No Such Thing As Faith Without Reason

 I have recently heard/read a lot of people claiming that faith and reason are opposed to one another. Sadly, the sentiment is not only advanced by non-believers but often by Christians as well. Recently, I have been considering whether this claim even makes logical sense. Are faith and reason polar opposites? That is, does faith necessarily decrease as reason increases and vice versa? Or, to put it another way, are faith and reason inversely proportional? That is the question I want to consider here.

I think the best way to handle the question (and many similar questions) is to "de-spiritualize" it. That will help to unload some of the religious baggage and see the core principles at work more clearly. To do this, I will use marriage as an analogy. I have faith that my wife loves me. That is to say, I trust that she loves me. Of course, I cannot know with complete certainty, but simply have to take it on faith. It is entirely possible that she is deceiving me. However, that seems incredibly unlikely. Why? The answer is because of reason. There is a great deal of evidence that gives me reason to trust (by faith) that she loves me. What is more, as reasons for thinking she loves me increase, so does my faith that she loves me.

Are there any counter evidences that might make me think she doesn't love me? Of course. Any (honest) married person will testify to this. I often struggle to understand why she reacted a certain way or said a certain thing, and if I only analyzed my emotional response to those particular moments, I might say "there is no way she loves me." But are these isolated incidents -- the highly subjective, emotionally charged moments of confusion -- enough to overthrow the wealth of evidence that points to her love for me? Absolutely not!

Now, let us consider how absurd it would be if I reassessed my marriage using the formula that faith and reason are inversely proportional. In order for my faith in my wife's love to grow, I would actually need less reasons for it. The less she showed her love and the more she voiced her contempt, the greater my faith that she loves me would become. Stepping back from the analogy for a moment, that would mean a person of faith would be in the awkward position of actually wanting his beliefs to be disproven in order that his faith might reach its greatest potential. That is totally ridiculous. 

At this point, I can imagine that someone accusing me of having grossly misrepresented the "faith vs reason" position. They would likely argue that the absence of reason simply makes more room for faith. That is, I do not have to express very much faith in my wife's love since there are abundant reasons for knowing it is true. In the absence of reasons, I would have to exercise a tremendous amount of faith in order to believe that she loved me. My question at that point would be: is faith the sort of thing that changes size to fill gaps? I do not think so. Faith can certainly increase or decrease, but I do not have any reason to think that the supply necessarily responds to the demand. It seems to me that when a  person has no apparent reasons for faith in something or someone, he usually has less obvious reasons that he finds just as, if not more compelling. These might be emotional or psychological reasons rather than emperical. Maybe the reasons come from experience. Or maybe they come from the perceived trustworthiness of an authority. These are all legitimate sources of reasons for faith. Granted, someone might say these are not good reasons. But they are still reasons! In the end, I would argue that no one expresses faith in the absence of reason. That idea is just false. There is no such thing as faith without reason.

Proponents of the Christian "faith vs reason" crowd generally want to argue that no reason is necessary beyond the inward testimony of the Holy Spirit. To that I would simply say that they need to re-phrase their position. They do not actually believe that faith is opposed to reason but simply that the testimony of the Spirit is reason enough for faith. In which case, they maintain my claim that no one believes without reason. I would even agree with them up to a certain point. I affirm that the testimony of the Holy Spirit is necessary for faith in Christ. However, I do not think that in any way logically precludes the possibility that faith can be increased by additional evidence. I also do not believe there are compelling reasons to think the testimony of the Holy Spirit cannot work through the presentation of evidence. In fact, I think there are biblical reasons to think he often does. If we want to be strict about our soteriology and argue that "no one is saved based on the presentation of evidence", then I think we have to say the same about the presentation of  the Gospel. Do we want to go there? I really hope not, but strictly speaking, people are not saved by the act of evangelism. I believe the same way the Holy Spirit uses the presentation of the Gospel as a tool, He also uses the presentation of evidence. Come to think of it, why should we assume that the testimony of the Holy Spirit is some kind of ethereal feeling completely detached from reason? I don't know of any biblical reason for thinking that. But I will leave that for now and address the other side of the "faith vs reason" coin.

I would argue that advocates of the atheistic "faith vs reason" crowd also need to re-phrase their objection. In my estimation, when they say, "faith is opposed to reason", what they really mean is, "people of faith lack any good reasons for belief." But that is a completely different argument and a highly subjective one. Who decides what constitutes good evidence? Are emotional and psychological evidence always misleading? Of course not. What about beliefs based on experience or the perceived trustworthiness of authority? Should these always be rejected? That would be ridiculous. In reality, the majority of beliefs held by human beings (regardless of their worldview) come from experience and authority.

More importantly, what really matters is not the goodness or badness of the reasons Christians have for their faith. What matters is whether or not what they believe is true. The question is not, "Does the random Christian on the street have any good reasons for his faith?" but, "Do any good reasons for the Christian faith exist?" After a lot of study and skepticism (contrary to popular belief, Christians are often the harshest skeptics of Christianity), I am absolutely convinced that they do. What is more, I am convinced that anyone who is genuinely seeking the answer to that question will find the same to be true.
**MY BLOG HAS MOVED TO MY NEW WEBSITE. Becauseitstrue.com PLEASE VISIT ME THERE AND SUBSCRIBE TO THE NEW BLOG. THANKS!

What about the "Good Kids"? Part II

It might concern some of you that in my first installment, I failed to address whether or not the "good kids" are all "saved", (born again, regenerate, redeemed etc). I did not bring that up because I really cannot say with anything approaching certainty. However, I think a safe answer to that question is -- some of them are. What is more, I did not bring up the question of their salvation because I think it is actually part of the problem. Before you begin the modern version of wailing, tearing your clothes and putting ashes on your head -- you know, posting about your disgust on Facebook -- let me explain. I simply mean that part of the reason the "good kids" are often overlooked is because church leaders simply assume that they are all regenerate followers of Christ. In their defense, there are plenty of other problems to deal with without having to go looking for them amongst the "good kids". As long as they show up every week, say the right things, act the part and participate, we assume that all is well (with their souls). All the while, their minds are roiling with doubts and confusion.

So what is the solution? While I cannot offer a comprehensive, sure-fire, step by step guide; I think there are at least three primary categories that any proposed strategy should address. They are: prevention, correction and regular maintenance. Think of it like owning a car or house. Prevention has to do with anticipating doubts and confusion and addressing them before they have a chance to become rooted and mature. Correction means combating full blown doubts and confusion with the truth. Finally, regular maintenance is about keeping the mind sharp so that it can more quickly discern truth from untruth without having to entertain doubts and confusion.

First of all,  let's talk about prevention. For two years, I have taught middle school Christian Studies at Bethlehem Christian Academy (I am doing High School this year). I keep a question box at the front of my room and encourage kids to ask whatever questions they have about God, life, the Bible etc. You might be shocked at some of the questions that I have gotten from kids as young as 11. Mind you, most of these kids have grown up in church and Christian school. Last year, a 6th grade boy asked, "How can we be certain that God exists and that our religion is the right one?" I will not go into the details of my answer. And to be honest, the answer itself is somewhat ancillary to the fact that I was willing to give an answer. He responded by saying, "Wow! No one has ever been willing to answer that for me before." What does that tell you? It tells me that kids start thinking about this stuff when they are in elementary school. It may be hard to answer these type of questions in a way that they can understand when they are only 9 or 10 years old -- but are we even trying? Or are we simply brushing off their questions with "you just have to believe"? That seems to have been the experience of this particular student. By the way, the 6th grade question box was always  full and the 8th grade question box rarely had anything in it. What does that tell you? It tells me that by the time they reach 8th or 9th grade, they would rather eat a light bulb than put off the impression that they do not know everything.

Prevention begins by acknowledging that everyone -- even the "good kids" -- struggles with doubts and confusion. We cannot just ignore that fact. We also cannot wait for them to bring it up. They feel like they already know what the Christian answer will be. As a result, the first time they really seek answers for their doubts it will probably be in an environment that they perceive as sympathetic to their doubts. We need to take the necessary steps to make our homes, classrooms, churches and small groups a place where people feel free to express their darkest doubts and ask their toughest questions. That will probably start with the leaders asking questions like, "How many of you have ever wondered why God allows evil to exist if He is loving?" You know that they have thought about it -- we all have -- but they are not likely to admit it until they know that it is okay. I think the problem is that many leaders are scared to bring these skeletons out of the closet because they have not dealt with it themselves. That is like the husband who thinks that as long as he can avoid confrontation -- even at the expense of communication -- there is not a problem. If you are the one feeling like you wouldn't know how to answer those questions if they were asked, let me encourage you. You may be in an even better position than the most well studied apologist. You have an opportunity to personally walk through the process of seeking answers with the person who is struggling. You might say, "To be honest, I have always struggled with that as well. Why don't we both do some research and get together to work it out." Just be available and transparent. I think you will be amazed by how much of an impact that can have. On the other hand, if you are the seasoned apologist, I would encourage you to make sure that you are serving your local body in some capacity. Very few churches have someone on staff that specializes in apologetics. You could be a huge asset to an entire group of local congregations. Ask the local pastors, (especially student pastors) if you can give a talk on the reliability of the Bible or historical evidence for the resurrection etc. There is a good chance that they could use a break for a service or two.

The second category, correction, is fairly self explanatory and should not require nearly as much explanation as the previous step. Correction is about dispelling doubts and confusion by demonstrating the truth. Understandably, correction is more intimidating to most people than prevention. It is the point at which we  often have to deal with people who have become antagonistic to the Church. As I described in my first installment, this is the place where many of the "good kids" live.  At this point, I will revisit  my original allegory from "Good Kids Part I".

RESUME ALLEGORY: The "good kids" moved all of their Christian furniture to the attic. But why?  Because the patterns and colors were boring and out of style. But there is something about that old furniture that they don't realize. The patterns and colors that turned them off are actually just removable slip covers. They aren't essential to the design or integrity of the furniture. Someone needs to take them up into the attic together and uncover the timelessly engaging and "in style" furniture that lies beneath. They need someone who can say, "I know how it looks to you, but let me show you something". END ALLEGORY.

 It is very tempting to unpack all of the particulars of the allegory above -- but that would totally defeat the purpose. So, I will resist the urge and move on to briefly examine the final category.

The third and final category that must be included in any plan to re-engage the "good kids" is regular maintenance. The reason I have included regular maintenance as a category is that the "good kid" problem can actually happen over and over again regardless of your level of maturity. So please do not think that I am suggesting that the solution is for everyone to run out and enroll in seminary to study apologetics. I would wager to say that some of the brightest apologists in the world are mired in boredom and are living like practical atheists. Regular maintenance may look different for them than others, but it is still necessary. 

I have been going to church for 30 years and have been paying attention for more than half of that time. I have been to dozens of churches spanning several different denominations -- from charismatic to Catholic and everything in between. But in all of that time, I cannot remember hearing much, if anything, about the evidence for the truth of Christianity. As a matter of fact, I was a Christian Studies minor during my undergrad studies and they did not even have a course in apologetics* until my senior year. Sure, I had leafed through "Mere Christianity" like most of the other "good kids". Oh wait! Did I forget to mention that I was one of the "good kids"? Oh yes. I argued with my friends about listening to secular music (sorry Jon), before some of you were even born. I wore the bracelets and t-shirts. Sometimes I still do. Anyway...I eventually got bored. I never stopped going through the motions, but it was not until a few years ago that I began to really examine the evidence for Christianity and uncovered the true nature of the "furniture" -- to re-engage. What changed? Oddly enough, after missing a couple weeks of church services, I had an inclination to listen to a sermon via podcast. I had heard someone say that Timothy Keller** was really smart. You see, the "good kids" are generally not impressed with dramatic displays of emotion in a sermon. Not because there is anything wrong with genuinely heartfelt preaching, but because they feel like they have already "been there" and "done that". But what they aren't used to is a pastor who presents Christ using reason, logic, good presentation skills alongside engaging stories. Anyway, I was interested enough to look Dr. Keller and download a couple of messages. In the particular messages that I downloaded, (Sorry, I can't remember the names) Keller took it upon himself to engage a series of "tough questions" that skeptics and critics raise against Christianity. I think you can still find them on iTunes. At any rate, I could not get enough of it. What was Tim Keller doing that I found so refreshing? He was working within that kind of environment I talked about in the prevention category. The sort of place where it is okay to ask questions and talk about doubts. He was not just presenting evidence for Christianity, he was examining the way we "do church" and approach faith. He was helping his congregation perform regular maintenance -- keeping their minds sharp. He knew that we have have the tendency to put "slip covers" back on the "furniture" over and over again. Why do we do that? Well, as it turns out, the real furniture underneath the "slip covers" is actually a lot bigger than it looks when the slip covers are on. In fact it is infinitely huge. It makes us feel tiny and we do not like that feeling. So we want to cover it back up and make it a size that we can manage. Regular maintenance is necessary because it helps us maintain the proper perspective.

If young people perceive Christian homes, churches, small groups and schools as hostile to doubts and questions, then they will just go where they feel like they welcome. If Christianity seems too frail to handle their toughest objections -- they may not totally abandon belief -- but they will put it in "the attic". As long as these issues are ignored, Christianity will contine to appear to them as something small, flimsy, limited and dismissible. However, by addressing these concerns early and often, we can help them to see that Christianity is huge, solid, limitless and essential to every part of life. To that end, any plan to reach the "good kids" should include, prevention, correction and regular maintenence.

*I am not suggesting that apologetics alone is the solution. However, I believe that the neglect of apologetics is a huge part of the problem. Even if you do not personally struggle with doubts or confusion -- you may say "I am convinced and don't need to know all that stuff" -- there are likely many people in your life that do.

*I am not suggesting that Timothy Keller does everything right or that his sermons will impact everyone the same way that they did me. Obviously, that is not true. My wife actually falls asleep when I listen to him in the car. I am simply sharing my experience.

What About The "Good Kids"? Part I

All of the talk about "Why Millennials Are Leaving The Church" over the past couple of weeks has interesting to say the least. I think there were valuable insights to be gleaned from both sides of the debate that ensued. Even so, there has been more than enough written about Rachel Held Evans' now famous/infamous CNN article. For that reason, I will spare you my commentary. However, the discussion has prompted me to think about one particular group of young people that are prone to "leaving". This group rarely gets any attention from the groups who specialize in "reaching young people with the Gospel". This group does not t really stir up much theological controversy. But before I describe this group to you, let me say that I do not mean to suggest that reaching any one group is more vital than another. It is easy for us to think that because we have a passion for a particular group that everyone else should drop what they are doing and join us. That is not what I am saying. My goal is to hopefully inform some people about a group that they may not have considered. Furthermore, I hope to stir up people who share my passion for reaching this group. Alright; enough preface.

The group to which I am referring could be called the "good kids". These are people who grew up in children's church, Sunday school, VBS, church camp, Disciplenow, SuperWow, youth group, Bible study, small group, mission trips, street evangelism etc. They were in church every time the doors were open and extremely involved. They only listened to Christian music and read the entire Chronicles of Narnia. They had Christian t-shirts, bracelets, hats, bumper stickers, mugs, posters, etc. Some of them went to a Christian high school and most of them went to a Christian college (if they didn't become youth pastors or worship leaders straight out of HS). The "rebellious" ones got Hebrew character and Ichthus tattoos when they turned 18. You get the picture. These are the "good kids".

But when they became adults and the real world became their world, a lot of them just got bored with the whole "Christian thing". After all, what was left for them to do? They had heard every sermon, been in every group, studied every "interesting" part of the Bible and done every outreach. In short, they had done it all. At least, that is how they felt. The thought of waking up early, driving to church, singing a couple of songs, sitting through another predictable service, learning nothing, going out to eat and driving home began to look less and less appealing.  It wasn't that they stopped believing in God, the Bible and Jesus anymore. If you talk to them today, they still say they believe it and they know more about it than 99% of the people warming the pews. They had just "been there and done that" already. And so, they packed up their Christian "furniture" and put it in the attic.

WARNING: HIGHLY ALLEGORICAL CONTENT. DRIVE CAREFULLY.
By clearing all of the Christian furniture out of their house, they made room for things that they actually found interesting. But remember, these are the "good kids". They didn't drag a bunch of nasty old couches into their house. No, they got nice new furniture -- in most cases, a lot nicer looking than the old stuff. They still have the old stuff up in the attic, but after a while, they started to forget what it looked like. In fact, they started to come up with caricaturizations of it in their minds. And then, inevitably, they started to resent the color, size, shape, and patterns of the old furniture in the attic. They wouldn't dare to get rid of it -- they love what it represents -- but whenever they see furniture of a similar style in another person's house, they feel nauseous. They say, "I have that same couch, and I really do love it. But I just hate the color and the pattern." Or, worse yet, when a furniture salesmen comes to the door and tries to sell them a new piece of furniture with a similar style. They say, "No thank you. I already have more than enough of that." But the most frustrating thing is when people who still have think that kind of furniture is "in style" come over to visit and won't shut up about how great it is. But remember, these are the "good kids". They will just smile and wait to discuss how truly  ignorant their friends really are about that truly hideous furniture.
END ALLEGORICAL CONTENT.

So what is the solution? How do we "reach" the good kids? After all, they know a lot more about Christianity than most of the people who would try to reach out to them. I will let you marinate on the allegory for a little bit. That will give me time to finish up Part II where I will try my darndest to give an answer.

Is the History Channel's "The Bible" Series Inaccurate?

NOTE: There are likely many other purported inaccuracies that might be cited. In the following space, I am simply responding to one particular (theoretically comprehensive) list to which I was provided a link. Thank you in advance for keeping any comments like "Well, but you left out the one where..."  to yourself. I am aware that I probably didn't cover everything. What is more, I am only addressing the purported explicit contradictions to Scripture. That does not include things being left out, skimmed over, or embellished. Those are the sort of things we ought to expect in any movie adaptation of a book. Thanks!

In response to: “Ten Inaccuracies in the Bible Miniseries” by Johnathan Merritt

http://www.jonathanmerritt.com/10-inaccuracies-in-the-bible-miniseries/

Purported inaccuracies

IA = Inaccuracy R = Response V = Verdict

1.       IA: The miniseries begins with Noah telling the story of creation and the Fall. That is inaccurate because Moses, not Noah wrote the book of Genesis.

R: Do we really believe that no one until Moses knew the story of creation and the Fall? There was almost assuredly an oral tradition passed down through the generations. Moses wrote to solidify the tradition and remind the people of their heritage. Remember, they had been enslaved for 400 years in a pagan land and heard all sorts of other stories about creation, gods and humanity. Certainly, Noah would have known and shared with his family why God was judging the earth. That is all the miniseries assumed for dramatic effect – and with good reason. 

V: Does not explicitly contradict Scripture

2.       IA: The Angels display martial arts fighting techniques. That is inaccurate because the Bible does not say they fought, and especially doesn’t say that they fought like Jet-Li.

R:  The Bible does speak of angels fighting. Are we 100% certain that they could not use martial arts like moves? Where in the Bible does it tell us that?  Is it reasonable to think that they might have been fighting in Sodom and Gommorah? It is at least possible since they sought refuge at Lot’s house. The miniseries does include the blinding of the men, but works on the assumption that might not have been the end of the struggle to escape. Is that a reasonable assumption? Only in the movies do people get punched one time or lose their eyesight and then simply fall down, never to fight again. In real life, we know that a mob could still put up a fight, even with their eyesight gone. Furthermore, the men who were blinded do not represent all of the people in the cities of Sodom and Gommorah. Could there have been an armed struggle? Sure. Could they have used supernatural fighting moves? Sure.

V: Does not explicitly contradict Scripture

3.       IA: After God stops Abraham from sacrificing his son, the animal that is caught in the thicket is a lamb. That is inaccurate because the Bible says it was a ram.

R:  What was the sacrifice supposed to represent? The answer is Christ. God does not allow Abraham to sacrifice his only son, but provides another sacrifice. This foreshadows when God would actually go through with the sacrifice of His own son – the ultimate and final sacrifice. What saves the people from the angel of death in Exodus – the blood of a lamb. What is Jesus called by John the Baptist on two occasions? Answer – The lamb of God. What is Jesus portrayed as in the book of Revelation – the lamb who was slain.  Granted, the Bible does say it was a ram. But it seems like the miniseries wanted to make sure people understood the symbolism and foreshadowing. Even with most people’s ignorance of ancient Jewish symbolism, most people have heard about Jesus called the lamb of God. It seems fair to assume that the producers of the miniseries wanted to make sure that no one missed the significance of the foreshadowing.

V: Technically contradicts the letter of Scripture but remains true to (and accentuates) the message of Scripture as a whole.

4.       IA: When David sneaks up on Saul in the cave, Saul was urinating.  This is inaccurate because the Hebrew word used for “relieved himself” clearly connotes defecation.

R: This has got to be the silliest one of the whole bunch. Saul was relieving himself. Does it really take away from the truth of the Bible that he is portrayed as going #1 instead of #2?

V: Does not contradict English translations of the Scripture. May contradict the letter of the original Hebrew Scripture but has absolutely no affect on the truth of the story in question or Scripture as a whole.

5.       IA: Jeremiah escapes from Jerusalem unscathed. Daniel and his friends are captured during the siege of Jerusalem. The first is inaccurate because the Bible clearly says that Jeremiah was captured and later released. The second is inaccurate because Daniel and his friends were not deported until a decade after the siege of Jerusalem.

R: The miniseries shows Jeremiah riding away from the ruined Jersualem on a donkey. Then the narrator says that he escaped alive. So what is the problem? Are we assuming that nothing happened in between the scene where the city was being destroyed and when he was overlooking the ruined city? Is that how movies work – perfectly linear with no time gaps or fast forwarding? Of course not. As for Daniel and friends, the exact time of their capture may be somewhat misleading, but it makes it clear that they were taking into Babylonian captivity. What should they have done instead? Cut away for a second and add the subtitle “10 years later” and then proceed with a scene of them being captured and taken away? That just seems superfluous. They were taken into Babylonian captivity.

V: Does contradict the exact time frame described in Scripture, but does not in any way compromise the story or compromise the message of Scripture as a whole.

6.       IA: Daniel is thrown into the lion’s den by Cyrus King of Persia. This is inaccurate because the Bible says that Darius was reigning at the time.

R: What we have in Daniel is a bit of a historical mystery at present. We know that Cyrus was already King of Persia when “Darius the Mede” or, the King of the Medes, comes on the scene. To date, there are no historical records of Darius the Mede that have been discovered. Some Bible scholars argue that Darius the Mede was simply a title that Cyrus himself adopted. In that case, Daniel 6:28 would be translated – “So Daniel prospered during the reign of Darius, that is, the reign of Cyrus.” Other scholars believe that Darius was one of Cyrus’ generals. In any case, the miniseries seem to be working with what we can know for certain from the biblical text. That is, Cyrus was King when the Babylonians were overthrown in 539 BC. What is more, Cyrus was God’s instrument for ending the Jewish exile. The miniseries makes these points explicitly clear.

V: Does not explicitly contradict Scripture

7.       IA: Mary rides a donkey from Nazareth to Bethlehem with only Joseph for company. That is inaccurate because the Bible never mentions a donkey and it could be assumed that their families traveled with them.

R: Really? The Bible doesn’t say there was a donkey, so there must not have been a donkey? That is really reaching for a contradiction. The Bible also does not say that they traveled in a caravan with their families. So why should we overthrow the image of Joseph and Mary traveling alone for an assumption that is also not in the Bible?

V: Does not explicitly contradict Scripture

8.       IA: The “Wise Men” arrive just after the birth of Jesus at the same time as the shepherds. This is inaccurate because it seems from a particular reading of Matthew 2 that they did not visit until Jesus was a little bit older – a “child” rather than an “infant”.

R:  Fair enough. But this really should not fall into the category of “contradictions in the Bible miniseries” as much as “contradictions in the portrayal of the Christmas story throughout history”.

V: Seems like a contradiction based on a particular reading of Matt 2.  If so, this has been a common error made throughout Christian history in portraying the Nativity. In any case, it does not take away from the story or compromise the message of Scripture as a whole.

9.       IA:  John the Baptist is executed because his preaching is causing trouble for Herod Antipas. This is inaccurate because in the Bible, Herod does not have a problem with John’s preaching. He only arrests John for speaking out against his marriage. Even then, he is not executed. It is only at the request of Herod’s wife and step-daughter that John is eventually decapitated.

R: Granted, the miniseries takes the quick route to John’s execution and leaves out a great deal of the details. Even so, this is what we are used to seeing in movie adaptations of books. We do not get everything in real time or with every detail filled in. The miniseries implies but does not explicitly say that John was arrested and decapitated ONLY for his preaching. It does not rule out other possible reasons.

V: Does not explicitly contradict, but may implicitly contradict Scripture

10.   IA: Satan takes Jesus to the top of a cliff and tempts him to jump. This is inaccurate because in the Bible, Satan takes Jesus to the top of the Temple.

R:  Agreed. That is inaccurate.

V: Does contradict the letter of Scripture. However, it does not take away from the story or compromise the message of Scripture as a whole.

Response to "My Question for Theists" from the1janitor (from youtube)

Link to the Original Video 

Thank you for the opportunity to engage with you on these questions/comments. I hope that you will not read in any derogatory or combative tone into the responses that follow as there was none intended – at all! And forgive me for any typos. I did this on a cell phone. Thanks!

Comment: Arguing with a religious person is akin to arguing with someone who says "normal 2+2 is 4 but in an alternate dimension it is something else and that is what I believe". 

Response: I do not think that is a good analogy.  Such a case is a basic logical contradiction. It posits that A equals both A and non A.  However, there is no logical contradiction in positing the existence of God – unless, of course, the existence of God is firmly established as logically impossible – but at this point in the video you have yet to argue that point. I will get to that in more detail as I respond to some of your other points.

Comment: Debates are usually unproductive

Response: I agree wholeheartedly.

Comment: Arguing to win is not the point

Response: Again, I agree. C.S. Lewis said that we ought to be arguing toward the truth rather than around the truth. To that end, I have a small disagreement with your next point.

Comment: The point is to understand the other persons point of view and the identify the difference

Response: I think that you are right, but only to a point. Ultimately, we ought to be seeking the truth – not merely to identify our differences. Even so, I think understanding other points of view is a HUGE part of that process.

Comment: Do logic and science always apply?

Response: Logic; yes. Otherwise, we have no reason for trusting anything that is said, observed, studied or otherwise. This conversation I am typing might actually be about pop-tarts, even though I think I am responding to your video. As for science; that depends what you mean by science.  If you mean empirical science then I think the answer is clearly no. There are limitations to empirical science. For example, what is “logic” made of? How much does it weigh? Some answers cannot be arrived at through empirical investigation. That is why the fields of philosophy, metaphysics, psychology, etc are necessary. We also have to acknowledge that science doesn’t actually say anything -- scientists do. All data has to be interpreted and all people interpret based on their own presuppositions. What is more, that raises a whole other line of questions. Namely, where does logic come from and why is it reliable? If it is entirely natural, then why is it not subject to the same changes as other aspects of nature? Can it go extinct like a species? The law of gravity applies in certain places in the universe where gravity is present, but not in others. Is logic the same way? Are there places where there is less logic present and 2+2 actually does equal 7 instead of 4? You might sarcastically say “Yes, in Churches!”  And we could both laugh at that. But ultimately, you and I would agree that is absurd. We both know that the laws of logic exist.  What is more, we both agree that they are unchanging and were there before we discovered them. How does atheism account for that? The theist has no trouble grounding the eternal, unchangeable laws of logic and reason – they are grounded in an eternal, unchanging mind – i.e. God. Alright, now we move on to your real question.

BIG QUESTION: What is it about religion that makes you okay with suspending everything you otherwise KNOW to be true about the universe?

Response: I am not okay with that. But I think I can safely assume that you will not be satisfied with that answer. So, I will go a bit further. You are proposing a false dichotomy. Namely that logic, reason, science (i.e. everything we know about the universe) are necessarily opposed to Theism and vice versa. In fact, the same accusation might be made against Atheism’s willingness to suspend everything you otherwise know to be true about the universe. Consider the comments of the naturalist biologist Richard Lewontin. According to Lewontin (a naturalist),

                "We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of  its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."

According to Lewontin, Atheists simply cannot follow the evidence where it leads. Is that science? Is that logical? Of course not! I am not suggesting that you, or any other Atheist must first believe in God in order to do proper science. However, I am convinced that ruling out God or a supernatural explanation before you even start betrays the entire enterprise of seeking truth. But let’s move on to the next (related) point.

Comment: I say that on the assumption that an all powerful, sentient, omniscient being is illogical and invalid.

Response: That needs to be established, not just assumed. You have the roof, but you need walls to support it or else you do not have a house. I could stop there, but let me provide an example of why I think any such argument fails. Modern scientists often run into road blocks in their research. That is, until they formulate some theory that can account for the relevant data and allows them to move past the road block. For example, consider quarks, string theory, black holes, dark energy, the multi-verse etc. None of these have ever been observed. Some of these posit unfathomable amounts respective to power, time and dimensions. The numbers used to describe them boggle the human mind.  I could say “That is very unscientific!” But I would not do that. In the same way, it is not unscientific to posit the existence of an omnipotent (power), eternal (time), omnipresent (space), being if doing so accounts for the relevant data. I won’t take up your time by running through all of the arguments for theism (cosmological, teleological, moral -- I am sure you are familiar). I think it should suffice, for the purpose of your original question, to show that it is not illogical or unscientific to examine the relevant data and interpret it as pointing to a timeless, spaceless, limitless, moral intelligence.


Comment: Well, some people just believe because it makes them feel better, and that is good whether or not it is true.

Response:  For the record, that is not the Christian perspective. I know that the original question was about general Theism, not Christianity in particular, but I want to zero in for a second on something significant with regard to this particular comment. The Apostle Paul said that if Jesus was not raised from the dead then we are more pitiful than anyone else. I would think that most Atheists would totally love that about Christianity. In short, Christianity is a faith that depends entirely on the historicity of a past event – the resurrection of Christ. If we take Paul seriously, then is a religion entirely based on evidence! Just because that isn’t the way most people approach it doesn’t change it as a fact -- if the resurrection didn’t happen, then Christianity is empty and being a Christian is pitiful. Like I said, that sounds to me like a claim that any Atheist should be happy to oblige. As you said at the end of this video, it is silly to say that it simply doesn’t matter. It is of potentially eternal significance. At that point, a person who wants to determine the truth of Christianity simply needs to investigate relevant and scholarly works available on the resurrection and determine for themselves if they hold any water. In fact, people like J. Warner Wallace and Lee Strobel have famously written books chronicling their investigations and subsequent conversions from Atheism to Christianity

Comment: Some people say "you cannot disprove God exists so why do I need proof" to which you ask, what are we accepting as proof -- typically we use science an logic.

Response: I think your point is excellent, but it plays for both teams. I am interested in following the evidence where it leads. But I would ask you, “what are you willing to accept as proof for the existence of God?” If science and logic point univocally to an eternal, spaceless, timeless, moral, creator of the universe; would that be sufficient proof of His existence? If your answer is “no”, then it would seem that science and logic aren’t the criteria by which proof is established. Maybe your objections to the existence of God are emotional, moral, or otherwise, but that would be precisely what you decry as being “irrational and unscientific” about the reason many people hold to Theism. At that point, the idea of proof is totally subjective. We can both agree that we want something more substantial than that.

Comment: Using science and logic it is easy to prove not only that God doesn't exist but that He CAN'T exist. 

Response: I think you are swimming upstream with that claim. I don’t know any reputable philosophers who would maintain that it is impossible for God to exist. Highly improbable? Sure. But that leads to your 3 challenges as to the likelihood of God’s existence.

Comment: Challenge to omnipotence.  Omnipotence entails that God could create an indestructible wall that he can also destroy and that is a contradiction.

Response: The premise is flawed because you have misrepresented omnipotence. Omnipotence does not mean that God can do everything imaginable. It only means that He can do everything that is logically possible. Therefore, it is logically impossible for God to create a wall that He cannot destroy; or a boulder too heavy for Him to lift; or a married bachelor or any other such logical impossibility.

Comment: Challenge to omnipresence. You said, “That's easy, I am here, I can't be over there. I cannot occupy two spaces at once or all spaces at all times.” 

Response: Again, the premise is flawed because you have misrepresented omnipresence. Omnipresence does not mean that God has a physical body that is either present in all spaces equally or stretched out through all spaces. If God is an immaterial mind, omnipresence means that God is mentally present at all times and places.  In that sense, omnipresence is very closely tied to omniscience. So, let’s move on to that.

Comment: Challenge to omniscience. Omniscience entails the knowledge of how to create all reality, but reality must first exist in order to have that knowledge which is a contradiction. 

Response:  I am not trying to sound like a broken record, but the premise misrepresents omniscience. It does not entail His knowing how to create Himself. If God is uncreated (as Theism maintains), then that would be a logical impossibility. Just like omnipotence means having power to do all things that power can do, omniscience means knowing all things that can be known.  The creation of an uncreated being is not something that can be known.

Comment: Why don't the normal rules of logic apply to God? 

Response: I hope that I have demonstrated that I dislike that idea as much as you. Thanks again!