Rational arguments matter…but so does love

 

No evidence for God? …Not true.

 

A moral argument for the existence of God

 

Why in the world would I believe in God?!?

 

WHY DO PEOPLE TALK ABOUT DEFENDING THE FAITH?

I was recently asked what it means to defend the gospel and is it really necessary for Christians to defend the gospel?

My hope is that this will be a helpful response—and who knows? Maybe even an interesting response—for my friends who are believers:

There is a sense in which it could certainly be argued that Jesus doesn’t need anyone to defend Him. And the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ will endure forever, whether any Christians ever stand up for it, or not.

God never stands in need of people. It’s one of the benefits of being God.

However, there is a verse in the Bible from which knowledgeable people who speak of defending the gospel are typically deriving the idea. The verse is found in 1 Peter 3:15. It says…

“…but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence…”  (NASB)

The word “defense” in this passage is the Greek word “apologia” which gives us our English word “apologetics.”

Apologia has to do with defense. In the biblical Greek usage it can mean a verbal defense in a court of law. The field of Christian apologetics is a very deep, thoughtful, intellectually sophisticated category of theology which involves a reasoned explanation and defense of the Christian faith drawing from theology, philosophy, logic, history, archaeology, and science.

Some of you may be familiar with Ravi Zacharias, who passed away recently. Ravi was, among other things, a brilliant apologist for the Christian faith.

There are people who want to know if the Christian faith can be defended or justified from the standpoint of intellect and reason or is it just a religious belief system that must be accepted with no basis in careful thinking or reason. I can testify from personal experience that I came to a point in my early adult life in which, even though I was already a Christian, I needed to know that Christianity was not just a blind leap of faith. The fact that Christianity could stand up to hard questions and penetrating scrutiny was an important discovery for me.

An aspect of Christianity that sets it apart from other religions is that Christianity welcomes questions and investigation. Christianity makes claims that certain events happened in human history and these events can be investigated. We can know with a reasonable degree of certainty whether they are true, or not.

Whether a person knows the word “apologetics”, or not, if a person is providing sound answers to the fair questions of people who are seeking and wondering about the truth of the Christian faith that person is engaging in apologetics, a reasoned defense of the faith.

Followers of Jesus are called, in Scripture (1 Peter 3:15), to be prepared to give a defense of the faith.

Dan Marler

Oak Lawn, IL

Faith That Is Reasonable

Can we convince someone to become a Christian through logical arguments?  It’s probably not likely.  But I’ve found that it can help believers and non-believers to know that there are strong, valid arguments as well as compelling evidence for the Christian faith.  Yes, it is still faith, but it’s not a blind faith that is completely without justifiable reason.

Dan and Vic Podcast for 9/24/12

              Click here for audio!

.

God Stories Podcast #1

This is an audio podcast in which I talk with people about God's activity in their lives. In fact, you should listen because it's the first "official" God Stories Podcast! (I can tell you're excited. Me, too!) This podcast features Brittany Serenas telling her God story.

            Click here for audio!

.

Review of Book: Not God's Type

Check out my review of "Not God's Type" by Holly Ordway...

                   Click here for link to review on Amazon!

Why Is "Secularism" A Problem? Read "Saving Leonardo" and Learn

“Saving Leonardo” has just become one of the most underlined and highlighted books I own!

Okay, I only own 5 books, but still…

My experience with Nancy Pearcey’s writing is primarily based on her previous book, “Total Truth”—which is outstanding.  I find her, once again, to be insightful, intellectually challenging, very interesting, and a brilliant analyst of culture—both historical culture and contemporary culture.

In “Saving Leonardo”, Pearcey describes, in compelling ways, why the increasing “secularism” in our world is a serious problem.  She makes the point that secularism is even a problem for those who do not consider themselves to be religious.  She writes, “Because the word ‘secular’ is the opposite of ‘religious’, many people assume that secularism is a problem for religious groups only.  Not so.  When politics loses its moral dimension, we all lose.  When political discourse is debased, the entire society suffers.  The reason Christians should be concerned is not to protect their own subculture, but to protect the democratic process for all people.”

Pearcey expands in helpful ways on the concept of the “fact/value split” about which she wrote in “Total Truth”.  She identifies the fact/value split as the “core of modern secularism”.  Read the book for her able defense of that contention. 

In Part 2 of “Saving Leonardo”, she addresses two paths to secularism—“originating in the clash between the Enlightenment and the Romantic movement”—in which she traces the “historical rise of secularism”. 

To demonstrate the effects of secularism on Western culture, Pearcey provides many examples of specific works of art ranging from literature, to painting, to music, to sculpture, to film, and more, explaining how they have contributed to secularism or how they display, knowingly or un-knowingly, the results of secularism’s steadily increasing influence. 

I found her thoughts on “Artists as Thinkers” to be interesting.  She writes, “The truth is that artists interact deeply with the thought of their day, translating worldviews into stories and images.”  Pearcey correctly identifies “art”—in its many manifestations—as a field of significant influence.  And perhaps it is more influential than many Christians realize or acknowledge.

Since I have not studied art in any serious, comprehensive way, there were a number of things I learned in Part 2 of the book.  Actually, now that I think of it, it would be more accurate to say that EVERYTHING in Part 2 of the book involved new learning for me…except the page numbering.  I was pretty familiar with that concept from the other 5 books I own.

I highly recommend “Saving Leonardo”.  Nancy Pearcey is brilliant.

I Like Surprising Ideas, Don't You?

Review of:  Against All Gods: What's Right And Wrong About The New Atheism

“Against All Gods” deals with questions which are raised by the “New Atheists” and in particular it deals with the naturalistic presuppositions at the root of their bold assertions.  Many books refuting the new atheism are now available but this one has something special that the other books don’t have: Phillip E. Johnson.

Dr. Johnson has an outstanding ability to cut through the tactics of his intellectual opponents, get to the root of their arguments, dissect their arguments, and then reveal the flaws and inconsistencies in their thinking.  He is a brilliant thinker—even, at times a “surprising” thinker, like when he mentions what he LIKES about Richard Dawkins (he has a lovely singing voice, you know)—and he combines his sharp thinking with effective communication skills.

For example, Johnson addresses the reality that Darwinism has become something of a “grand narrative” nowadays, among intellectuals.  And it is applied as a “corrosive force” to every field of study and philosophy and worldview.  But then Johnson makes this insightful observation:

“The one subject to which the corrosive Darwinian method is never applied is Darwinism itself, which is too cherished to be subjected to such undignified investigation.  It must be a rock of certainty, while everything else is dissolved into shifting sand by the acid of reductionism.  In consequence, the possibility that Darwinism itself is a product of brain chemistry rather than reason is never mentioned, much less featured on the cover of Time [magazine].”

He goes on, “When you hold a dominating position of unquestioned epistemic superiority, you do not need to debate rivals on equal terms, because it is safer and more devastating to sweep them away by explaining them in the language of your own paradigm.”

What a great insight!  (Although, I suspect those who disagree with him wouldn’t like the uncomfortable truth he points out.)

I’ve read most of Phillip Johnson’s books—at least the ones that are written for lay audiences—and have found them to be very interesting, very helpful, and intellectually profound.

Three chapters in “Against All Gods” were written by Dr. John Mark Reynolds.  The way that I’ve carried on about Phillip Johnson might lead one to believe that I was unimpressed with Dr. Reynolds’ contributions.  But that’s not true.  Reynolds’ chapters are interesting and helpful, as well—especially the parts where he includes lengthy quotes by Phillip Johnson.  (Come on, that’s a joke.  I’m kidding.) 

Reynolds’ tone is irenic and even, at times, gracious.  Like Johnson, he hands a compliment or two to the new atheists for their contribution to opening up an important and necessary discussion of God.  He writes, “The best thing about the new atheists is that they are starting some good conversations.”

I especially enjoyed Reynolds’ chapter which described how to read “Old Books”.  (I immediately took out my high school yearbook and applied some of the principles.)

“Against All Gods” is interesting, it is well-written and it effectively communicates insightful, well-reasoned thinking.

Dan Marler

Oak Lawn, IL

Review of: "On Guard"

When a world class philosopher writes a book, you would think the approach to the book would involve sound logic.  Right?  Well, that is the case with “On Guard” by William Lane Craig.  “On Guard” is a well reasoned approach to apologetics.

The material is presented in such a way that each subject lays the foundation for the next subject, moving from the existence of God to a more specific case for Christianity, and concluding with a relevant question in our culture:  "Is Jesus the Only Way to God?”  And, of course, in each subject the position which Dr. Craig defends is supported with sound, convincing, helpful, logical arguments.

William Lane Craig is a terrific communicator and he is able to write about deep subject matter in an understandable and, even, interesting manner.  This is an outstanding skill and it is not one that all Christian apologetic writers possess.  (Believe me, I’ve fallen into comatose states while reading many of these types of books.  In fact, I got a little sleepy just writing that sentence.)  “On Guard” is written with a lay audience in mind, but don’t take that to mean that it is unchallenging.  There is helpful material in this book even for those who’ve done a good bit of reading in the field of apologetics. 

“On Guard” is more personal than most of Dr. Craig’s works that are intended for a more scholarly audience and he includes what he calls a “Personal Interlude” a couple of times in the course of the book.  I found the personal interludes to be interesting. 

(But then again, I’m one of Dr. Craig’s close personal friends…on Facebook, so perhaps that’s my just my bias showing.)

One of the endorsements for the book comes from J.P. Moreland (who’s a pretty sharp thinker, himself) and he writes that Dr. Craig, “is simply the finest Christian apologist of the last half century, and his academic work justifies ranking him among the top 1 percent of practicing philosophers in the Western world.”  Pretty good.

The Bible says:  “Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.” 1Peter3:15.  If you take that challenge seriously, then this book would be well worth your time.

“EVERYTHING” About Jesus? Really? Well…Let’s Say "A LOT". And It’s Pretty Funny.

Review of:  Everything You Always Wanted To Know About God: The Jesus Edition


Eric Metaxas deals with the subject of apologetics in a light-hearted, witty, engaging manner.  He utilizes a question and answer format that gives the book a conversational feel.  It’s a fast-paced type of Q&A style that goes back and forth frequently and it helps the reading move along quickly.  A “Publishers Weekly” review describes Metaxas as a humor writer and some of the humor in the book almost borders on being silly.  I don’t mean that in a disparaging way, it’s funny.  Really.  But it’s right there on the edge, sometimes, where it’s almost downright silly.  I like it…but then again, sometimes I border on being silly, too.

I mention these issues regarding the overall tone of the book because I think of “apologetics” as a blend of theology, philosophy and history, and these are not subjects that one typically breezes through quickly when reading.  So, this approach to the subject would, presumably, be very effective for many people, but particularly, for those who have not done a lot of prior reading in this field of study.

This is the “Jesus Edition” of “Everything You Always Wanted To Know…” it is part of an “Everything You Always Wanted To Know…” series.  Admittedly, this is not a deep, scholarly treatment of the subject of Jesus—you can tell by looking at the cover of the book—but it’s substantive enough to be of value and to offer answers to genuine questions.  It even has some moments of profundity.

I know, I’ve suggested that this book can be both “silly” and “profound”.  Hey, I think it pulls it off.

From now on, when I’m dealing with people who ask me to recommend a book on the subject of “apologetics”—even though they may not actually know that “apologetics” is the word that describes what it is they are looking for—this is going to be one of the books I will recommend.

Can You Argue Someone Into The Kingdom?

Review of the book: "Tactics" by Gregory Koukl

Gregory Koukl’s objective in the book “Tactics” is different than most books that would be classified as “Christian Apologetics”.  The objective of “Tactics” is to equip the reader with conversational approaches and techniques in order to engage in fruitful, helpful discussions about the Christian faith—particularly with those who may be skeptical or even hostile to the faith.

So, rather than a lot of content related to specific arguments for the existence of God, or the resurrection of Jesus, or the reliability of the Bible—there are many other books where one can find this information—“Tactics” attempts to help with the issue of “how” do we effectively communicate “what we know” in defending the faith.  Think of it like this:  typically, a book on apologetics provides knowledge about the subject matter of apologetics.  This book, on the other hand, tries to help with the issue of “using” knowledge—using apologetic subject matter—graciously and effectively, or, we might even say “tactically”…ah, that’s how we get the name of the book.  See how easy that was?

Several times in the course of “Tactics”, Koukl it makes it clear that although he is trying to help Christians be sharp and effective in their encounters with others, he believes that we should always be respectful and loving and gracious in our dealings, as well.  For example, he writes, “Tactics are not manipulative tricks or slick ruses.  They are not clever ploys to embarrass other people and force them to submit to your point of view.  They are not meant to belittle or humiliate those who disagree so you can gain notches in your spiritual belt.”  I’m glad he said that.  In a book of this kind, that needs to be the true intent of the author and it is an important point to communicate to the readers.

I always enjoy books that challenge my thinking with unique ideas or counter-intuitive thoughts.  There are a few of these in “Tactics”.  For example, Koukl writes, “you CAN argue someone into the kingdom.  It happens all the time.”  I read that and thought, “What?”  This is an interesting statement because I suspect most Christians would rather emphatically state that we CANNOT argue someone into the kingdom!  Koukl makes a case for his statement that we CAN argue someone into the kingdom and I’ll let you read it and decide if you think he’s right, or not.  My point here is just that I like reading a defense of interesting ideas like that one.

You will probably think about your conversations—actually ALL your conversations—in new and different ways if you read “Tactics”.

Is Life After Death A Trivial Matter Or Is It Important? I Think You Know My Take On It.

Review of the book: Life After Death, Dinesh D'Souza

I have read a number of Dinesh D’Souza’s books and I like his writing style, he always seems to present his ideas in ways that I find interesting.  Also, his reasoning is clear and coherent.  There’s even a little bit of playful humor here and there—I appreciate that.

In “Life After Death”, D’Souza asks the reader to sit in judgment while he presents a case for the truth and reality of life after death.  Although D’Souza is a Christian, he does not argue his case from the standpoint of biblical revelation, he presents his case for life after death from three areas: neuroscience; philosophy; and morality.  He says about his presentation, “If we think of this as a courtroom trial, I do not claim to have met the criminal standard; I will not prove life after death beyond a reasonable doubt.  I do, however, claim to have met the civil standard, and proven my case by a preponderance of the evidence.”

His tone is: Read carefully, think about it, and then, you decide. It’s very similar to the attitude that I adopt when I’m reading a Taco Bell menu.

One of issues that is addressed in the book is whether or not the subject of life after death is even important, or not.  It’s hard for me to imagine that anyone would not understand that this issue is of supreme importance.  How can this NOT be important?  But I realize that, apparently, for some people it is not.

I think reading this book would be helpful to the convinced and the unconvinced.  But I think a particularly worthwhile benefit is that it might help an unconvinced person understand why this issue is worthy of his/her time, thought, and careful consideration.

Dan Marler

Oak Lawn, IL

Nothing We Desire Can Compare With Wisdom, Proverbs 8

Review of: "Loving Wisdom" by Paul Copan.

Loving Wisdom provides solid and interesting theology, apologetics and philosophy.

The whole book is good, but I found three of the four chapters in Part III to be particularly interesting: The Problem(s) of Evil; The Hiddenness of God; and Hell.

In chapter 12, The Problem(s) of Evil, Copan has a section dealing with “Principalities and Powers”. I don’t recall seeing much reference to the effects of “principalities and powers” in other apologetic treatments of the problem of evil. It was a helpful perspective.

Chapter 13, dealt with “The Hiddenness of God” providing some probing thoughts on the matter. For example, to those who complain that God does reveal himself clearly enough, Copan suggests that perhaps, “the more evidence one has of God, the more resentful one might become toward him.” Copan quotes atheist Thomas Nagel who confesses that “he doesn’t want there to be a God.” I’ve read similar expressions from other atheists. For a person who feels this way, to have more revealing evidence from God of His existence probably would not be helpful or desired.

Chapter 15, “Hell”, was also interesting. One of the more fascinating ideas that Copan suggests is that in hell resistance to God is likely to increase rather than decrease. Says Copan, “despite hell’s miseries, the condemned wouldn’t prefer God’s presence; resistance continues in hell. The more they would be exposed to God, the more they would come to hate him.” In other words, it’s not likely that those in hell will be saying, “Hey, I’ve changed my mind, God, I love you! I’m ready for heaven now! Amazing Grace, how sweet the sound . . . !” He refers to the rich man suffering in Hades (Luke 16) pointing out that he “doesn’t necessarily prefer a God-centered existence; he just wants relief.”

I’ve also noticed that having read “Loving Wisdom” I feel much wiser. It’s almost as if I’ve had a Solomonic wisdom injection. You can probably tell just from reading this book review, huh? It’s clear that those who know me can sense a difference, they’ve started calling me, “Mr.-Know-It-All”.

That’s a good sign, right?

Dan Marler
Oak Lawn, IL

Is Christianity Good For the World?

Review of: "Is Christianity Good For the World?" by Douglas Wilson and Christopher Hitchens


“I wish you guys would continue debating a little bit longer.”

That’s what I told Christopher Hitchens and Douglas Wilson a couple of days ago. Neither one responded to me, which is reasonable since I was sitting in a room by myself. I had just finished reading “Is Christianity Good For The World”, which is a debate between Hitchens and Wilson that originally appeared in “Christianity Today”, a Christian magazine.

“Is Christianity Good For The World” is a short book, 67 pages, it was too short for me, I wish it would have been longer. But, again, no one’s listening to me.

I liked the topic, the value Christianity has or, from Hitchens’ perspective, doesn’t have in the world. Since Christianity is the largest and, arguably, most influential religion in the world, with adherents numbering in the billions, the topic is worthwhile.

I thought the debate format was an interesting treatment of the subject.

And the two debaters were excellent. On the anti-Christian side is writer, journalist, atheist, irascible public intellectual, the-always-interesting, Christopher Hitchens.

Defending the Christian position is pastor and really smart guy, Douglas Wilson. (My apologies to Wilson. I ran out of fun, descriptive words like “irascible” in my introduction of Hitchens.)

Both Wilson and Hitchens are witty, intelligent, well read, and capable intellectual defenders of their beliefs.

I admit that I’m biased, but I felt that Wilson made the stronger argument. When I refer to the “stronger argument”, it’s not just that I felt Wilson won the debate, but that his arguments were more convincing. And, interestingly, Wilson made some strong points that went unanswered by Hitchens.

Part of what makes Wilson’s success in the debate commendable is the fact that Hitchens is such a clever and witty writer that sometimes I suspect he wins support for his position just because he’s so entertaining.

A good, quick, fun, interesting book.

Dan Marler
Oak Lawn, IL

Have You Lied To Any Nazis Lately?

Review of "When God Goes To Starbucks", Paul Copan

Books which are written to answer “real” questions with practical, real-life wisdom need to grapple honestly, then, with the kind of authentic issues that cause people concern. Paul Copan’s, “When God Goes To Starbucks” does that admirably.

What are some of those real questions? Well, for example . . .

“Is it okay to lie to Nazis?”

[By the way, according to Copan, the answer is yes, “deception is morally permissible . . . under certain specific conditions.” But you have to read chapter 3 in the book to get the full explanation.]

“Does the Bible condemn loving, committed homosexual relationships?”

“Aren’t the Bible’s ‘Holy Wars’ just like Islamic Jihad?”

“Why are Christians so divided? Why so many denominations?”

[Copan is a very smart and highly educated man, but, he missed the obvious correct answer to these two questions. It’s simple to see that Christians wouldn’t be divided if everyone would just come to see things my way.]

Oh well, he did a pretty good job, other than that.

Copan has written several books along the lines of “When God Goes To Starbucks” and he does a good job of writing in a way that is accessible to regular people and, yet, provides thoughtful answers that are not so lightweight that they lack genuine intellectual substance.

From one of those “regular people” . . .

Dan Marler
Oak Lawn, IL

If You Listen Carefully, You Can Hear The Atheists Screaming

What if a highly respected, well-known, Oxford-educated, atheist philosopher changed his mind, late in his career, and decided that he, now, believed in God?

You say, “Well, he would probably write a book with this kind of sub-title: ‘How The World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind.’”

You’re right. And that brings us to Antony Flew’s book and this review.

This book is a little bit autobiography and a good bit of philosophy with a little bit of the philosophy of science. (It’s everything I can do to resist some kind of reference to: it’s “a little bit country” and “a little bit rock and roll”.)

Flew provides a good bit of information about his background, and this helps the reader see the larger context of his life. I found this to be interesting.

To those of us who believe in God there is great satisfaction in the fact that Flew stresses, numerous times, that one of his guiding intellectual values has long been to follow the evidence wherever it leads. And “the evidence” has led him to this conclusion: “I now believe there is a God! So there!”

Alright, if you look in the book the “So there!” part isn’t really included in the text. But, in my imagination, it’s a nice little shot.

Flew provides his evidence for belief in God and makes a good argument.

It is also interesting and satisfying to theists that Flew credits recent scientific advances as a significant factor in his opinion regarding the existence of God. This is satisfying to theists because sometimes belief in God is portrayed as an entirely unwarranted; blind leap of faith; embraced by uneducated people—usually wearing no shoes or socks; with no rational basis whatsoever.

Since I’m a Christian, I found another line in the book to be quite pleasing. Flew says about Christianity, “If you’re wanting Omnipotence to set up a religion, this is the one to beat.”

I know, I know, atheists and non-Christians will find that to be ridiculous and aggravating. But, it’s still true that he wrote it. So there!

The book has two interesting appendices, one written by Roy Abraham Varghese, who is the co-writer of the book and one written by Bishop N.T. Wright. Bishop Wright’s essay on “The Self-Revelation of God in Human History” is outstanding.

Dan Marler
Oak Lawn, IL

Review of "Is Believing In God Irrational?"

Are Skeptics Unbiased Or Are They Just Unaware of Their Bias?

Amy Orr-Ewing has written an interesting, persuasive and accessible book that deals with very relevant questions she has encountered in the course of her work and travels.

Now, that I read the line I just wrote, it occurs to me that it sounds a lot like something you would read in a book review. But, having re-read it, I stand by the statement. “Is Believing In God Irrational” is a helpful book on the subject of apologetics.

Orr-Ewing does a great job of explaining how atheists often sneak their philosophical presuppositions into their arguments while acting as if they are approaching the subject of God as neutral, rational, scientific observers basing their opinions solely on scientific, empirically verifiable fact.

Orr-Ewing effectively points out how critics of religion and/or Christianity often apply a double standard, exempting their viewpoint from the criteria by which they judge Christianity.

For example, she notes the assumption of skeptics that “you as a Christian are biased by the circumstances of your life”—something that any defender of Christianity has certainly encountered. She continues with the unbeliever’s argument, “[however], I as a skeptic am completely neutral in my thinking.”

It’s remarkable how completely dispassionate and neutral and totally rational all of the skeptics of Christianity are, isn’t it? Mr. Spock would be proud.

Orr-Ewing goes on to say, “Isn’t it just as likely that the secular thinking of the questioner has been passed on by the environment of the person and is culturally conditioned?”

This is an excellent point and, yet, it is one that seems to escape some very smart people. It makes you wonder if there is a measure of very intentional self-deception occurring.

For a weightier treatment of the subjects she raises you would have to go on to some other books, but this is an excellent response to a number of genuine and valid questions that seems to come from a very authentic Christian heart.

Dan Marler
Oak Lawn, IL