result of random events involving the interaction of these personal powers.  There was little idea of ultimate origins.

The book of Genesis is historical narrative.  This means it is the story of events reported by those who witnessed them.  Research such as archaeology confirms it is consistent with the evidence and there is no reason to doubt it is accurate history.  The very beginning of the book, the story of creation is an introduction to this history and by nature does not fit neatly into the genre of reported history. It could be described as ‘pre-historical’ truth.

Clearly the story is told in a patterned form.  The repetition in the pattern is there to emphasize the truth being conveyed.  We should give attention to the repeated expressions to see the main meaning.

It is worth reading Genesis 1 in conjunction with this.

The Main Message

At the risk of oversimplifying it, or reading too much into the text, here is what I see are the main points of what it says.

In the beginning

Immediately the readers were confronted by a new idea.  The world had a beginning.  It has not always been there as they had assumed.

God created the heavens and the earth

God, Elohim is a plural yet singular word. It has the sense of the most holy ‘other’.

God exists and is a fellowship, the ultimate diversity in unity. Unlike their ‘gods’ Elohim is not part of the universe but pre-exists it. He is eternal. He made it all.

All that exists did not just happen.  This answers the question, “Why is there something, rather than nothing?” It was purposefully made!  It has meaning! It is not a product of chance processes. It is not just a cosmic accident!

The earth was without form and void

The word “was” has the sense of “becoming” and so could be rendered, “in the process of becoming it was”.   If it was shapeless, “the earth” may well mean, at this stage, “the matter that makes up the earth”, a legitimate use of the word “earth”.

Highlighting formlessness and emptiness is a hint that what is to come is describing two things, the shaping and the filling of the world. There were three phases of shaping called days 1-3, and three of filling called days 4-6.

And darkness was over the face of the deep ……

There was nothing to see yet.  There was the absence of light.  There was no input of what we call energy yet.  This was to come from the “Spirit of God” moving.  Until this comes nothing can change and hence time is meaningless.

Then God said

This is the first repeated phrase. It is the introduction to each day.  It is the chief clue to the point of each day.   We need to delve deeper.

Words were considered more than mere emissions of sound.  They were powerful extensions of one’s being, communicating information and ideas.  This concept of God’s words, or Word is subsequently developed through the Bible.  For example, Psalm 19 is about God speaking.  The second section of verses (9-11) uses five words to describe God’s word or speech; the law, the statutes, the precepts, the commands and the fear of the Lord. “God said” thus gives the idea that He was putting into place laws or principles which shaped and governed what He created, and that these laws need to be respected and obeyed.  The initial readers would have sensed something of this.

This expression, “then God said” is repeated eight times: eight times of information input into creation, of special creating power as distinct from sustaining power.

Let there be light

Light, piercing the darkness and formlessness, needs to be the first aspect of creation.

When God said “Let there be Light” He was putting into place the principles that hold the universe together, that determine the relationship between what we call matter and energy.

God called ..

In a similar way to “God said”, the expression “God called” has implications of more than just name-giving.  It implies some power or purpose.  It reflects the idea of organizing and classifying His creation.  Day and night, the arrangement of the sun and stars and the seasons have specific purposes.  They have a reason, God’s reason.

The evening and the morning were the … day

Why ‘evening and morning’ rather than ‘morning and evening’?  The word ‘evening’ has the sense of ‘making obscure’, the onset of darkness, the lack of revelation.  The word ‘morning’ has the sense of unfolding, dawning or revealing.   Thus this expression conveyed a sense of bringing into the light, moving from nothing to something, of lifelessness to being fully alive. It is a wonderful expression of each phase or aspect of God’s creation, bringing ‘cosmos’ out of ‘chaos’.

The first day,  the second day…the sequence of days

God did not create it all at once. God had a plan, a strategy.  It was an organized process. He created the necessary environmental structures before creating the creatures to go in them.

This was not a random spontaneous series of acts.  This was in stark contrast to the spontaneous acts of the capricious gods the first readers or hearers were prone to believe in.  Typical so called “creation stories” of the time were really stories of the conflicts of various gods and princes.  Creation myths from around the world typically involve the conflict of beings such as gods or princes and the subsequent fanciful (from our scientific point of view) creation of some part of the world.  Thus the acts of “creation” were unintended bi-products of the interaction of spiritual beings.

But this story relates an orderly planned sequential speaking into existence of creation

And on the seventh day God ended His work …  and He rested …”

God ceased from His creating.  This suggests that there is a distinction between His supernatural information adding and creative activity, which was the subject of His work in the 6 ‘days’, and His ongoing sustaining activity that continues throughout and into the ‘day of rest’.  It is the investigation of this sustaining power that constitutes science.

In summary

Genesis 1 is all about a radically new idea, God and His acts of creation.  It is about the creator, not the details of his creation.  It is not about the physical process but about the processor, God Himself.  It is about how He did it, about His creative word.  Rather than the details of what is, it is about why things are, His purposes. It is introducing the idea that God is the creator and sustainer of everything.

Its power

500 years ago, through the invention of the printing press and the subsequent reformation, the Bible became available in common languages to the people of Europe.  Before this the Bible was in limited supply and could be read only by the church hierarchy who could read Latin.  Now literate people could read it in their own language and with an open mind to discover what it really said.  Genesis was rediscovered, read and believed.  People rediscovered that this world was made by God and continues to exist by the power of His word.  They read in the Bible that all things hold together by His power. They realized it runs on God’s orderly principles, and that God invites us to listen to His voice in creation.  So Christians began the quest of discovering these principles.   God’s sustaining work as revealed in Genesis 1 became the subject of what became known as scientific investigation.

Pioneers of this scientific thought realized that a pantheistic world view inhibited further discovery.  Men like Johannes Kepler, the father of astronomy surmised that we could think God’s thoughts about the cosmos too.  The majority of the many ‘fathers’ of modern science (e.g. Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday) were theologians, pastors, church leaders, Christian philanthropists and the like, who wanted to ‘think God’s thoughts after Him’, studying God’s book of works (nature) along side of God’s book of words (the Bible).  They saw their scientific discoveries confirming Genesis 1.  Science is listening intently to the voice of God in creation.  Thus, Genesis 1 and the Bible became ‘the mother’ of modern science and technology.

The world will never be the same again – because people seriously believed Genesis1.

For further easy reading:

Norsworthy J, Why Science Matters, What does the Bible say about things scientific, (2018), ConsultEd , Tauranga, NZ.

Graves D, Scientists of Faith, Forty-eight biographies of historic scientists and their Christian faith, (1996), Kregel Publications, Grand Rapids, MI