Gregory Koukl's Blog, page 68

Posts of Christmas Past

Merry Christmas! Here are a few posts from past Christmases for you to enjoy:

Don’t Wish, Rejoice! – “A friend sent me a picture of his Christmas Starbucks cup. This is what it said: ‘WE invite YOU to LISTEN to your DESIRES and to RENEW your HOPE. To SEE the world not as it is, but as it COULD be. Go ahead, WISH. It's what makes the holidays the holidays.’ Luckily for us, this is the exact opposite of the message of Christmas.”


The Wrong Shall Fail, the Right Prevail – “Christmas isn’t just about God’s love and peace. It’s also about justice. Jesus took on human flesh and came to live among us as one of us so that God could be both just and gracious…. God’s perfect justice will prevail. Every act of evil will be fully punished. God is not dead, nor doth He sleep; the wrong shall fail, the right prevail. God is the Right. He has prevailed, He does prevail, and He will prevail. His perfect presence sweeps away evil. And because of the coming of Jesus who now stands before God in the place of His people, this is cause for rejoicing, not fear. Take refuge in God’s mercy, united to Christ, and let God’s justice be a comfort to you.”


Why Doesn’t Mark Say Anything about Jesus’ Birth? – “If the virgin conception was an historical event that was well known to the earliest Christians, why wasn’t it mentioned by Mark? Mark’s gospel is widely accepted as the first account of the life and ministry of Jesus. Why doesn’t it contain anything about the virgin conception? Does the absence of a birth narrative in Mark demonstrate that the entire story is a late fictional creation?”


Public Truth, Not Private Opinion – “Michael Horton explains why the nature of the gospel as a proclamation of historical truth both surprises and challenges us. Our culture defines reason as naturalism, and so it allows reasonable people to be religious only as long as they either confine their religious claims to the realm of private opinion (i.e., based on personal revelations or ideas that apply only to them), or focus on general revelation to which everyone can reason (e.g., advice for living well). Neither of these options threatens the sovereignty of naturalism. But, Horton says, the gospel is not something we could deduce on our own through reason (though we can certainly reason about it, once known), nor is it the kind of thing that could be true for me but not for you—‘the gospel transcends these rules, and refuses to play by them.’ Because it's a historical claim, it's not a private faith, but a public fact. And it requires a hearing of the truth to be known.”


Sin Is the Reason for the Season – “As I reflect on Christmas hymns and Bible readings, though, I am struck by a deeper aspect that we don't usually focus on but underlies the entire reason for the season: Sin. It's the reason the baby was born in Bethlehem. It is present in the liturgy and hymns we sing at Christmas. Behind the beauty and peacefulness of the holiday is a dark truth. The baby came to save lost sinners in rebellion against God.”

I Heard the Bells on Christmas Day

“I Heard the Bells on Christmas Day” is the Christmas song I love the most, and I can never listen to it without tears. I wish it were better known. Justin Taylor explains its origins:

The lyrics originate from the poem “Christmas Bells” by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, written on Christmas day in 1863. But the original was not a feel-good song but one born in grief. Longfellow’s wife had died in a fire in 1860. And on December 1, 1863, the widower received the news that his eldest son, 19-year-old Charley, had been nearly paralyzed by a gunshot wound fighting for the Union in the Civil War. It was with that background that he penned this poem about the dissonance between the Christmas bells, the singing of “peace on earth,” and the world around him of injustice and violence—ending with the hope for eschatological peace. 

Here’s part of Longfellow’s poem “Christmas Bells”:

I heard the bells on Christmas Day
Their old, familiar carols play,
And wild and sweet
The words repeat
Of peace on earth, good-will to men! …

 And in despair I bowed my head;
“There is no peace on earth," I said;
“For hate is strong,
And mocks the song
Of peace on earth, good-will to men!” 

Then pealed the bells more loud and deep:
“God is not dead, nor doth He sleep;
The Wrong shall fail,
The Right prevail,
With peace on earth, good-will to men.”

God is not dead, nor doth He sleep. Jesus’ incarnation and resurrection prove this. Have hope in your pain, and have a joyful Christmas tomorrow.

Merry Christmas from Stand to Reason

Share this Christmas message with your friends on Facebook and Twitter!

The STR Place Challenges

We started the weekly challenges back in 2010 on STR Place’s blog (our youth site). When we closed STR Place a couple of years later (student resources can now be found here on our main website), we began posting the challenges biweekly here at this blog. That means there’s two years’ worth of challenges on our old youth blog that most of you have never seen.

So this week, since Thursday is Christmas, we’re not posting a new challenge. Instead, here’s a list of all the challenges from STR Place for you to peruse and enjoy today. (And now they’re archived here for your easy access in the future, as well!)

God

Does God care about sports? (Challenge – Response)
Either God isn't good, or He isn't sovereign (Challenge – Response)
Freud says God is an illusion (Challenge – Response)
God is a psychopath (Challenge – Response)
God is sexist (Challenge – Response)
God is silent (Challenge – Response)
God should make Himself more obvious (Challenge – Response)
God wrongly punished Adam and Eve (Challenge – Response)
The idea of God is contradictory (Challenge – Response)
Neither a perfect nor an imperfect God would create (Challenge – Response)
Only tyrants demand worship (Challenge – Response)
Our brains create God (Challenge – Response)
What kind of God saves a murderer? (Challenge – Response)
Who created God? (Challenge – Response)
Why should we believe there's only one God? (Challenge – Response)
Why would God want to ruin our fun? (Challenge – Response)
Your God is a monster (Challenge – Response)

Jesus

Jesus never existed (Challenge – Response)
Jesus wasn't moral (Challenge – Response)
Jesus wasn't omniscient (Challenge – Response)
There are no reliable non-Christian sources for Jesus (Challenge – Response)
Was Jesus really tempted? (Challenge – Response)
We can't know Jesus rose from the dead (Challenge – Response)
Why I hate religion, but love Jesus (Challenge – Response)
You don't know the real Jesus (Challenge – Response)

Theology

100% man or 100% God? (Challenge – Response)
Christianity has its own jihad (Challenge – Response)
The crucifixion is immoral (Challenge – Response)
Does it make sense to pray for things? (Challenge – Response)
Faith is gullibility (Challenge – Response)
An infinite Hell is unjust (Challenge – Response)
Prayer doesn't work (Challenge – Response)
Salvation by grace is unfair (Challenge – Response)
Then why is there evil? (Challenge – Response)
Theology isn't worthy of study (Challenge – Response)
The Trinity is unscriptural and unreasonable (Challenge – Response)
Why blood sacrifice? (Challenge – Response)
Why don't Christians follow the Law? (Challenge – Response)

Bible

The Bible has been changed (Challenge – Response)
Biblical law is immoral (Challenge – Response)
Here are contradictions! (Challenge – Response)
You can't trust the Gospels (Challenge – Response)

Other Religions

17 points of a true church? (Challenge – Response)
The blind men and the elephant (Challenge – Response)
"But I'm a good person" (Challenge – Response)
The Mormon Church is unified (Challenge – Response)
Mormons are Christians (Challenge – Response)
Mormons believe in salvation by grace (Challenge – Response)
There are witnesses to the Book of Mormon (Challenge – Response)
They're all the same God (Challenge – Response)
Unlike the Qur'an, the Bible Is Corrupt (Challenge – Response)
Works are required (Challenge – Response)

Atheists

Atheism is merely a lack of belief in God, not a claim there is no God (Challenge – Response)
"I just believe in one fewer god than you do" (Challenge – Response)
"I would believe in God if..." (Challenge – Response)

Philosophy

The best possible world wouldn't have non-God objects (Challenge – Response)
Consciousness is an illusion (Challenge – Response)
How do I prove objective morality? (Challenge – Response)
Intuition can't prove objective moral values (Challenge – Response)
It's not rational to believe in God in an age of science (Challenge – Response)
Maybe the universe is self-existent (Challenge – Response)
Men don't rise from the dead (Challenge – Response)
Miracles can't happen (Challenge – Response)
Moral values are just brain patterns (Challenge – Response)
There's no possibility of a Creator (Challenge – Response)
Truth is empirical (Challenge – Response)
Which is more likely: miracles or lying? (Challenge – Response)

Science

Bad design = no design (Challenge – Response)
Intelligent Design is just "God of the gaps" (Challenge – Response)
Intelligent Design is not science (Challenge – Response)
Prove God by the Scientific Method (Challenge – Response)

Bioethics

Abortion is permissible because nobody has the right to use my body (Challenge – Response)
Abortion wins souls for Christ (Challenge – Response)
The Bible is okay with abortion (Challenge – Response)
Early embryos aren't individuals (Challenge – Response)
Women will die from back-alley abortions (Challenge – Response)
The embryos are going to die anyway (Challenge – Response)
A fetus without a brain is not a person (Challenge – Response)
A fetus without an active brain is not alive (Challenge – Response)
Leave the abortion debate to women (Challenge – Response)
The life of a human being is in the blood (Challenge – Response)
This is not a person (Challenge – Response)
You wouldn't save the embryos (Challenge – Response)
You're not really pro-life if you're for the death penalty (Challenge – Response)

Same-Sex Marriage

Commitment makes a family (Challenge – Response)
Dan Savage's anti-bullying speech (Challenge – Response)
Is marriage really connected to children? (Challenge – Response)
So you're against same-sex marriage because it's sinful? (Challenge – Response)
You want the biblical view of marriage? (Challenge – Response)

You’re the Problem

Christians are insecure (Challenge – Response)
Would you obey God if...? (Challenge – Response)
You just needed a father figure (Challenge – Response)
You're arrogant! (Challenge – Response)
You're Christian because you're Western (Challenge – Response)

Miscellaneous

Christmas is pagan (Challenge – Response)
Doubt those who say they found truth (Challenge – Response)
"I can't say my mom is in Hell" (Challenge – Response)
What can we learn about God from apologetics? (Challenge – Response)
What do Christians gain in this life? (Challenge – Response)
What if someone doesn't want to listen? (Challenge – Response)

My Body, My Choice?

Alan discusses whether or not the unborn is merely a part of the mother's body.

 

Fourth Week of Advent

The fourth and final week of Advent begins tomorrow. This week’s verses from Angie Mosteller’s “How to Do an Advent Wreath” (available on her Celebrating Holidays website) are centered around “love and the presence of the Savior.”

(4.1) His Presence Among Us: Over 400 years before Jesus, Zechariah foretold how God would one day come and live with men. “‘Shout and be glad, O Daughter of Zion. For I am coming, and I will live among you,’ declares the Lord. ‘Many nations will be joined with the Lord in that day and will become my people. I will live among you and you will know that the Lord Almighty has sent me to you’” (Zechariah 2:10-11). 

(4.2) His Presence as a Human: Jesus left the splendor of heaven to live on earth as a man. Therefore, “Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness” (Philippians 2:5-7).

(4.3) His Presence Declared by an Angel: When Jesus entered the world, a heavenly angel reported the news to shepherds. “And there were shepherds living out in the fields nearby, keeping watch over their flocks at night. An angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were terrified. But the angel said to them, ‘Do not be afraid. I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people. Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is Christ the Lord’” (Luke 2:8-11).

(4.4) His Presence Declared by the Heavens: Even the stars made known the presence of Jesus to Wise Men. “After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem and asked, ‘Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star in the east and have come to worship him’” (Matthew 2:1-2).

(4.5) His Presence Declared by Simeon: A righteous and devout man in Jerusalem named Simeon recognized the presence of the Savior. “Simeon took him [the infant Jesus] in his arms and praised God saying: ‘Sovereign Lord, as you have promised, you now dismiss your servant in peace. For my eyes have seen your salvation, which you have prepared in the sight of all people, a light for revelation to the Gentiles and for glory to your people Israel” (Luke 2:28-32).

(4.6) His Presence Declared by Anna: The prophetess Anna recognized the presence of Jesus, the Redeemer. “There was also a prophetess, Anna. . . . She never left the temple but worshiped night and day, fasting and praying. Coming up to them (Mary and Jospeh) at that very moment, she gave thanks to God and spoke about the child to all who were looking forward to the redemption of Jerusalem” (Luke 2:38).

(4.7) His Presence Motivated by Love: God sent Jesus into the world because of his great love for us! “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him” (John 3:16-17).

How Science and Religion Converge Rather Than Conflict – Part 5 of 5

Given what I’ve written in the previous posts (PART 1, PART 2, PART 3 and PART 4), I think the best model of interaction between science and theology is convergence. What is convergence? Philosopher Garry DeWeese defines it this way: “Science and theology sometimes tell us different kinds of things, and sometimes the same kind of things, about the same thing (the real world). When done ideally, they will not conflict but will converge on a unified description of reality” (in his handout entitled, “The Relation Between Science and Theology”). Let us examine several important features of convergence. 

First, central to the convergence model is metaphysical realism. According to this model of interaction, science and theology are concerned with metaphysical exploration, an exploration of the same theory-independent external world. As such, their claims are realist in nature with the ultimate goal of these two disciplines converging “on a unified description of reality.”

Second, a convergence model acknowledges that human knowing is not exhausted by one discipline. Science and theology tell us different kinds of things. Despite what some scientists think, science cannot account for all of reality. What of moral claims? Does science have a plausible account of immaterial moral laws that seem to press in on us with an almost irresistible incumbency? Or what of its own presuppositions? Science cannot account for them because they are philosophical in nature. Indeed, science comes to the table with a priori metaphysical commitments firmly in place. For example:

(1) the existence of a theory-independent, external world

(2) the orderly nature of the external world

(3) the existence of truth

(4) the existence of the laws of logic

(5) the existence of ethical values used in science

(6) the uniformity of nature and induction

(7) the existence of numbers

These second-order philosophical claims undergird the entire scientific enterprise. To be sure, scientific inquiry cannot get off the ground without these presuppositions in place. 

Third, both science and theology attempt to provide explanations of both the meta- and minor- kind (see my discussion HERE). At times, the explanations offered in one discipline will overlap with explanations in the other. For instance, scientific investigation of the Big Bang may provide a plausible explanation of the beginning of the universe. Theology may provide a plausible explanation of the nature and character of the intelligent agent causally responsible for the Big Bang itself. And thus, they overlap. (If you recall, my prior account of explanation was broad enough to include more than just physical objects and events. Additionally, my prior account of explanation left the door open to agent causation. Thus, God as the primary causal explanation of the origin of the universe is a legitimate contender as a theological meta-explanation supported by science.) Convergence is not uneasy with such bold integration but invites more of it, knowing science and theology are attempting to get at the same reality.

This possibility of overlap between science and theology points to one of its strengths. On this view, theology is not limited to the Bible as its only text of study. Christian theology has available a second text, the “book of nature” or the natural world. Indeed, the whole of human experience, the seemingly limitless data of the physical universe ought to be included in the data of theology. At the same time, special revelation ought to be included in the data of science. This view allows for epistemic interaction and ultimately, mutual epistemic support.

Lastly, a convergence model of interaction can account for conflict between science and theology. As DeWeese states, “At any point in history, conflict is possible due to the incomplete or inaccurate theories/doctrines and descriptions in one or the other (or both) disciplines” (emphasis mine). This is not an intractable problem. As DeWeese’s claim implies, the conflict is epistemic, not metaphysical. Why think this? Affirming mutually exclusive truth claims is incompatible with a correspondence theory of truth. Logically inconsistent claims cannot be describing the same reality, and thus, conflict resolution must be epistemic. We may need to re-examine current explanations or seek new interpretations of existing data. Whatever conflict arises, we have room for hope. DeWeese again: “When conflict occurs, theology may correct science, or science may correct theology, or judgment may be withheld, with decisions made on a case-by-case basis.” A convergence approach to conflict prohibits theology’s treatment as a second-class citizen to science in its knowledge claims. 

In conclusion, although science and theology resist clear lines of demarcation, we can certainly pick out clear cases of each and offer broad conceptual schemes for each that allow room for the work of integration. And the best model of integration between science and theology is convergence, where science and theology converge on a truthful description of the world.

How Science and Religion Converge Rather Than Conflict – Part 4 of 5

In these last two posts, we will move toward the convergence of science and theology in providing knowledge of reality. However, before we discuss the proper relationship between science and theology, we must recognize an obstacle: definitions. When we talk about science and theology, we must know what we mean by each. This is no easy task. 

As I mentioned in PART 3, there are no necessary or sufficient set of conditions for something to count as science. Theology suffers the same definitional difficulty. Just as we cannot draw a clear line of demarcation between science and non-science, we cannot do so between theology and non-theology. Certainly, clear cases or non-cases of both science and theology can be identified, but this can be done without a clear definition of either. 

Instead, it may be best to think of both as “cluster” concepts. That is, science and theology consist of a collection of disciplines, activities, and practices. Within science there are various sub-disciplines (like biology or physics), there are various methods employed, and there is overlap amongst scientific sub-disciplines as well as with non-scientific disciplines. Likewise, within theology there are various sub-disciplines (like eschatology or philosophical theology), there are various approaches to theological inquiry, and there is overlap. Again, the collection of common features in either science or theology does not constitute a set of necessary or sufficient conditions. Nonetheless, we must move the discussion forward in order to propose a model of interaction. 

With the definitional difficulty in mind, I offer broad but working definitions for science and for theology. First, science may be thought of as “a particular way of knowing based on human interpretation in natural categories of publicly observable…data obtained by sense interaction with the [natural] world” (Richard H. Bube, “Seven Patterns for Relating Science and Theology,” Michael Bauman, ed., Man and Creation: Perspectives on Science and Theology, p. 76).

Theology may be thought of as “a way of knowing [about the natural and supernatural realms] based on the human interpretation of the Bible and human experience in relationship with God” (J.J. Smart, “Religion and Science,” Encyclopedia of Philosophy, p. 14). Notice the important commonality in both definitions: science and theology are sources of knowledge about the natural world.

Tomorrow, we'll bring this discussion to a close by proposing a model of interaction for science and theology.

Humility of a King | Unneeded Reformation

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

The Humility of a King by Brett Kunkle: “Matthew, writing to a Jewish audience, spends the rest of his gospel demonstrating that Jesus is the long-awaited Messiah, the prophesied ‘Ruler, who will shepherd [God’s] people Israel’ (2:6). But in contrast to earthly kings, the rulership of Jesus is not about exercising power and authority to lord over men (20:25). This King is different…. Jesus contrasts the leader’s grab for earthly authority and power with the hierarchy of the kingdom: ‘But the greatest among you shall be your servant.’ … How does all of this relate to my work? Sometimes apologetics is cast as a power move. It is the Christian’s attempt to dominate others through power of intellect and argumentation. If I win the argument, I win the day. However, this is not our apologetic at Stand to Reason. Yes, we want to demonstrate the truth of Christianity. Yes, we want to demonstrate the powerful arguments in favor of Christianity. But the end goal is not submission to our apologetics arguments, but humble submission to Jesus, the only ruler worthy of our worship.” (Read more) 


The Reformation the Church Doesn't Need by Alan Shlemon: “Last month, I attended the national conference of The Reformation Project in Washington, D.C. Its founder, Matthew Vines, calls himself a gay Christian. Their mission statement says they are “dedicated to training LGBT Christians and their allies to reform church teaching on sexual orientation and gender identity through the teaching of the Bible.” In other words, they want to change the Church to affirm practicing lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered (LGBT) people by reinterpreting the Bible’s teaching on homosexuality. This isn’t a minor project, either. They use the term ‘reformation’ because they believe their mission is in line with the noble reform efforts of Martin Luther. They intend the Church’s transformation to be just as significant as it was post-Luther. They have a two-pronged approach to accomplishing their goal. First, they want every Christian who believes homosexual behavior is sin to encounter a gay person in their life…. Second, they are training Christians to argue for a revisionist understanding of the biblical texts on homosexuality.” (Read more)

You can subscribe to their monthly newsletters via email here.

How Science and Religion Converge Rather Than Conflict – Part 3 of 5

In my first two posts of this series (PART 1 and PART 2), I laid a foundation with an epistemological account of the nature of explanations. Given that account, let us move to a more specific question: What constitutes a scientific explanation? 

This is a difficult question because science notoriously resists definition. There is no accepted list of necessary and sufficient conditions that constitute an adequate definition of science. To demonstrate this problem, let us examine a highly popular feature often proposed as necessary and sufficient for an explanation to count as scientific. Many scientists and philosophers of science point to falsifiability as a feature that demarcates science from non-science. There are, however, a number of reasons that count against this criterion. 

First, J.P. Moreland points out that “the nature of falsifiability in science is often difficult to clarify” (Christianity and the Nature of Science, p. 33). Science rarely tests propositions or theories in isolation. Any number of theories may be in play during experimentation. But what if the scientist’s observation does not correspond with his predictions? Which theory in play has been falsified? Has the entire cluster of theories been falsified? 

There is a second problem with falsification. In our account of explanation, we made a distinction between meta- and minor-explanations, a distinction clearly evident in science. I may hold to some evolutionary meta-explanation regarding the origin and existence of biological life, but at the same time hold to minor-explanations (e.g. that a particular feature of a certain bacteria confers upon the organism some survival advantage) that may fall under umbrella meta-explanation. While the minor-explanations may be easier to falsify, broad meta-explanations are very difficult to falsify as they may encompass entire clusters of minor-explanations. Certainly, falsifiability is relevant to scientific explanations but it cannot constitute a necessary or sufficient condition. 

What then are we to do? How do we differentiate between mere explanation and scientific explanation? We may find some progress in identifying a cluster of features that would make an explanation scientific rather than historical or sociological, et al. However, we recognize that taken individually or collectively they would not constitute necessary or sufficient conditions. 

First, scientific explanations should exhibit correct deductive or inductive argumentation. The explanadum should be explained by inferring it from the explanans.

Second, scientific explanations should be empirically accurate. Observation, prediction, and experimentation are foundational to scientific inquiry. Positive empirical testing leads to important observations. Important observations lead to law-like generalizations. And continuing scientific testing provides important justification or disconfirmation of scientific explanations. Thus, scientific explanations should cohere with available empirical evidence (anomalies not withstanding).  

Third, scientific explanations should include generalizations about laws. Over time, certain scientific predictions are confirmed through observation or experimentation. Given enough justification, they can be taken to demonstrate certain patterns of regularity within the world. From such regularities, scientists can deduce law-like generalizations that are causally responsible for those regularities. And those laws can guide further fruitful scientific investigation. 

I have given an account of explanation that is narrow enough to be useful, yet broad enough to be adequate for all disciplines. Although we cannot list necessary and sufficient conditions for what counts as scientific explanation, we can outline a cluster of features that help in this task. We are now in a good position to consider the nature of interaction between science and theology and to follow evidence from both disciplines wherever it may lead us.