Gregory Koukl's Blog, page 53

A Philosophical Argument against Annihilationism

Brett explains one reason why annihilationism isn't plausible. 

Good News for Gordon College

I’m very happy to say my previous post on Gordon College’s predicament proved to be too cynical. Their student conduct policy (which disallows any sexual activity outside of man/woman marriage, including “homosexual practice”) did not end up causing them to lose their accreditation:

“We are pleased to have satisfactorily addressed the concerns the Commission raised last fall and, working with NEASC, to bring closure to this matter,” said Gordon College President D. Michael Lindsay. “This is an outcome we expected, and we appreciate the outstanding working relationship Gordon has maintained with NEASC. The thoughtful and comprehensive dialogue on our campus has been tremendously beneficial, and I have no doubt this process has made us stronger. I am confident that these initiatives will enhance our ability to care for all Gordon students while remaining faithful to the College’s distinctive Christian educational mission.”

As far as I know, it’s still the case that the city won’t allow Gordon College to run the historic Old Town Hall, nor will Gordon College student teachers be allowed to volunteer in local schools (some are working to change this), and at least one high school will continue to refuse to hold its graduation ceremony there, but losing their accreditation would have been far worse for Gordon College than any of these things. In might even have made it worse for every Christian college. It’s a relief the precedent hasn’t been set.

So though there do still seem to be some concerns about how this turned out (Robert Gagnon details these concerns here and says, “The New England Association of Schools and Colleges (NEASC) may have left Gordon alone for the time being but only because they are satisfied that advocates for homosexual relations have (so to speak) secured the beachhead and are advancing inland”), this is good news for Christian colleges—at least for now. I’ll take it.

Finding Truth: Why Worldviews Commit Suicide

This week, we’re discussing the chapter “Why Worldviews Commit Suicide” in Nancy Pearcey’s Finding Truth: 5 Principles for Unmasking Atheism, Secularism, and Other God Substitutes, which covers the fourth of five principles for evaluating worldviews: “Test the Idol: Does It Contradict Itself?” (see links to the previous posts below). 

So far, we’ve learned how to identify the idol in a worldview (i.e., its understanding of the nature of ultimate reality), to find where it reduces the view of the human person to something less than human, and to see where that reductionism fails to match reality. This week, Nancy Pearcey explains how to find where a worldview contradicts itself:

[V]irtually all idol-based worldviews are self-refuting. Why? Because they are reductionistic. When reductionism is applied to the human mind, it reduces reason to something less than reason. It says the ideas in our minds are products of natural selection (Darwinism) or economic conditions (Marxism) or electrochemical responses in the brain (contemporary neuroscience). Yet the only way a worldview can build its own case is by using reason. Thus when it discredits reason, it undercuts its own case. It is self-defeating. (pp. 182-183)

Worldviews cause problems for themselves when they say that there’s no real self, that our ideas are the results of physical processes (or products of culture, or mere power plays), that “reason” is really an illusion. You can see the problem: If a person’s worldview states that reason itself isn’t to be trusted, then we ought not take seriously any reason that person gives for his own worldview. When it comes to reductionistic worldviews (other than rationalism, which doesn’t defeat itself in this particular way), Pearcey says “this one fundamental flaw is predictable.“ It’s a bad sign if you can’t make a legitimate case for your worldview from within your own worldview:

[O]nce a theory makes the claim that our ideas are not the product of rational thought, that claim must be applied to all ideas—including the theory itself. (p. 187) 

In order to trust that human beings can discover truth, one needs to know 1) “a rational God created the world with an intelligible structure,” and 2) we were created in the image of that rational being, which enables us to discover that structure. So what are proponents of reductionistic worldviews (who deny these two things) doing every time they make a case for their view?

The upshot is that all worldviews have to borrow a Christian epistemology—at least at the moment they are making their claims. They must tacitly assume the reliability of reason and rationality, which only a biblical worldview supports. They have to function as if Christianity is true, even as they reject it. (p. 190)

In our culture, we’ve been seeing the results of a postmodern loss of confidence in the legitimacy of reason and our ability to find truth. If there’s no truth we can find together—if our reality is merely created for us by our “tribes” through a common use of language, not reason—then there’s no use attempting to “reason” others towards our particular view, which means pressure or force will eventually become the persuasion method of choice. What other option is there? Indeed, we are starting to see power moves take the place of reasoned dialogue (as an antidote, I recommend watching this). As I wrote years ago:

[W]hat is left when separate communities come into conflict and the members believe rational communication and persuasion is impossible? Only the international language of power remains.

As always, Pearcey ends the chapter with a discussion of how Christianity grounds what other worldviews fail to ground. For example, where modernism exalted the individual (at the expense of community) and postmodernism exalted the community (at the expense of individuality), the Trinity provides the basis for both individuality and community in Christianity:

The perfect balance of unity and diversity within the Trinity offers a model for human social life—and a solution to the opposing poles of postmodernism and modernism. Against postmodernism’s dissolution of the self, the Trinity implies the dignity of the individual self. Just as each Person within the Trinity is distinct and plays a unique role in the drama of salvation, so each individual person has a unique identity and purpose.

Yet against modernism and its radical individualism, the Trinity implies that we are not disconnected and autonomous but were created for relationship. Sociality is built into the very essence of human nature. (pp. 209-210)

We’ve had some interesting discussions in the comments so far, so join in! Tell us what you thought about this chapter.

Next week, we’ll cover the fifth principle: “Make the Case for Christianity.” Pearcey has been doing a bit of this in every chapter (see the Trinity example above) as she shows us how Christianity, unlike other worldviews, has the ability to ground every aspect of the reality we experience and depend upon daily. I love her emphasis on the idea that Christianity is appealing—that our job is to reveal it to others in all its intellectual and emotional beauty, so I’m looking forward to the next chapter.

Previous posts:

Book Club Introduction (Includes a 15% discount for the book)
Week One: Foreword
Week Two: I Lost My Faith at an Evangelical College
Week Three: Twilight of the Gods
Week Four: False Worldviews Reduce the Human Person
Week Five: Secular Leaps of Faith

Twitter: #STRread, #FindingTruth

Articles mentioned in this chapter:

The Closed Mind of Richard Dawkins – “Well over a century ago, Balfour identified a problem with the evolutionary thinking that was gaining ascendancy at the time. If the human mind has evolved in obedience to the imperatives of survival, what reason is there for thinking that it can acquire knowledge of reality, when all that is required in order to reproduce the species is that its errors and illusions are not fatal? A purely naturalistic philosophy cannot account for the knowledge that we believe we possess…. Again, one does not need to accept Balfour’s theistic solution to see the force of his argument. A rigorously naturalistic account of the human mind entails a much more skeptical view of human knowledge than is commonly acknowledged.”


Big Bang: Is There Room for God? – “John Lennox, professor of mathematics at the University of Oxford, is also a self-declared Christian. He thinks the very fact that human beings can do science is evidence for God. ‘If the atheists are right the mind that does science...is the end product of a mindless unguided process. Now, if you knew your computer was the product of a mindless unguided process, you wouldn't trust it. So, to me atheism undermines the rationality I need to do science.’”

Challenge Response: Proof That Christianity Is Wrong

Here's my response to this week's challenge:

The Christian Worldview Grounds Human Dignity

On Fridays, we’ve been talking about worldviews—in particular, their views of the human person and how those various views affect the way human persons are treated. 

Along those lines, Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry has written an article titled “How Christianity Invented Children”:

We have forgotten just how deep a cultural revolution Christianity wrought. In fact, we forget about it precisely because of how deep it was: There are many ideas that we simply take for granted as natural and obvious, when in fact they didn't exist until the arrival of Christianity changed things completely. Take, for instance, the idea of children.

Today, it is simply taken for granted that the innocence and vulnerability of children makes them beings of particular value, and entitled to particular care…. In fact, this view of children is a historical oddity. If you disagree, just go back to the view of children that prevailed in Europe's ancient pagan world.

Gobry goes on to describe the sexual slavery, infanticide, and abuse that was common and accepted in the ancient world, concluding:

This is the world into which Christianity came, condemning abortion and infanticide as loudly and as early as it could.

This is the world into which Christianity came, calling attention to children and ascribing special worth to them….

But really, Christianity's invention of children — that is, its invention of the cultural idea of children as treasured human beings — was really an outgrowth of its most stupendous and revolutionary idea: the radical equality, and the infinite value, of every single human being as a beloved child of God. If the God who made heaven and Earth chose to reveal himself, not as an emperor, but as a slave punished on the cross, then no one could claim higher dignity than anyone else on the basis of earthly status.

That was indeed a revolutionary idea, and it changed our culture so much that we no longer even recognize it.

Many atheists are convinced a society that rejects the idea of God can still uphold human rights and human dignity. They think that even if one begins with an atheist worldview, these things are simply “obvious” and/or products of reason. They are not. Our culture is swimming in Christian ideas. After the water is drained, we’ll still be wet for a bit. But not forever.

Links Mentioned on the 5/05/15 Show

The following is a rundown of this week's podcast, annotated with links that were either mentioned on the show or inspired by it:

HOUR ONE

Commentary: The Explanatory Power of Christianity (0:00)

Naturalism: Bumping into Reality (CD/MP3) by Greg Koukl
Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics by William Lane Craig
Learn more about how to evaluate worldviews in our book club. We're reading Nancy Pearcey's Finding Truth: 5 Principles for Unmasking Atheism, Secularism, and Other God Substitutes 

Questions:

1. Will there be movies in heaven? (0:24)

Yes, New Earth Will Have Movies! by E. Stephen Burnett – the article the caller was asking about

 2. Is forgiveness really unconditional? (0:38)

Greg's previous questions on this here (question #7) and here (question #2)
The Sin of Forgiveness? by Greg Koukl

HOUR TWO

Commentary: What's Your View on Same-Sex Marriage? (1:00)

Questions:

3. How does free will work with election? (1:11)

4. What are the limits of prolonging life through medicine and technology? (1:28)

HOUR THREE

Questions:

5. Should an adult daughter talk to her parents about verbal abuse in their relationship? (2:00)

6. How can you answer the charge that morality is circular reasoning? (2:18)

7. Should remarried people who didn't have biblical grounds for their divorce separate in their new marriage? (2:26)

8. Disappointed in the strategy lawyers defending traditional marriage argued before Supreme Court. (2:39)

Why the Supreme Court Should Let States Choose Their Marriage Policy by Amy Hall
The Jujitsu of Same-Sex Marriage by Hadley Arkes

9. Remain in PCUSA despite unbiblical teaching? (2:48)

The Intolerance of Tolerance by Greg Koukl

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

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

Challenge: Proof That Christianity Is Wrong

Here’s an argument I found, offering “Proof That Christianity Is Wrong”:

This argument is based upon the following premises:

A.)    Christianity states the following:

God is benevolent, just and fair
When you die, your soul goes either to heaven or to hell…
The only way to salvation (i.e. Heaven) is thru a belief in Jesus Christ. One literally has to accept Jesus as ones savior

B.)    Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (better known as just Gandhi) is universally accepted as a great and decent human being who:

Lived for just over 78 years and is now deceased
Was a Hindu
Was a deeply religious and spiritual man however never accepted Jesus Christ as his saviour in the 78 plus years of his life.

The three following conclusions can be drawn from the above statements:

1.)    Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi is now in hell as he never accepted Jesus as his saviour

Therefore God is not benevolent, just and fair.
Therefore Christianity is wrong

2.)    Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi is now in heaven

Therefore a belief in and acceptance of Jesus Christ as your saviour is not necessary to go to heaven
Therefore Christianity is wrong

3.)    Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi is neither in heaven or hell

Therefore your soul does not go to heaven or hell when you die.
Therefore Christianity is wrong. [Formatting added for clarity]

How would you respond to this one? What is he missing? How would you explain it? Tell us what you think below, then come back to the blog on Thursday to see how Alan answers this challenge.

[Explore past challenges here and here.]

Is the Book of Revelation Literal?

Should the book of Revelation be interpreted as a literal or metaphorical event?

Time Management Tips from Greg

Greg has been asked questions in the past about his strategies for being productive, so this month, his Solid Ground article is about “Redeeming the Time”:

Time and task management is a battle, one that many of us never seem to win. Productivity comes easier, though, if you have a plan. That’s what I offer you in this month’s Solid Ground.

For years I’ve been using a fairly simple system to bring order (more or less) to my personal and professional life. Since even in a digital age I can never completely rid myself of paper, my system uses a combination of manila file folders and electronic apps.

Do you know the best time to plant a tree? 20 years ago. The second best time is today. Start now following some of the tips I offer and I think you’ll discover bringing order to your life is easier than you think.

If you’re interested in learning more on this topic, see What’s Best Next by Matt Perman. From a review by Matt Heerema:

Matt does an excellent job of reframing productivity in Biblical terms. The primary goal of productivity is love. Productivity is about effectiveness, not efficiency. And productivity is about doing the right things. It is possible to effectively and efficiently do the wrong things, which is not productive!

So, God cares about productivity, because productivity is about effectively loving people. 

I give my highest recommendation to Matt Perman and his work (see examples here and here). If you haven’t seen people truly apply the gospel to how they think about their work (or you can’t even imagine what that might look like), you must read his blog. I would love to see more people in every profession doing what he’s doing. 

Finding Truth: Secular Leaps of Faith

This week, we’re discussing the chapter “Secular Leaps of Faith” in Nancy Pearcey’s Finding Truth: 5 Principles for Unmasking Atheism, Secularism, and Other God Substitutes , which covers the third of five principles for evaluating worldviews: “Test the idol: Does it contradict what we know about the world?” (see links to the previous posts below).

First, a quick summary of the topic today:

We have worked through two principles in worldview analysis. First we identify its idol. Second we identify its reductionism. Now we will ask whether idol-centered worldviews fit the real world. (p. 147)

Just as scientists test a theory by taking it into the lab and mixing chemicals in a test tube to see if the results confirm the theory, so we test a worldview by taking it into the laboratory of ordinary life. Can it be lived out consistently in the real world, without doing violence to human nature? Does life function the way the worldview says it should? Does it fit reality? Does it match what we know about the world? (p. 143)

Pearcey points out that anytime you base your understanding of ultimate reality on a created thing (such as matter)—something that’s below God—you will ultimately be forced into a fragmented view of reality, recognizing part of the universe and human experience as real, and viewing other parts as an illusion. For example, materialists who think of human beings as “computers made of meat” have no rational explanation for consciousness, love, etc., yet they aren’t able to live as if these things don’t exist. Instead, they continue to act as if these things do exist, even though they have no reason within their own worldview to believe in them.

Pearcey characterizes this move to act as if certain things exist—things they’re intellectually convinced do not exist—as a “secular leap of faith.” Ironically, this amounts to the very thing many atheists wrongly accuse Christians of doing. Schaeffer says this is a kind of mysticism: 

Francis Schaeffer in The God Who Is There observes that every worldview containing a two-story dualism [i.e., where the world we experience is split between reality and illusion] leads ultimately to “mysticism” in the sense that adherents must affirm truths that their own worldview cannot rationally explain. It is ironic that many thinkers who pride themselves on being champions of rationality have accepted a form of mysticism—driven to that extreme position by the impulse to suppress the facts that contradict their preferred worldview. (p. 161)

I thought this example of suppression was particularly telling:

[Edward] Slingerland [who argues “that humans are robots—that our sense of having a will or self or consciousness is an illusion”] writes, “At an important and ineradicable level, the idea of my daughter as merely a complex robot carrying my genes into the next generation is both bizarre and repugnant to me.” Such a reductionistic view “inspires in us a kind of emotional resistance and even revulsion.”

Indeed, he writes, if you do not feel that revulsion, something is wrong with you: “There may well be individuals who lack this sense, and who can quite easily and thoroughly conceive of themselves and other people in purely instrumental, mechanistic terms, but we label such people ‘psychopaths,’ and quite rightly try to identify them and put them away somewhere to protect the rest of us.”  

What can we say when someone urges us to adopt a view of humanity that he himself admits is bizarre and repugnant? A view that ought to inspire revulsion? A view so dangerous that, when acted on, it would justify us in labeling people “psychopaths” and locking them up? (p. 162)

She concludes:

[I]dol-based worldviews do not produce what a philosophy of life is meant to give us—a coherent, logically satisfying worldview that makes sense of all of life. (p. 163)

What I appreciate about Pearcey’s approach is her focus on lifting up the people we’re talking to, not tearing them down. Her goal is for us to “step imaginatively inside other perspectives to show from within why they lack explanatory power.” Then, from there, it’s our positive view of Christianity—the beauty of its unified truth and inclusion of things like consciousness, love, and moral agency as well as rationality, science, and matter—that we should hold up for them: “We can show them how Christianity fulfills their own highest hopes and ideals.”

A Christian’s motive in apologetics should be a God-inspired grief for the lost. We should be brokenhearted over the dehumanizing reductionisms that dishonor and destroy our fellow human beings. We should weep for people whose dark worldviews deny that their life choices have meaning or moral significance. We should be moved by sorrow for people whose education has taught them that their loves, dreams, and highest ideals are ultimately nothing but electrical impulses jumping across the synapses in their brains. We should mourn for postmoderns who think that (as Schopenhauer said) the “eternal truths” are only in one’s head.

When talking to people trapped in a secular worldview, we can help them to see that it gives no basis for the realities of life that they themselves care most about. The very fact that they cannot live within its cramped confines is a sign that they were made to live in a larger, richer conceptual universe. Secularism is too small for secularists.  We should begin by expressing solidarity with their deepest longings for meaning and significance—and then show that in a biblical worldview, those longings are not merely illusions or useful fictions but living realities. (pp. 175-176)

As she says, “Secularism is too small for secularists.”

We’d love to hear your thoughts on this chapter. What stood out to you? Tell us what you think, and if you’ve posted on this chapter elsewhere (on your blog, Facebook page, etc.), leave a link for everyone below. 

(Though it came up in the chapter, I didn’t want to get too far afield of the main point by discussing my views on compatibilism, but if anyone wants to talk about it in the comments below, we can do that.)

Next week, we’ll cover Principle #4: “Test the idol: Does it contradict itself?” in the chapter titled “Why Worldviews Commit Suicide.”

Previous posts:

Book Club Introduction (Includes a 15% discount for the book)
Week One: Foreword
Week Two: I Lost My Faith at an Evangelical College
Week Three: Twilight of the Gods
Week Four: False Worldviews Reduce the Human Person

Twitter: #STRread, #FindingTruth