Gregory Koukl's Blog, page 81

Links Mentioned on the 8/26/14 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:

Ambassador's Creed – Qualities of an ambassador for Christ
Is Plan B an Abortifacient? by Amy Hall
6 Resources on Whether or Not Birth Control Pills Cause Abortions by Josh Brahm
The Canaanites: Genocide or Judgment? by Greg Koukl
Killing the Canaanites: A Response to the New Atheism's "Divine Genocide" Claims by Clay Jones
The Judgment that Led to Salvation by Amy Hall
Not Genocide, but Capital Punishment by Amy Hall
Israel's Failure Led to Evil and Suffering by Amy Hall
The New Atheists and the Old Testament by Amy Hall
Jihad and War in Islam and Christianity by Alan Shlemon
Where Did These Minimal Facts about the Resurrection Come From? by Amy Hall
Cold-Case Christianity by J. Warner Wallace
Why Should I Believe in the Resurrection? by J. Warner Wallace
How Do we Know That Jesus Really Died? by J. Warner Wallace
reTHINK Student Apologetics Conference – September 26-27 in Southern California
Throwing Cold Water on the "Ice Bucket Challenge" by Bob Perry
The Confusing Moral Logic of ESCR (PDF) by Greg Koukl
Discussing ESCR: A Simple Plan by Greg Koukl
Richard Dawkins: "immoral" to allow Down's syndrome babies to be born – UK Telegraph
Dawkins's clarification on his Down syndrome comments – Richard Dawkins
Utilitarian Atheists Aren't "Just As Moral," They're "Differently Moral" by Amy Hall
Subject vs. Subjective by Greg Koukl
God, Evolution, and Morality Part 1, Part 2 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.

What Makes a Successful Apologetic Argument?

As part of his explanation of what apologetics is, James Sire wrote this at the beginning of his new book, Apologetics Beyond Reason (quoting one of his earlier books):

The success of any given apologetic argument is not whether it wins converts or strengthens the faith of any given believer, but whether it is faithful to Jesus. The reasons that are given, the rhetoric that expresses these and the life of the apologist and the larger community of faith must, then, demonstrate their truth.

I love that. And we try to cover all three of those areas—knowledge, wisdom, and character—in our Ambassador Model. Dr. Sire's words are a good reminder to review the Ambassador’s Creed if you haven’t done so in a while.

What Can a Parent Do When Their Grown Children Have Walked Away from Christianity?

Brett shares ideas for parents on relating to and listening to grown children who have walked away from their childhood faith.

 

Utilitarian Atheists Aren’t "Just as Moral," They’re "Differently Moral"

Christopher Hitchens used to insist that atheists were as moral as Christians, challenging, “Name one moral action performed by a believer that could not have been done by a nonbeliever.” But as I said long ago, the claim that “atheists are as moral as Christians” is meaningless if we’re operating under different systems of morality.

This week, Richard Dawkins was a perfect example of this as he set off a firestorm with his tweets about Down syndrome children. Here’s the interaction that set it off:

@InYourFaceNYer Abort it and try again. It would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice.

— Richard Dawkins (@RichardDawkins) August 20, 2014

He said even more than that as he continued to defend his original tweet (including the regrettably true statement, “Apparently I'm a horrid monster for recommending what actually happens to the great majority of Down Syndrome foetuses. They are aborted”), but you get the idea.

Within Dawkins’s moral system, it is actually immoral not to abort a Down syndrome child. In his eventual apology for creating a controversy, he explained why:

If your morality is based, as mine is, on a desire to increase the sum of happiness and reduce suffering, the decision to deliberately give birth to a Down baby, when you have the choice to abort it early in the pregnancy, might actually be immoral from the point of view of the child's own welfare….

My true intention was, as stated at length above, simply to say what I personally would do, based upon my own assessment of the pragmatics of the case, and my own moral philosophy which in turn is based on a desire to increase happiness and reduce suffering.

So you see? Dawkins’s recommendation to “abort it and try again” was perfectly moral within his own system of morality. If nothing else, this incident has brought some clarification:

A system that adds up potential happiness, weighs it against potential suffering, and chooses to “increase the sum of happiness” (at least, according the reckoning of the person doing the adding and the weighing) kills Down syndrome children before they can be born.


A system that upholds the value and dignity of every human being regardless of his or her abilities or characteristics because we’re all made in the image of God protects, cherishes, and loves them. 

There is no “just as moral" here; we’re differently moral. And as long as God gives me the ability, I will fight to convince people that the moral system built on our being made in the image of God is the true one.

New Ambassador for Christ Video

What does it mean to be an ambassador for Christ? How do you become a more skilled ambassador? Our first motion graphics video (more to come!) answers that question for you with the Ambassador Model (knowledge, wisdom, and character). It’s a good introduction to what we do here at Stand to Reason.

We’re having a little giveaway to celebrate this. To enter, go to Facebook, make sure you’ve liked our new Facebook page, and share the video. Then just note in the comments on the Facebook post, that you’ve shared it.

One winner will receive the Tactics in Defending the Faith DVD, and two others will get an STR mug. You’ll have until Monday night to enter. Enjoy, and thanks for spreading the word!

 

Challenge Response: There Is No Soul

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

Quakers and Constitutional Freedom

You remember William Penn from history class. He was granted the colony of Pennsylvania by the king in payment for debts owed his father. Penn was a Quaker who converted to Christianity in his early 20s. Penn adhered to the biblical values of human equality and intrinsic value and dignity. These later influenced the governmental framework he proposed for Pennsylvania.

Because of his dissent from the Church of England, Penn was imprisoned in the Tower of London for his outspoken religious beliefs. Penn was close friends with George Fox, who founded Quakerism. By rejecting the church's authority over congregations, "Fox not only extended the Protestant Reformation more radically, but he helped extend the most important principle of modern political history – the rights of the individual – upon which modern democracies were later founded. Penn traveled frequently with Fox, through Europe and England. He also wrote a comprehensive, detailed explanation of Quakerism along with a testimony to the character of George Fox, in his introduction to the autobiographical Journal of George Fox. In effect, Penn became the first theologian, theorist, and legal defender of Quakerism, providing its written doctrine and helping to establish its public standing."

Penn's father banished him from his household for his religious beliefs. On his deathbed, Penn's father expressed his respect for his son's religious convictions and courage. He entreated the Duke of York, the future King of England, to protect his son.

Penn and other Quakers purchased land in America that became New Jersey. He encouraged a mass migration of Quakers to escape persecution and pursue practicing their religious freedom in peace. The King later granted Pennsylvania to Penn. "On March 4, 1681, the King signed the charter and the following day Penn jubilantly wrote, 'It is a clear and just thing, and my God who has given it me through many difficulties, will, I believe, bless and make it the seed of a nation.'"

Penn proposed a framework for the government of his colony that included some landmark features that influenced the U.S. Constitution a century later. He limited his own power under the legal framework. And he provided for amendments to allow the constitution to be changed over time. Other rights that were unique at the time:

the assembly could bring a request of impeachment of the governor before the council for its trial
unconstitutional laws should be invalidated, although it did not specifically grant courts the power to declare their unconstitutionality
capital punishment to be applied to a strictly limited scope of criminal offenses only, including murder and treason
freedom of worship in the colony was to be absolute

Penn vowed that he would not oppress the native population or the immigrants of Pennsylvania for his own benefit. He later attracted other persecuted religious groups from Europe to immigrate making Pennsylvania a place of religious toleration.

Penn insisted that the Quaker schools be open to everyone, so the colony had a high literacy rate. Philadelphia became a center for science and medicine. The Quakers improved treatment of the mentally ill. Prisons were places of reform where the inmates were treated better than was common at the time.

On November 28, 1984, President Reason on an Act of Congress declared William Penn to be an honorary citizen of the United States. He had favored unifying the American colonies.

Abortion Justifications Flip Moral Reasoning Upside Down

Unfortunately, in the last few years we’ve had more than one opportunity in this nation to ponder this question: Why are we more grieved and outraged when a child is murdered than when an adult is murdered, even though both are valuable human beings? As I’ve watched, listened, and considered, three reasons have come to the forefront:

The child didn't have a chance to live his life. 
We feel a special responsibility to protect children because they're dependent on us. 
The more innocent the human being, the more deeply we grieve the crime perpetrated against her. 

The younger the child gets, the more our horror increases: A high school bus is hit by a drunk driver, and we mourn; elementary school students are murdered by a gunman, and we have national grief; babies at a daycare are targeted by a terrorist, and our shock and anger at the heinousness of it consumes us. The horror increases as the age decreases...until we reach the womb. Then suddenly, all our moral reasoning is flipped on its head. 

Once we go back in age beyond that magical point, we use those same three reasons not to condemn abortion, but to justify it:

Instead of opposing abortion because a child has her entire future outside the womb taken from her, we justify it by saying she didn't yet have any "interests" since she wasn't aware of what she'll be missing.  
Instead of opposing abortion because of our keenly-felt responsibility to protect the most defenseless of children, we justify it by saying their total dependence on us is parasitical and therefore we have a right to deny our consent for them to depend on us. 
Instead of opposing the violent actions of abortion taken against the most innocent of us, we justify it by comparing those unborn children to violent attackers from whom we have a right to defend ourselves. 

Do you see the ridiculousness of this? If it's a tragedy when a five-year-old loses the rest of his life, isn't it an even greater tragedy when an unborn baby loses every experience waiting for him outside the womb? A five-year-old has seen much of what life is about, though only for a short time. An aborted baby has had even that short time stolen from him. It's the very fact that an unborn child has not had a chance to become aware of his objectively real interests that makes his death more tragic, not less. 

Why are we not consistent on this moral principle of increased horror with decreased age? It makes no sense to arbitrarily flip this principle upside down and use the very points that normally condemn violence against the young to justify it. 

Links Mentioned on the 8/19/14 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:

The Ambassador's Guide to Islam by Alan Shlemon
Greg's interview with J.P. Moreland on the soul
The Soul: How We Know It's Real and Why It Matters by J.P. Moreland
Evidence for the Soul by Greg Koukl
Beyond Death: Exploring the Evidence for Immortality by Gary Habermas
Transcript of Greg's dialogue with Michael Shermer
Resources for Churches from Alliance Defending Freedom ("Protect and Promote the Rights of Our Churches")
Five Things All Churches Should Have in Their Bylaws (PDF) by Alliance Defending Freedom
Tactics in Defending the Faith (DVD) by Greg Koukl
See where Greg, Brett, and Alan will be speaking
Unstringing the Violinist (PDF) by Greg Koukl
A New Response to the Violinist Argument by Amy Hall

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.

Challenge: There Is No Soul

In a post titled “10 Reasons Why Christianity Is Wrong,” the #6 objection is that “There is no soul”:

The evidence for physicalism—that the mind is the brain—has become nothing less than overwhelming. This evidence exists not only in the highest levels of research—where scientists can now point to, and manipulate, the exact location in our grey matter where essential characteristics lie—but it exists in the everyday lives of millions of people who take psychotropic drugs on a daily basis. These users will tell you drugs such as Prozac, lithium, Paxil and Ritalin don't just give them a slight pick-me-up, they make them an entirely different person…. Only by ignoring 200 years of medical progress can we believe that we simply inhabit our bodies—dropping by on the way to something better. It isn't "I have a brain," it's "I am a brain."

How would you respond to his argument? What is the Christian view of the body, and does the efficacy of psychotropic drugs refute it? What are the implications of the writer’s physicalist view?

Tell us what you think in the comments below, then we’ll hear from Brett on Thursday.

[Explore past challenges here and here.]