Gregory Koukl's Blog, page 123
September 12, 2013
Blaise Pascal - Biography
David Mathis describes Pascal:
His is one of the great minds of Western civilization — indeed, the history of the world. He was a child prodigy and first a mathematician and physicist, then a philosopher and theologian....Because he refused to swallow Descartes’s pill of naively applying the scientific method to every discipline, Pascal’s seventeenth-century writings prove hauntingly relevant today in a postmodern milieu in which more and more are awakening from the Enlightenment’s folly.
It was November 23, 1654. He was 31 years old. For two hours, from about 10:30 PM until 12:30 AM, he experienced a kind of spiritual inferno. He journaled the experience on a piece of a paper he sewed into his coat to keep near his heart.
Read more about this brilliant Christian.
September 11, 2013
When Your Opponents Build Their Case by Trying to Deconstruct Yours
I’ve been involved in many criminal trials over the years, sitting next to the prosecutor and evaluating the approach of the defense team as they attempted to counter the case offered by the District Attorney. Both sides have the opportunity to present evidence and offer witnesses to support their position, but I’ve been in many trials where the defense attorneys didn’t call a single witness to the stand. Instead, they chose to vigorously cross-examine the witnesses offered by the prosecution. This is certainly a valid approach to defeating the prosecution’s case, but it can also reveal the weakness of their argument.
Imagine a scenario in which a defendant has been accused of a robbery. The prosecution calls a witness who places the defendant at the scene of the crime. In addition, they offer a video from the scene that shows the suspect wearing clothes similar to those recovered in the search warrant served at the defendant’s home. Finally, they call a witness who testifies the defendant (usually short of cash) had an unexpected sum of money in his possession following the robbery. The defense team has a variety of options as it attempts to respond to this case (and I’ve seen a number of approaches). One effective response is simply to call a witness who can provide an alibi. Two or three witnesses who can account for the defendant at the time of the crime would be even better. In addition to this possible approach, defense attorneys sometimes present witnesses and evidence pointing to a different suspect altogether. When these two options aren’t available, defense teams focus in on the evidence presented by the prosecution in an effort to deconstruct the case being presented against their client. They typically do this during the cross-examination process, attacking the credibility and reliability of the prosecution’s witnesses, one at a time. Sometimes this is effective, sometimes it’s not. If the prosecution’s case is robust and includes many witnesses, this defensive strategy starts to look and feel like a futile effort to deny the obvious.
I’ve witnessed a similar approach with those who attempt to attack the historicity of Christianity, most recently with the work of Candida Moss in her book, The Myth of Persecution: How Early Christians Invented a Story of Martyrdom. The Christian claims related to the martyrdom of early believers are built robustly on the varied, cumulative ancient testimonies of Biblical, Christian and non-Christian witnesses. There are two ways to respond to this large, diverse, cumulative case. One way is simply to cite witnesses who report something different than what has been offered by these witnesses typically cited by Christian case makers. As in cases involving alibi witnesses, the jury could then simply compare the credibility of both sets of ancient descriptions. The problem for those who oppose the traditional historical claims of ancient Christian persecution is the dramatic deficiency of opposing witnesses.
When a suspect is truly guilty, there aren’t any credible alibi witnesses available for the defense to call. When this is the case, the best they’ll be able to do is attack the strength of the prosecution’s case in an effort to cause doubt in the minds of the jury. In a similar way, if the Christian claims related to early persecution are true, there won’t be a contemporary ancient witness who can offer an opposing view; there won’t be a witness for the opposition to call to the stand. Instead, the best they’ll be able to offer is an attack on the Christian witnesses; they’ll attempt to deconstruct the Christian case in an effort to build their own.
This is precisely what we see happening today. Critics of Christianity are unable to call opposing witnesses because there aren’t any. The unified testimony of history points to the repeated persecution of early Christians (this is not to overstate the case and claim Christians were universally hunted or slaughtered in the millions by the Romans). The Biblical, ancient Christian and non-Christian voices do, however, repeat the same story during the first three centuries following the Resurrection of Jesus: Christians were often martyred simply because they claimed the name of Christ. Given that the ancient testimony about this persecution spans hundreds of years across diverse regions of the Roman Empire and among differing cultural groups, it seems reasonable that we might expect some ancient opposition to this narrative if it is a lie. Why wouldn’t someone in the ancient world have pointed out this mischievous attempt on the part of Christians to label themselves as martyrs? Why should we think we have a better perspective now, separated by two thousand years?
The fact a defense team might not choose to call a single witness should not be seen as an indication of their client’s guilt. After all, there are times when an innocent man may not have been in a place that could later offer him an alibi witness. Crimes occur in very short time spans; the accused may simply have been home alone during the short interval in which the crime occurred. But this is surely not the case related to the ancient claims of persecution. They occurred (and were reported) over three centuries; we should reasonably expect someone to have stepped up to offer an ancient alternative, if in fact, there was a true alternative. It appears there is no such ancient opposing witness to be called in this case. Instead, the opposition must attempt to build their case by deconstructing ours.
Subscribe to J. Warner’s Daily Email
September 10, 2013
Links Mentioned on the 9/10/13 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:
Sweet Cakes By Melissa Bakers Speak Out After Anti-Gay Controversy Prompts Business to Close
Cookie Shop Accused of Refusing 'Coming Out Day' Order
Christian bakery closes after LGBT threats, protests
Jack Phillips, Denver Baker Who Refused Wedding Cake To Gay Couple, Defends His Stance
A Place of Healing: Wrestling with the Mysteries of Suffering, Pain, and God's Sovereignty by Joni Eareckson Tada
What If Jesus Meant All that Stuff? by Shane Claiborne
Is Mormonism Just Another Christian Denomination? by Greg Koukl (PDF)
Why We Must Tell Christianity's True Story by Tom Gilson
Thinking Christian – Tom Gilson's Website
True Reason: Christian Responses to the Challenge of Atheism – eBook edited by Tom Gilson and Carson Weitnauer (the expanded print version is scheduled to be released on December 1)
The Book That Made Your World: How the Bible Created the Soul of Western Civilization by Vishal Mangalwadi
How the Irish Saved Civilization by Thomas Cahill
Two movies on abortion: Bella and October Baby
C.S. Lewis Society – Tom Woodward's page
Doubts about Darwin by Tom Woodward
Amazing Grace – the story of William Wilberforce's fight against the slave trade
Pilgrim's Regress by C.S. Lewis
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.
Webinar with Greg
Challenge: Your Pro-Life Views Are Just Religious
The challenge this week is something that was recently said to Alan:
Aren't you against abortion just because you're a Christian? You talk about abortion as if you're objectively evaluating the morality of it. But in reality it's your religious views that make you against abortion, not science and not neutral unbiased rationale.
If you were Alan, how would you have responded? As always, we want to hear your ideas in the comments below, and then Alan will post his video response on Thursday.
September 9, 2013
If God Cannot Be in the Presence of Sin, How Could Satan Have Approached Him? (Video)
September 6, 2013
Are Atheists Smarter or Simply More Self-Reliant and Self-Indulgent?
After attending Southern California universities for nine
years, I was a committed atheist. Was my atheism the result of my intellectual
prowess and education, or something else? A recent controversial
study seems to imply a direct correlation between intelligence and atheism.
A review of 63 studies of intelligence and religion from 1928 to 2012 allegedly
reveals the following: non-believers, on average, score higher than religious
people on intelligence tests. I think there may, in fact, be some truth in this
discovery, but non-religious people should hesitate before they start
celebrating. I think folks with higher IQ’s may be more inclined to reject God,
not because they’re better able to assess the evidence and draw reasonable
inferences, but because they
are far more likely to reject any authority other than themselves.
When I was a young boy, my teacher encouraged my mother to
have my IQ tested. I was only six years old, but I can still remember the room
where they administered the test. When it was all said and done, I found myself
in “gifted” classes for the rest of my public education. As the years passed, I
never forgot my IQ score and I came to think of myself as someone who was too
smart to believe in imaginary beings. The more I thought I knew, the more
self-reliant I became and the less I was willing to listen to what others had
to say, especially about matters related to God. I was comfortable as my own
judge and jury; my own authority about any number of things. My self-perception
as a “smart guy” resulted in an arrogant, self-reliant and self-indulgent
attitude toward life.
I don’t think I’m the only smart person who has experienced
this. Studies repeatedly show the practical difference between non-believers
and religious people when it comes to wise decision making. Religious people
consistently demonstrate wisdom unmatched by their non-believing peers:
Believers make wiser choices in their relationships
Studies
repeatedly reveal believers are more inclined to enter committed relationships,
more likely to make wise marriage choices, enjoy better marital stability and
remain satisfied in their marriages. When both spouses are actively engaged in
their religious communities, they are more than two
times less likely to divorce than unbelieving couples.
Believers make wiser choices in their parenting
Believing mothers and fathers make wiser choices as parents. They are more
involved in the lives
of their children, more involved in their children’s educational
experience, are more likely to invest in the
lives of their kids, and report stronger
and better relationships with their children.
Believers make wiser choices related to early sexual activity
The more committed a believer is to his or her religious practice, the lower
the level of teenage sexual activity. As a result, committed believers are 2
to 3 times less likely to
have a child out of wedlock.
Believers make wiser choices in their use of alcohol and drugs
Many studies confirm the relationship between religious belief and reduced likelihood of alcohol
abuse, and researchers have also established a similar relationship between
religious commitment and drug use.
Religious people are far less likely to become alcoholics or drug addicts.
Believers make wiser choices in the way they live their lives
Committed religious believers are much more likely to make wise choices in
their personal lives. Believers, for example, are less likely to commit
acts of violence against their partners. The more committed they are to
their religious belief, the less likely they are to behave violently. In
addition, believers report they are happier,
more satisfied with their lives, and have greater morale.
Believers make wiser choices related to education
Religious people have higher academic expectations, attend school more
regularly, achieve higher levels of education and generally perform better
in their academic environment. Studies demonstrate academic performance is positively
affected by religious practice.
Believers make wiser choices related to compassion and charity
Studies also reveal religious believers are more likely to report
compassionate, empathetic feelings toward disadvantaged people than their
non-believing counterparts. This heightened compassion motivates religious
people to be much more charitable; believers
give far more to charitable organizations than do non-religious people.
Believers make wiser choices related to criminal activity
There is also a direct relationship between committed religious belief and criminal
activity. Committed believers are far less likely to use weapons, engage in
violent activity or commit other felonious crimes.
If believers are so much less intelligent than their
non-believing counterparts, why do they repeatedly make wiser choices? As a
boy, I can remember an incident that seems to explain this phenomenon. I was
not yet a teenager, but I certainly thought I was smarter than most adults, and
on this particular day, that included my mother. I can remember arguing with
her at a local retail store and repeatedly challenging her (I can’t remember
the subject of our argument). For every point she offered, I countered with a
stubborn opposing view. We went back and forth for a while as we walked through
the store. I stubbornly refused to comply with whatever it was she wanted me to
do, offering five or six reasons for rejecting her request. By the time we got
to the checkout register, she was exhausted. We continued to argue as we stood there
in line, and at one point an older man standing behind us turned to his wife
and said, “That boy is too smart for his own good.”
There is often a relationship between intelligence and the willful
rejection of authority. Being smart doesn’t guarantee you’ll make smart
decisions. For this reason, the connection between IQ and religious belief is
unsurprising and unflattering. There are lots of incredibly
smart believers; these folks have simply learned to submit their
self-reliance and self-indulgence before investigating the case for God’s
existence.
Subscribe
to J. Warner’s Daily Email
September 3, 2013
Links Mentioned on the 9/03/13 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:
Never Read a Bible Verse by Greg Koukl
Money, Greed, and God by Jay W. Richards
Austrian Man Wins Right to Wear Pasta Strainer in License Photo – NPR
The Flying Spaghetti Monster – A response from Greg Koukl
Death Penalty for Women Who Abort? by Greg Koukl
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.
Does God’s Sovereignty Rob Us of Our Freedom?
Christianity describes a God who sovereignly calls believers to
repentance. Does this mean humans are mere puppets under the direction
of an all-powerful Being who controls all decisions and dictates the
final outcome? Does the Christian God allow humans any freedom to choose
for themselves? The relationship between God’s sovereignty
and man’s free will has been a topic of hot debate for two millennia; I
doubt that I’ll be able to solve it in a blog post. But I do think the
definition of free will lies at the root of the confusion and apparent dilemma.
Most
of us would like to think that we are free to make any choice possible
in any given situation, but if you think about it, that’s really not the
case. Even the choices you thought you were free to make were limited
by your pre-existing nature (your inclinations, desires, likes and
dislikes). Have you ever cleaned out your closet and discarded an ugly
shirt, tie or dress that was given to you as a gift? Why did you throw
it away? You discarded it because it was taking up space. Every day, as
you decided what to wear, you were free to choose that article of
clothing, but you never did. Your nature (in this case, your taste in
clothing) restrained your choice. In order to understand what the Bible
teaches about “free will”, we need to distinguish between two concepts
of freedom:
“Libertarian” Free Will:
This view of free will maintains that humans have the ability to choose
anything, even when this choice might be contrary to our nature (our
inclinations, desires, likes and dislikes). We might call this
“Unfettered Free Will”.
“Compatibilist” Free Will:
This view of free will maintains that humans have the ability to choose
something, but this ability is restrained by our pre-existing nature
(our inclinations, desires, likes and dislikes). We might call this
“Self-Fettered Free Will”.
Our practical experience tells us that
we don’t make choices that are completely unfettered (unrestrained) by
our nature. There is a local Volkswagen dealership in our area that
specializes in manufacturing pink Beetle convertibles. That’s right:
Pink. They make them one at a time and sell dozens each year, all to
young women, according to the sales manager. I can honestly say that I
would never purchase that car, and if I was given one, I would sell it.
While I clearly have the freedom to purchase it, my nature (my
inclinations, desires, likes and dislikes) prevents me from doing so.
While I consistently choose what I want freely, I would never freely
chose the pink Beetle. My will is “self-fettered”. I bet you’re just
like me. Many of us would never choose to order an anchovy pizza. Many
of us would never choose to cut our hair in a “mullet” hairstyle. Our
natures (our inclinations, desires, likes and dislikes) restrain us.
The Bible recognizes God’s sovereignty and man’s “fallen” nature
(our inclination toward rebellion and the denial of God’s existence).
We see descriptions of this reality in Jeremiah 13:23, Mark 7:21-22,
Romans 3:9-12, and Romans 8:6-8. The Bible also teaches, however, that
humans have the freedom and ability to choose the things of God,
including the salvation offered through Jesus Christ. This ability to
choose is described in passages like Joshua 24:15, John 7:17, and John
7:37-39. So, how do we, as fallen humans inclined to deny God, have the
ability to choose God? Well it appears that God (in His sovereignty)
works at the level of our nature rather than at the level of our choices.
God changes our hearts first, so we have the freedom to choose
something we would never have chosen before (because our nature
prevented us from doing so). You and I then have the freedom to choose
within our new nature, and we are, of course, responsible for those
choices.
Subscribe to J. Warner’s Daily Email
August 30, 2013
Your Students Are Willing to Delay Gratification, If You Are
I’ve been writing this week about my recent experience at Summit Worldview Academy and the nature of student
training. There are a number of similar worldview programs around the country
(including the Centurions
Program and the Worldview Academy),
and I’m always impressed to see how many students are interested in this kind
of intensive preparation. To be sure, there are always some students at these conferences
who are present because their parents demanded their attendance, but these young
people are always in the vast minority. Most students come (and put themselves
through the rigorous material) because they heard about it through a friend who
highly recommended the experience. And while there are some fun opportunities
to hike, relax and play games along the way, these activities (commonly
associated with youth group retreats) are typically few and far between at
worldview camps. Students are here to roll up their sleeves and get to work. They’re
far more interested in learning than lounging. Youth
pastors can glean something from worldview academies.
I have to confess: When I was a new youth pastor, I was more
likely to provide my students with pizza than preparation. I thought the only
way to attract students in the first place was to satisfy
their desire for entertainment and social interaction. I simply tried to wedge
in the important stuff (theological and apologetics training, Spiritual
formation and Biblical literacy) along the way. It took me a year or so to find
a better approach. I eventually realized my students would willingly delay
their desire for fun if I could
effectively show them their need
for truth. I began to take them to places where their worldview was
tested and I did my best to demonstrate their deficiencies. As a result, the Utah and Berkeley trips
became a regular offering of my ministry. It wasn’t long before my students
were ready to do whatever it took to better defend themselves. They were more
than willing to delay their desire for what they used to think of as fun to
achieve a greater goal. Along the way, they discovered how satisfying it is to learn
the truth, articulate it effectively, and engage the world.
It turns out that students are willing
to raise the bar and do much more than we expect of them in most youth
groups across the country. If you’re a youth pastor or are serving in a youth ministry,
think about what your students are typically willing to do in order to succeed
on their club sports team or to prepare for their next academic AP test. Our students
are already working hard to prepare themselves in some area of their young lives;
why aren’t we willing to ask them to prepare this rigorously as Christians? It’s
time to show students why it’s so important to equip themselves as Christian
ambassadors. It’s time to stop
teaching and start training.
Many of the students I spoke with at Summit told me they originally
heard about the academy from a friend who was transformed by the experience.
Some were attending the training for the second time. These Summit veterans
said their second interaction with the material was even more helpful than the
first. They admitted they were originally overwhelmed by everything they heard
in the first year of training and many wanted to come back to better absorb the
information. As a result, they spent two summers engaging difficult but
important issues. Interestingly, some of these two year veterans were in that
minority of students who were originally required to attend by their parents.
While a few young people may arrive here reluctantly, none seem to leave here
willingly. It’s amazing how God uses the truth to transform the lives of
students, and how willing these students are to delay traditional forms of
recreation to become good Christian Case Makers. Let’s learn something from
worldview academies and turn every
youth group into a Christian worldview training opportunity.
Subscribe
to J. Warner’s Daily Email
