Gregory Koukl's Blog, page 107

Why Doesn't God Reveal Himself to Those Who Don't Believe? (Video)

Brett discusses how God reveals Himself on His terms, not ours.

Inconsistent Pro-Lifers? & Apologetics Mission Trips

Alan’s and Brett’s January newsletters are now posted on the website:

Pro-Life Killing: An Oxymoron? by Alan Shlemon: “Many [pro-choicers] believe pro-lifers are being inconsistent. They claim that if we believe the unborn is a human being like every other person, then killing an abortion doctor wouldn’t necessarily be wrong. After all, their reasoning goes, if a man attempts to kill a toddler, deadly force might be justified to defend the child. Therefore, if we believe the unborn is morally equivalent to a toddler, then killing a doctor before they perform an abortion may be a permissible defensive act…. But pro-lifers neither advocate nor condone killing abortion doctors. This fact, abortion-choice advocates believe, betrays our true beliefs: We don’t think the unborn are true human beings. Therefore, we’re either inconsistent or we don’t believe what we say about the unborn. I disagree…. [D]efending a toddler with deadly force is not parallel to defending the unborn with deadly force. Three differences come to mind.” (Read more)


Getting Students off the Sidelines and into the Game by Brett Kunkle: “When we create opportunities for students to engage, there is a vibrancy that infuses the events. But this shouldn’t come as a surprise. Christianity is not a spectator sport. Our teaching should not remain in a classroom or behind the four walls of the church. If we want to train students who can defend the faith not just intelligently but passionately, we need to get them in the game. Think about any sports teams. It’s the starters who are the most passionate about the game, right?... I think that’s one reason why our mission trips to Berkeley and Utah are exciting and successful. They get students in the game.” (Read more)

(You can subscribe to their newsletters here.)

Only One Question: What Is Marriage?

The testimony Ryan Anderson (co-author of What Is Marriage) gave to the Indiana House Judiciary Committee earlier this week is a succinct defense of man/woman marriage, so it’s worth taking ten minutes to watch and then pass on his testimony to friends who are interested in understanding why you’re against redefining marriage.

He introduces his arguments this way (from the adapted transcript):

Everyone in this room is in favor of marriage equality. We all want the law to treat all marriages equally. But the only way we can know whether any state law is treating marriages equally is if we know what a marriage is. Every state law will draw lines between what is a marriage and what isn’t a marriage. If those lines are to be drawn on principle, if those lines are to reflect the truth, we have to know what sort of relationship is marital, as contrasted with other forms of consenting adult relationships.

So, in the time I have today, I’ll answer three questions: what is marriage, why does marriage matter for public policy, and what are the consequences of redefining marriage?

Watch his testimony below, or read the written version here.

 

The Inevitable Consequence of An Atheistic Worldview

Several weeks ago, a gentleman (we’ll call him “John”) replied to a blog I posted at CrossExamined.org. As a skeptical non-believer, John wasn’t responding to what I had posted, but to fellow atheists who had been interacting with Christians in the comment section. John’s post was controversial but honest. In fact, he clearly delineated the problem of atheistic moral grounding. While the comments on the blog aren’t typically all that courteous, John complained they were too courteous, especially given the atheistic worldview of the people who were posting. Here’s what John had to say:

“[To] all my Atheist friends. 

Let us stop sugar coating it. I know, it’s hard to come out and be blunt with the friendly Theists who frequent sites like this. However in your efforts to "play nice" and "be civil" you actually do them a great disservice.  

We are Atheists. We believe that the Universe is a great uncaused, random accident. All life in the Universe past and future are the results of random chance acting on itself. While we acknowledge concepts like morality, politeness, civility seem to exist, we know they do not. Our highly evolved brains imagine that these things have a cause or a use, and they have in the past, they've allowed life to continue on this planet for a short blip of time. But make no mistake: all our dreams, loves, opinions, and desires are figments of our primordial imagination. They are fleeting electrical signals that fire across our synapses for a moment in time. They served some purpose in the past. They got us here. That's it. All human achievement and plans for the future are the result of some ancient, evolved brain and accompanying chemical reactions that once served a survival purpose. Ex: I'll marry and nurture children because my genes demand reproduction, I'll create because creativity served a survival advantage to my ancient ape ancestors, I'll build cities and laws because this allowed my ape grandfather time and peace to reproduce and protect his genes. My only directive is to obey my genes. Eat, sleep, reproduce, die. That is our bible.

We deride the Theists for having created myths and holy books. We imagine ourselves superior. But we too imagine there are reasons to obey laws, be polite, protect the weak etc. Rubbish. We are nurturing a new religion, one where we imagine that such conventions have any basis in reality. Have they allowed life to exist? Absolutely. But who cares? Outside of my greedy little gene's need to reproduce, there is nothing in my world that stops me from killing you and reproducing with your wife. Only the fear that I might be incarcerated and thus be deprived of the opportunity to do the same with the next guy's wife stops me. Some of my Atheist friends have fooled themselves into acting like the general population. They live in suburban homes, drive Toyota Camrys, attend school plays. But underneath they know the truth. They are a bag of DNA whose only purpose is to make more of themselves. So be nice if you want. Be involved, have polite conversations, be a model citizen. Just be aware that while technically an Atheist, you are an inferior one. You're just a little bit less evolved, that's all. When you are ready to join me, let me know, I'll be reproducing with your wife.

I know it's not PC to speak so bluntly about the ramifications of our beliefs, but in our discussions with Theists we sometimes tip toe around what we really know to be factual. Maybe it's time we Atheists were a little more truthful and let the chips fall where they may. At least that's what my genes are telling me to say.”

John bluntly captured the true nature of morality when it is untethered to a transcendent source. Since posting this comment, I’ve been able to peek at John’s life in a very limited way and I’ve had a brief interaction with him. He appears to be a creative, responsible, loving husband and father. In fact, his outward life looks much like the life you and I might lead as Christians. As an atheist, my moral compass was much like that of the Christians I knew. But knowing what is far different than knowing why. I embraced a particular set of moral laws even though I couldn’t account for these laws in a world without a transcendent moral law giver. I typically attributed morality to some form of social or cultural evolution, but as John correctly observes, our selfish genes are not interested in the welfare of others when their personal survival is at stake. Without a true transcendent source for morality (and purpose), skeptics are left trying to invent their own, justifying their subjective moral rules as best they may. In the end, as John rightly observes, they end up “nurturing a new religion” and creating for themselves the very thing they detest.

When John first posted his comment (and I first started talking about it on my podcast), many of the other atheists who post at CrossExamined were infuriated. Some denied John’s identity as a skeptic and accused him of being a disguised Christian. But in my interaction with John, he told me he was weary of hearing fellow atheists mock their opponents for hypocrisy and ignorance, while pretending they had a definitive answer to the great questions of life. He simply wanted his fellow atheists to be consistent. As it turns out, theism provides the consistent moral foundation missing from John’s atheistic worldview.

Clarifying, Not Banning

The headlines this week about the judge declaring Oklahoma's marriage amendment unconstitutional stated that the "ban" was struck down. Virtually every time amendments such as this one are reported in the media, they're referred to as bans against same-sex marriage.

These state amendments are not bans – they don't single out same-sex marriage specifically. These amendments are attempts to clarify and define what marriage has meant in each state for centuries, and in civilization for millennia. Sure, same-sex marriage may be the instigating factor that makes it necessary to clarify what marriage is, but that's not the same as banning it. Indeed, all kinds of variations on the definition of marriage are also excluded from state amendments, even if they aren't mentioned specifically. The judge in this case got that wrong:

Kern said that "the Court's rationality review reveals Part A an arbitrary, irrational exclusion of just one class of Oklahoma citizens from a government benefit." Proponents of the state constitutional measure, he points out, "purposefully (drew a line) between two groups of Oklahoma citizens – same-sex couples desiring an Oklahoma marriage license and opposite-sex couples desiring (a) marriage license."

Same-sex couples aren't singled out in the Oklahoma amendment or other state amendments. They may not fit the definition, but neither do all kinds of possible variations on marriage.

The "ban" language isn't accurate and it's misleading. It's not as though these amendments are being passed as mere displays of discrimination. It's not as though citizens who think government has a special interest in traditional marriage are singling out same-sex couples. These amendments are defensive attempts to clarify what marriage has always meant because of aggressive efforts to change marriage. And in clarifying marriage in that regard, it also clarifies it regarding other attempts at redefinition, which are in the works already.

The "ban" language isn't accurate, and it misrepresents the dynamic of what's going on in culture right now.

Father of Modern Anatomy

For centuries, Christian convictions motivated scientists to pursue understanding. Christianity was not in conflict with scientific inquiry and it wasn't a "science stopper," as many suggest these days. That's because modern science is dominated by the philosophy of materialism, which rejects God. It's not science itself that is in conflict with Christianity; it's the philosophy that is a prior conviction of the majority of scientists today.

One 16th century scientist was motivated by his Christian convictions, and his studies led him to glorify God all the more. Andreas Vesalius is the founder of modern anatomy. He studied medicine at the University of Paris between 1533 and 1536. He dissected animals, which was the common practice of the time, but also participated in some of the first human dissections. He wrote a book on human anatomy that was groundbreaking at the time since the leading book in the field at the time actually drew conclusions from animal dissection, rather than human. His book provided a "more extensive and accurate description of the human body than any put forward by his predecessors." Most church leaders raised no objections to his work. Vesalius eventually became the emperor's physician and later for the Madrid Court.

Vesalius understood his work as gaining knowledge about God's design work:

When we read Fabric, we begin to understand this favor of the church. In the first chapter, Vesalius exults over the created wonder of bones: "God, the supreme Architect, in his wisdom formed material of this temperament, placing it beneath the surface as a foundation for the whole body." In Book II, he urges his reader to "sing hymns to the Creator of the world, who produced from such a tiny space [the jaw muscle] in charge of such an important task." In Book VI, he passes over the question of why so much water flowed from the side of the crucified Jesus, "for I must not in the slightest degree upset the complete veracity of the authentic Gospel of John."

Vesalius's theologically informed approach to anatomy was not unusual in his time. Many sixteenth-century researchers studied the body to gain insight into the soul. Indeed, anatomy entered the curriculum of Lutheran Protestant schools not through medical schools but as part of the study of philosophy. And the man who introduced anatomy to the University of Wittenberg's curriculum in 1535 was a theologian—Philip Melanchthon (1497-1560).

The True Story of Christian Missionaries

It seems the reports of missionaries harming the world have been greatly exaggerated. From John Piper:

In 2012, sociologist Robert Woodberry published the astonishing fruit of a decade of research into the effect of missionaries on the health of nations.The January/February 2014 issue of Christianity Today tells the story of what he found....

Titled “The Missionary Roots of Liberal Democracy,” [Robert] Woodberry’s article in the American Political Science Review, defends this thesis: “The work of missionaries . . . turns out to be the single largest factor in insuring the health of nations” (36). This was a discovery that he says landed on him like an “atomic bomb” (38)….

To be more specific, Woodberry’s research supported this sweeping claim:

Areas where Protestant missionaries had a significant presence in the past are on average more economically developed today, with comparatively better health, lower infant mortality, lower corruption, greater literacy, higher educational attainment (especially for women), and more robust membership in nongovernmental associations. (39)

He concedes that “there were and are racist missionaries . . . and missionaries who do self-centered things.” But adds: “If that were the average effect, we would expect that the places where missionaries had influence to be worse, than places where missionaries weren’t allowed or were restricted in action. We find exactly the opposite on all kinds of outcomes” (40).

Woodberry applies this result specifically to missionaries who were “conversionary Protestants,” which he defines this way: “Conversionary Protestants (1) actively attempt to persuade others of their beliefs, (2) emphasize lay vernacular Bible reading, and (3) believe that grace/faith/choice saves people, not group membership or sacraments.”

Here’s a quote from Woodberry’s article, then I’ll have two points in response:

[M]uch of what we think we know about the roots of democracy needs reevaluation. The historic prevalence of CPs is not the only cause of democracy, but CPs seem both important and neglected in current research. This does not mean that CPs consistently directly supported democracy nor is mass conversion to Protestantism necessary. Yet in trying to spread their faith, CPs expanded religious liberty, overcame resistance to mass education and printing, fostered civil society, moderated colonial abuses, and dissipated elite power. These conditions laid a foundation for democracy and long-term economic growth.

First, it’s quite possible that the role of CPs has been ignored (and false conclusions previously drawn) because it is currently fashionable among intellectuals to think of Christianity as being silly and small (a phenomenon I wrote about in “Atheists’ Small View of Christianity”). This is simply false—and it’s false whether or not Christianity is true.

Nevertheless, this idea seeps into us from the culture—whether it comes explicitly from atheist spokesmen or implicitly from the fictional world of television, where God and Christianity, if they ever make an appearance at all, are inconsequential to the important characters and events. As apologists, we need to purposefully push back against this view of Christianity with the truth, as Tom Gilson argues in “Why We Must Tell Christianity’s True Story.”

Second, the CPs didn’t set out to create democracies; they set out to make disciples of Christ. But worldviews have unintended consequences as they work their way out through people’s actions. Despite the truth of this, very little care is taken today to consider the consequences of undermining and replacing the worldview that created Western civilization with one that has a very different understanding of the human person and its value (to name only one area of disagreement).

The problem described in the first point has led to the problem of the second. That is, because the truth of how Christianity shaped our society has been ignored, there’s 1) an ignorance of which aspects of our culture are uniquely grounded in Christianity and 2) a false assumption that these beloved ideas will thrive in a new worldview when their foundation is discarded.

(See also “Values Fight Poverty” and “Virtues and the Economy.”)

Links Mentioned on the 1/14/14 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:

Reasonable Faith – William Lane Craig's website


Dr. Craig's debates with Lawrence Krauss in Australia


Dr. Craig reviews the debates with Dr. Krauss: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3


The Reasonable Faith Podcast


What Is God Like? – Series of books for children by William Lane Criag


The Defense Never Rests – Workbook for children and teacher's handbook by William Lane Craig


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


A Reasonable Response: Answers to Tough Questions on God, Christianity, and the Bible by William Lane Craig and Joseph Gorra


Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus: A Devout Muslim Encounters Christianity by Nabeel Qureshi


The Great Abortion Debate – CDs

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.

Privatize Marriage?

Should the government “get out of the marriage business”? Jennifer Roback Morse explains the public function of marriage in “Privatizing Marriage Is Impossible”:

Marriage is society’s primary institutional arrangement that defines parenthood. Marriage attaches mothers and fathers to their children and to one another. A woman’s husband is presumed to be the father of any children she bears during the life of their union. These two people are the legally recognized parents of this child…. This is an intrinsically social, public function of marriage that cannot be privatized….

If no children were ever involved, adult sexual relationships simply wouldn’t be any of the state’s business. What we now call marriage would be nothing more than a government registry of friendships. If that’s all there were to marriage, privatizing it wouldn’t be a big deal….

Why wouldn’t private contracts between couples be enough?

Disputes that arise between the contracting parties must be resolved by an overarching legal authority. Let’s face it: that overarching legal authority always will be some agency of the government. “Getting the government out of the marriage business” amounts to refusing to define marriage on the front end. But the state will end up being involved in defining what counts as a valid marriage or parenting contract, on the back end, as it resolves disputes. We cannot escape this kind of state involvement.

No-fault divorce provides an analogy. No-fault divorce allows one party to end the marriage bond for any reason or no reason. In effect, the state redefined marriage by removing the presumption of permanence. Marriage became a temporary arrangement rather than a permanent union of a man and a woman. No-fault divorce was supposed to increase personal freedom.

But the result of this legal change has been state involvement in the minutiae of family life, as it resolves disputes over custody, visitation, and child support. Family courts decide where children go to school, or to church. I’ve even heard of a family court judge choosing a teenaged-girl’s prom dress because the divorced parents couldn’t resolve the issue….

Furthermore, “leaving marriage to the churches” is a fantasy. At this point in history, churches are not the ultimate legal authority for anything. There is exactly zero chance that the state will permit religious law to be the legal authority for its members on issues such as custody, visitation, and child support.

(Dr. Morse continues her argument in “Privatizing Marriage Will Expand the Role of the State” and “Privatizing Marriage Is Unjust to Children.”)

The book What Is Marriage (Sherif Girgis, Ryan Anderson, and Robert George) agrees that “where marriages never form or easily break down, the state expands to fill the domestic vacuum by lawsuits to determine paternity, visitation rights, child support, and alimony,” and it adds this:

But the less immediate effects are even more extensive. As absentee fathers and out-of-wedlock births become common, a train of social pathologies follows, and with it greater demand for policing and state-provided social services. Sociologists David Popenoe and Alan Wolfe’s research on Scandinavian countries shows that as marriage culture declines, the size and scope of state power and spending grow.

The state has a clear interest in marriage, and its involvement can’t be avoided.

What Apologetics Books Would You Recommend?

Greg suggests a great selection of reading material for those just getting interested in apologetics.