Gregory Koukl's Blog, page 104

Links Mentioned on the 2/11/14 Show

The following are links that were either mentioned on this week's show or inspired by it, as posted live on the @STRtweets Twitter feed:

Faith Beyond Belief – Apologetics organization in Canada


The Chronicles of Narnia – Radio theater drama


An Apologetic for Apologetics by Alan Shlemon


Hemorrhaging Faith – James Penner's organization


Seven Days That Divide the World: The Beginning According to Genesis and Science by John Lennox


Do Christians and Muslims Worship the Same God? by Alan Shlemon


Inerrancy and the Resurrection by William Lane Craig


Critiquing Bart Ehrman's Objections to Christianity – MP3 by William Lane Craig


Sign up for Greg's "Mentoring Letter"


A Proverb a Day – Mentoring Letter February 2014

Listen to today's show or download any archived show for free. (Find links from past shows here.)

To follow the Twitter conversation during the live show (Tuesdays 4:00–7:00 p.m. PT), use the hashtag #STRtalk.

Plantinga Interview: Is Atheism Irrational?

Philosopher Alvin Plantinga made a few quotable points in an interview posted by the New York Times on Sunday.

On the claim that lack of evidence for theism is evidence for atheism:

Lack of evidence, if indeed evidence is lacking, is no grounds for atheism. No one thinks there is good evidence for the proposition that there are an even number of stars; but also, no one thinks the right conclusion to draw is that there are an uneven number of stars. The right conclusion would instead be agnosticism.

In the same way, the failure of the theistic arguments, if indeed they do fail, might conceivably be good grounds for agnosticism, but not for atheism. Atheism, like even-star-ism, would presumably be the sort of belief you can hold rationally only if you have strong arguments or evidence.

On whether or not the existence of imperfections in the world is evidence against God:

I suppose your thinking is that it is suffering and sin that make this world less than perfect. But then your question makes sense only if the best possible worlds contain no sin or suffering. And is that true? Maybe the best worlds contain free creatures some of whom sometimes do what is wrong. Indeed, maybe the best worlds contain a scenario very like the Christian story.

Think about it: The first being of the universe, perfect in goodness, power and knowledge, creates free creatures. These free creatures turn their backs on him, rebel against him and get involved in sin and evil. Rather than treat them as some ancient potentate might — e.g., having them boiled in oil — God responds by sending his son into the world to suffer and die so that human beings might once more be in a right relationship to God. God himself undergoes the enormous suffering involved in seeing his son mocked, ridiculed, beaten and crucified. And all this for the sake of these sinful creatures.

I’d say a world in which this story is true would be a truly magnificent possible world. It would be so good that no world could be appreciably better. But then the best worlds contain sin and suffering.

On the atheist argument that “we no longer need God to explain the world”:

Some atheists seem to think that a sufficient reason for atheism is the fact (as they say) that we no longer need God to explain natural phenomena — lightning and thunder for example. We now have science.

As a justification of atheism, this is pretty lame. We no longer need the moon to explain or account for lunacy; it hardly follows that belief in the nonexistence of the moon (a-moonism?) is justified. A-moonism on this ground would be sensible only if the sole ground for belief in the existence of the moon was its explanatory power with respect to lunacy. (And even so, the justified attitude would be agnosticism with respect to the moon, not a-moonism.) The same thing goes with belief in God: Atheism on this sort of basis would be justified only if the explanatory power of theism were the only reason for belief in God. And even then, agnosticism would be the justified attitude, not atheism.

On the problem with believing in both materialism and evolution:

[I]f there are only material entities, then atheism certainly follows. But there is a really serious problem for materialism: It can’t be sensibly believed, at least if, like most materialists, you also believe that humans are the product of evolution…. The belief that both materialism and evolution are true…can’t rationally be held.

Read the rest of the interview to find out why.

How Do You Deal with Name Calling?

Alan discusses how to react when a person calls you names in response to your beliefs. 

There's No Need to Panic (If What We Believe Is True)

Sometimes it’s hard to stay calm. But composure is typically an external expression of internal confidence. I’ve worked with SWAT officers who were the epitome of calmness in even the most harrowing situations. They never flinched; they never panicked. They knew we were well trained and prepared to address whatever challenge we could face. I think of these officers often as I navigate conversations with people who don’t share my Christian worldview; even people who aggressively oppose something I’ve written or recorded. Those of us who make a public defense of Christianity are likely to encounter strong disagreement on occasion. Sometimes this opposition is pointed, personal, venomous or shrill. I’ve seen some Christian case makers respond in a similar manner, quickly escalating the toxicity of the interaction until both sides are engaged in a frightful slugfest. If our beliefs about Jesus and the worldview He espoused are true, however, there’s really no need for such a panicky response.

Most of us are familiar with the “fight or flight” syndrome we observe in nature. When animals are in a weakened position and facing an eminent danger, they typically fight or run away. They remain calm and unmoved, however, when they are in a superior position and feel unthreatened. When we, as Christians, respond to a challenge with inappropriate aggression or hostility, we expose our own concerns about the strength of our position. This sometimes happens because we haven’t done the important work of examining the evidence to know the truth of Christianity with justifiable certainty. We happen to believe something that’s true without really knowing why it’s true. As a result, minor challenges sometimes seem daunting. Doubt and fear become a factor in our interaction. Panic emerges, and with it, the kind of behavior we sometimes see in the comment sections of popular blogs.

If you’ve ever caught yourself responding in a harsh, angry or toxic manner, step back and take a deep breath. Ask a few simple questions: Why am I in “attack” or “panic mode” if I possess the truth? Do I still have some unexamined doubt? What does my attitude express about my confidence? What do I need to study or learn to be better prepared so my internal certainty will result in external confidence? I’ve come to recognize times of anxiety as indicators. If I sense a twinge of panic, I look for the place of weakness in my knowledge. Once I’ve identified it, I can begin training. If I apply myself, these areas will shrink in size and my confidence and calmness will begin to grow once again.

If you already see yourself as a Christian Case Maker, you’re probably familiar with 1 Peter 3:15. Most of us, however, are more focused on the first half of this verse than the second:

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

Most exchanges we see online between Christians and non-believers are anything but “gentle” or “reverent.” Why is this true? I suspect it’s because we fail to see the connection between the first and second part of 1 Peter 3:15. The more you prepare yourself for battle, the calmer and more poised you will be in the height of the struggle. The more “ready” you are, the more “gentle” and “reverent” you will be. The Christian worldview is reasonable and evidential. As Christians, our external demeanor should reflect an internal certainty grounded in this evidence. If we have an informed faith, we’ll be prepared to proclaim passionately without panicking publicly.

What Do "Artificial Life" Projects Demonstrate About the Need for a Divine Creator?

For many years now, scientists have been working feverishly to create “artificial life” in the laboratory. Researchers and scientists expect to announce success within just a few years, declaring victory in the rarified field known as “wet artificial life” research. Their goals are ambitious. They must first create a container (or membrane) for the synthetic cell. This membrane must prevent unwanted or destructive molecules from entering the new synthetic protocell, while allowing beneficial and necessary molecules to enter. The container must also allow these molecules to multiply. Scientists must next create a genetic system capable of guiding and controlling the functions of the new cell. This system must direct and allow reproduction within the cell and regulate sufficient mutation to adapt to environmental changes. Finally scientists must create a metabolism capable of allowing raw materials to be extracted from the surrounding environment so they can be processed as food and converted into energy. These are lofty goals but necessary for life to exist at a minimal level. Even the most primitive single cell organism must be structurally sound, capable of metabolizing and able to reproduce. Scientists may indeed be very close to achieving creating such a synthetic organism, and if they do, their work will demonstrate the level of design and intelligent interaction necessary for life to emerge in the universe.

“Wet Artificial Life” projects require a high degree of intelligent human interaction. Scientists must repeatedly create, catalyze, engage or protect aspects of the design process in order to successfully guide the development of the cell. Their interaction demonstrates the critical need for a powerful Creator:

They’re Controlling the Creative Environment
Before scientists can begin to organize and configure the chemical elements required to build the protocell, they’ve got to create a specific environment friendly to the process of creation. This environment does not reflect the harsh nature of the early earth. As a result, these experiments will not provide answers to the question of life’s origin. In controlling the environment in this way, scientists are acting creatively even before the work begins.

They’re Relying on Pre-Existing “Scratch”
Scientists might claim they are creating life from “scratch” but, in reality, they can’t account for how these “scratch” chemicals and nucleotides entered into existence in the first place. We can’t bake without flour, sugar or basic cooking ingredients. The same is true in these experiments. But, how did these cooking ingredients get in the kitchen to begin with? Scientists draw from a well-stocked pantry without questioning the source of these pantry items.

They’re Using Fatty Acids
Most scientists in this field use fatty acids to shape and create the membrane wall for the artificial cell. When scientists use these building blocks (acids), they are already jumping well ahead of the alleged “evolutionary” curve by employing a relatively complex set of biological components. When employing fatty acids in this way, scientists are no longer building life from base chemicals. They are jumping much farther along in the process, and using building blocks that are themselves incredibly difficult to form naturally. The evolutionary process has the burden of having to account for the initial formation of acids such as these in the first place, and these acids are incredibly difficult to account for, given their chance improbabilities.

They’re Controlling the Probabilities
Controlling this numerical probability appears to be a key strategy for these scientists. Many attempt to “kick start” the process necessary for the creation of a genetic system by adding nucleotides in their proper proportions. But this requires a high degree of intelligent interaction. Philosophical naturalists have to imagine a scenario in which a vast number of nucleotides can combine without any outside intervention, and statistical probability models for this are staggeringly prohibitive. There isn’t enough time in the history of the planet for this to occur randomly. Outside of the controlled laboratory environment, unguided naturalism cannot account for the vast assemblage of highly organized genetic material.

They’re Controlling the Proportions
In addition to this, a creative force is required to provide the proper proportions. Even if scientists could create new genetic bases, these bases would still have to be properly arranged if they are ever to amount to anything. The order of bases must eventually provide information. The arrangement is critical and specific; it requires an intelligent, creative mechanism. Naturalism would require tens of thousands of nucleotides to come together in a prescribed order to have enough genetic information to form even the simplest living cell. The mathematical probability is astronomical.

They’re Controlling the Resulting Environment
Finally, scientists admit the resulting protocell is far too fragile to exist in the natural environment of the early earth. In fact, scientists suspect the cell will be weak and unlikely to survive more than an hour in the protection of the lab. The iconic “last universal common ancestor” (LUCA), at the base of the evolutionary tree, appears to be fragile and fleeting.

Artificial life projects repeatedly demonstrate the need for consistent, diligent and aggressive interaction on the part of intelligent agents. These projects fail to replicate the conditions of the early earth or rely upon natural forces alone to accomplish the complex and ambitious biological constructions necessary for primitive life. Wet Artificial Life projects demonstrate the need for a powerful, Divine Creator.

Challenge Response: Why Is Good "Good"?

My response to this week's challenge:  

 

If you're interested in going deeper on this topic, here is some additional reading: 

God, Naturalism, and the Foundations of Morality by Paul Copan
Can Michael Martin Be a Moral Realist?: Sic et Non by Paul Copan
Euthyphro Dilemma | Reasonable Faith
The Euthyphro Dilemma Once More | Reasonable Faith

Native Land Rights and a Missionary

Last week I referred to an interesting new study that used painstakingly detailed data to track the long term positive affects that Christian proselytizing missionaries had on the countries they served. Their commitment to the Gospel and for the value of the people they preached to led them to also take up societal issues that had positive lasting results.

John Mackenzie went to what is now South Africa with the London Missionary Society in 1858. He partnered with local people whose land ownership was threatened by colonization to protect their ownership rights. He worked with the British government to declare protected land, which directly led to the modern nation of Botwana.

What Does Christ's Resurrection Mean for Us?

I’ve been asked a few times about the meaning of Jesus’ resurrection: Why is it so celebrated if our sins were paid for on the cross? What did it accomplish? Why was it necessary? While there are a variety of responses to this (Jesus’ victory over death, an affirmation of His deity, a taste of the coming redemption of our bodies, etc.), in this post I’ll focus on what we learn about the work of Christ in Hebrews 7-10, where the ministry of the Levitical priests of the Mosaic Covenant is compared with “the more excellent ministry” of Christ in the New Covenant.

Hebrews explains that God gave explicit instructions to Moses for building the tabernacle because it was to be a place where the Levitical priests would serve a “copy and shadow of the heavenly things.” God used this “copy and shadow” to teach His people about their real need for sacrifice, and to prepare them for when Jesus would one day be acting as our living priest—not with sacrifices “which cannot make the worshiper perfect in conscience, since they relate only to food and drink and various washings,” but with an efficacious sacrifice; not in a “copy and shadow,” but in God’s presence—because of the resurrection:

When Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things to come, He entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation; and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption. For if the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling those who have been defiled sanctify for the cleansing of the flesh, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?…

[I]t was necessary for the copies of the things in the heavens to be cleansed with [the blood of calves and goats], but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ did not enter a holy place made with hands, a mere copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us; nor was it that He would offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the holy place year by year with blood that is not his own…but now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. (9:11-26)

Not only was it necessary for Christ to enter heaven with the blood of His covenant on our behalf, but He also continues to intercede on our behalf:

The former priests, on the one hand, existed in greater numbers because they were prevented by death from continuing, but Jesus, on the other hand, because He continues forever, holds His priesthood permanently. Therefore He is able also to save forever those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them. (7:23-25)

Christ's intercession for us in heaven before the Father is necessary for our eternal salvation. Only Christ’s death could serve as our needed sacrifice, but only Christ’s resurrection could make Him our living priest.

Therefore, brethren, since we have confidence to enter the holy place by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way which He inaugurated for us through the veil, that is, His flesh, and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful. (10:19-23)

Links Mentioned on the 2/04/14 Show

The following are links that were either mentioned on this week's show or inspired by it, as posted live on the @STRtweets Twitter feed:

Is God Anti-Gay? by Sam Allberry


Shepherding a Child's Heart by Tedd Tripp


Challenge and Response: Early embroys aren't individuals because they can twin and recombine?


Abigail and Brittany Hensel – Conjoined twins


There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind by Antony Flew


Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False by Thomas Nagel


Plantinga Reviews Mind and Cosmos by Amy Hall


On Guard: Defending Your Faith with Reason and Precision by William Lane Craig


STR mission trips for students


Resources for teaching students

Listen to today's show or download any archived show for free. (Find links from past shows here.)

To follow the Twitter conversation during the live show (Tuesdays 4:00–7:00 p.m. PT), use the hashtag #STRtalk.

Webcast Tuesday

Greg is live online today 4-7 p.m. PT. Give him a call with your question or comment at (855) 243-9975, outside the U.S. (562) 424-8229. 

Listen live online. Join us on Twitter during the program @STRtweets #STRtalk.