General Apologetics

How Should We Respond to Name-Calling?

1 Comment

Post Author: Bill Pratt

We don’t have a serious problem on our blog with commenters calling each other names.  I have had to delete very few comments because someone crossed over the line of good taste.  Every once in a while, though, people forget their manners and start hurling accusations at each other.  When someone calls you a name during a serious discussion, what should you do?

Recently I came across a short article written by the folks at Stand to Reason which suggests a good idea.  When someone calls you a name, just ask for a definition of the name they called you.  That’s all.

This approach will often work because people are rarely thinking clearly when they call names.  When you ask them to define the word they used to describe you, it will generally bring them back to rationality.

The article lists three likely results of using this tactic:

1. It will give them pause the next time they think about calling you a name. If they have to define every “bad” word they call you (intolerant, narrow-minded, homophobic, judgmental, etc.), then they’re less likely to call you a name and more likely to explain their concern. That makes for a more productive conversation.

2. It will make it more difficult for them to define you, a friendly person who is merely asking for a definition, in a horribly negative way. Instead, they’ll soften the definition and it won’t have the same negative rhetorical impact that the word had.

3. Their definition will likely also apply to them.

I think this is solid advice that any of us can use when a conversation becomes heated and names start flying.

Atheism, Creation, Existence of God, Philosophy

Why is Stephen Hawking Wrong about God?

35 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt

In Stephen Hawking’s latest book, The Grand Design (I haven’t read it yet, but I have read Hawking’s introduction and pre-release interviews), he offers explanations as to why our universe exists and why there is such incredible fine tuning in our universe to support advanced life on earth.  His answer seems to be that the laws of physics are the explanation.  There is no need for God.

Enter Professor John Lennox.  He wrote an excellent piece recently dealing with Hawking’s claims head on.  Lennox begins:

According to Hawking, the laws of physics, not the will of God, provide the real explanation as to how life on Earth came into being. The Big Bang, he argues, was the inevitable consequence of these laws ‘because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.’

Unfortunately, while Hawking’s argument is being hailed as controversial and ground-breaking, it is hardly new.

For years, other scientists have made similar claims, maintaining that the awesome, sophisticated creativity of the world around us can be interpreted solely by reference to physical laws such as gravity.

It is a simplistic approach, yet in our secular age it is one that seems to have resonance with a sceptical public.

But, as both a scientist and a Christian, I would say that Hawking’s claim is misguided. He asks us to choose between God and the laws of physics, as if they were necessarily in mutual conflict.

But contrary to what Hawking claims, physical laws can never provide a complete explanation of the universe. Laws themselves do not create anything, they are merely a description of what happens under certain conditions.

Lennox then goes on to further explain the mistake that Hawking is making:

What Hawking appears to have done is to confuse law with agency. His call on us to choose between God and physics is a bit like someone demanding that we choose between aeronautical engineer Sir Frank Whittle and the laws of physics to explain the jet engine.

That is a confusion of category. The laws of physics can explain how the jet engine works, but someone had to build the thing, put in the fuel and start it up. The jet could not have been created without the laws of physics on their own  –  but the task of development and creation needed the genius of Whittle as its agent.

Similarly, the laws of physics could never have actually built the universe. Some agency must have been involved.

To use a simple analogy, Isaac Newton’s laws of motion in themselves never sent a snooker ball racing across the green baize. That can only be done by people using a snooker cue and the actions of their own arms.

The rest of Lennox’s article takes on other aspects of Hawking’s arguments and is well worth reading.

*Another response: Alister McGrath has also written a brilliant article addressing Hawking’s book.

Philosophy, Theology

Is God Subject to Logic?

30 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt

Over the past couple years of blogging, one of the most common areas of confusion in the blog comments has been about the relationship between logic and God.  Did God create logic like he created humans?  Did logic exist before God, so that God is subject to logic?  Can’t God do away with the laws of logic?  Can’t he violate the laws of logic?

The first thing we need to do is define what logic is.  A simple definition of logic is “the study of right reason.”  The foundation of right reason is embodied in three laws of logic that are undeniable.

The law of non-contradiction states that a thing cannot be both A and non-A at the same time and in the same sense.

The law of excluded middle states that a thing is either A or non-A.

The law of identity states that if a thing is A, then it is A.

All logic, and thus all right reasoning, is built off of these three laws.  They are undeniable.

So now to the question.  Are these laws subject to God or is God subject to them?

The answer is that the laws of logic are part of the nature of God.  In other words, logic is built into God.  He did not create logic like he created humans, but neither did logic exist as some sort of entity outside of God.  Since God has always existed, and the laws of logic are based in God, then the laws of logic have always existed as well.

Can God violate the laws of logic?  No, because he cannot not be himself.  Whatever God is, he is eternally.  God does not shut down various attributes of his being, like cutting off lights in different parts of the house.  God is logical, he always has been logical, and he always will be logical.

Someone might object, “Doesn’t this mean God is limited by logic?”  This objection has always struck me as strange because logic is synonymous with rationality.  Is God limited to being rational?  Well yes, in the same way he is “limited” by his goodness, or his beauty, or his holiness.  God is never evil, ugly, or unholy; likewise, God is never illogical or irrational.

It is extremely important to note that humans could never know anything about God without the laws of logic.  Without the laws of logic, God could exist and not exist, God could not be God, God could be good and non-good (evil), and so forth on and on.  Logic is essential to our knowing God.  Christians who denigrate logic are, in effect, denigrating the foundational tools that we have to know anything about God.

Another objection that has been raised is that since God can do the impossible, then when we say he cannot be illogical, then we are saying he cannot do the impossible.  The misunderstanding comes from the word impossible.  Biblically, God may do what is impossible for human beings to do, but the Bible does not say that God can do what is logically impossible.

For example, objectors may argue, “God can raise people from the dead, but that’s impossible!”  Well, that’s impossible for humans, but it’s not logically impossible.  There is a big difference between the two.

In summary, logic is built into God as part of his nature, so God is not subject to logic as if logic is some force outside of him.  But he is “subject” to logic because he cannot deny himself.

Creation

Could Aliens Be Non-Carbon Based?

12 Comments
Animation of the structure of a section of DNA...

Post Author: Bill Pratt

The scientists at Reasons to Believe have always argued that finding advanced life on other planets is extremely improbable, considering the hundreds of conditions that must be simultaneously met for a planet to support advanced life.  Earth is quite unique in this regard.

When I’ve mentioned this to friends and family, they sometimes express skepticism and claim that maybe there are life forms that could exist with different chemistry than the carbon-based life on earth.

In an article published last year, Dr. Fazale Rana argued that non-carbon based life forms are just not feasible.  Rana explains:

Of the 112 known chemical elements, only carbon possesses sufficiently complex chemical behavior to sustain living systems.  Carbon readily assembles into stable molecules comprised of individual and fused rings and linear and branched chains. It forms single, double, and triple bonds. Carbon also strongly bonds with itself as well as with oxygen, nitrogen, sulfur, and hydrogen.

What about silicon?  This is the most common idea I hear.  Rana  replies:

Silicon belongs to the same chemical group as carbon and should display similar chemical properties, prompting some astrobiologists to propose that life could be based on this element. But while silicon does form rings and chains, these structures lack the stability and the range of complexity found in carbon-based compounds. Silicon-silicon bonds are much weaker than the corresponding carbon-carbon bonds, and unlike carbon-carbon bonds, they are susceptible to oxidation.

Silicon won’t work.  Then what about arsenic or phosphorus?  Rana explains:

Though arsenic and phosphorus share some chemical properties, the two elements display significantly different chemistries as well. Phosphorus is a nonmetal. Arsenic is a metalloid.  Phosphorus reacts with oxygen to form chemical compounds called phosphates. These groups take part in the linkages that constitute the backbone of the DNA molecule by reacting with the sugar, deoxyribose. The sugar-phosphate linkages are described as phosphate esters. Arsenic will also form a compound called arsenate by reacting with oxygen. Arsenates and phosphates display some chemical similarities, but esters formed with arsenates are unstable. They could never be used to construct the backbone of DNA––considered indispensable for life––or another similar compound.

The bottom line is that based on all the known chemical elements, scientists are fairly confident that advanced alien life would have to be carbon-based, which places severe limitations on the kinds of environments that our E.T. friends could live in.  Don’t hold your breath for an alien visitation any time soon.

Jesus Christ, Theology

An Illustration of the Incarnation from the Movie Avatar

4 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt

Although I have written negatively of the overall theme and message of Avatar, there is an interesting analogy of the Incarnation of Christ that can be taken from the film.  I heard this analogy in a podcast by William Lane Craig, and I think it may help some people understand this important Christian doctrine.

Craig was debating a Muslim recently and he wanted to help the Muslim audience understand how Jesus could be both God and man at the same time.  The doctrine of the Incarnation states that Jesus is one person who possesses two natures, one divine and one human, but Muslims sometimes struggle with this concept, thinking that if Jesus is human, he cannot also be God.

Here is where the movie Avatar comes in.  The hero of the movie, Jake Sully, is a crippled human that cannot walk.  As the movie progresses, Sully is able, through technology, to take on the nature of one of the natives of the planet Pandora, the Na’vi.

Sully’s mind unites with a Na’vi body, and for the rest of the movie he is both human and Na’vi; he possesses two natures.  Like Jesus, Sully is one person with two natures.  Sully can do things in his Na’vi nature that he cannot do in his human nature, like moving his legs and physically connecting his mind with the planet Pandora.  Likewise, Jesus is able to do things in his divine nature (e.g., raise people from the dead, still storms)  that He cannot do in his human nature.

Like any analogy, this one has its weaknesses, but I thought it was an interesting way to illustrate the Incarnation using the plot of a popular movie.  If it helps you, great!  If it doesn’t help, forget about it.

Bible Interpretation

What Are Nine Common Errors When Interpreting Biblical Narratives?

8 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt

Our local church, Cornerstone, has embarked on a year-long study of the Book of Joshua.  Our pastor, Dr. Byrd, is going to prepare detailed sermon notes each week, which will then be translated by the other pastors into lessons for Sunday school classes.

As we kick off this series in Joshua, I have been drawn back to one of my favorite books on biblical interpretation, Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart’s How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth.  In the past I shared ten principles for interpreting Old Testament narratives from their book, but this time I want to highlight nine errors that are commonly made when interpreting biblical narratives, also from their book.

Allegorizing.  “Instead of concentrating on the clear meaning of the narrative, people relegate the text to merely reflecting another meaning beyond the text.”

Decontextualizing.  “Ignoring the full historical and literary contexts, and often the individual narrative, people concentrate on small units only and thus miss interpretational clues.  If you take things out of context enough, you can make almost any part of Scripture say anything you want it to” (emphasis added).

Selectivity.  “It involves picking and choosing specific words and phrases to concentrate on while ignoring the others and ignoring the overall sweep of the narrative being studied.”

Moralizing.  “This is the assumption that principles for living can be derived from all passages.  The moralizing reader, in effect, asks the question , ‘What is the moral of this story?’ at the end of every individual narrative.  An example would be, ‘What can we learn about handling adversity from how the Israelites endured their years as slaves in Egypt?’  The fallacy in this approach is that the narratives were written to show the progress of God’s history of redemption, not to illustrate principles.”

Personalizing.  “Also known as individualizing, this refers to reading Scripture in the way suggested above, supposing that any or all parts apply to you or your group in a way that they do not apply to everyone else.  This is, in fact, a self-centered reading of the Bible.  Examples of personalizing would be, ‘The story of Balaam’s talking donkey reminds me that I talk too much.’  Or, ‘The story of the building of the temple is God’s way of telling us that we have to construct a new church building.'”

Misappropriation.  “It is to appropriate the text for purposes that are quite foreign to the biblical narrative.  This is what is happening when, on the basis of Judges 6:36-40, people ‘fleece’ God as a way of finding God’s will!  This, of course, is both misappropriation and decontextualizing, since the narrator is pointing out that God saved Israel through Gideon despite his lack of trust in God’s word.'”

False appropriation.  “It is to read into a biblical narrative suggestions or ideas that come from contemporary culture that are simultaneously foreign to the narrator’s purpose and contradictory to his point of view.”

False combination.  “This approach combines elements from here and there in a passage and makes a point out of their combination, even though the elements themselves are not directly connected in the passage itself.”

Redefinition.  “When the plain meaning of the text leaves people cold, producing no immediate spiritual delight or saying something other than what they wish it said, they are often tempted to redefine it to mean something else.”  Fee and Stuart use the example of 2 Chronicles 7:14-15: “If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land. Now my eyes will be open and my ears attentive to the prayers offered in this place.”  Christians today want to apply this promise to their own land, but as Fee and Stuart point out, this promise was only directed toward the ancient land of Israel.

As our church moves through the Book of Joshua, I hope we can avoid these common errors.  The most important step in interpreting any biblical text is to first work very hard to discover what the original author was trying to communicate to the original audience.  Only after we have done the hard work of finding the original meaning can we then apply the text to our contemporary world.

Mormonism

Mormon Church Visit

16 Comments
LDS Church Annaberg-Buchholz
Image via Wikipedia

Post Author:  Darrell

The Sunday before last some friends and I attended services at a local Ward of the Mormon Church.  This is the first time I have attended the LDS Church since leaving it for Christianity a few years ago.  For any Mormons reading this, please know that we were very polite and courteous during our visit.  We did not debate, argue, or disrupt any of their services.  For the most part, we listened quietly and asked a few non-confrontational questions during Sunday School.  In fact, we were so polite that the Second Counselor in the Bishopric invited us to come back (note: we won’t!)!

I have been discussing Mormonism on-line since leaving the Church, and being back reminded me of something that I had forgotten: there are some substantial differences between the Mormonism that is portrayed on-line by amateur LDS Apologists and the Mormonism as taught and practiced in the church Wards.

I realize that not all Mormons are going to believe exactly the same thing on every single issue and that some may be more nuanced in their beliefs than others.  However, I believe the difference we see between chapel Mormons and internet Mormons is more than mere nuance.  In on-line conversations, I have had internet Mormons declare emphatically that such and such is not Mormon doctrine.  However, when in the Mormon Church I have had chapel Mormons declare just as emphatically that such and such is Mormon doctrine.

For example, while at church this past Sunday, my friends and I attended the Gospel Principle’s class, the Sunday School class designed for investigators, i.e., those who are researching the church. During class, the teacher shared with us how “keeping the commandments” is a vital part of the formula for attaining salvation.  We politely pointed out how we believe that faith alone is all that is needed for salvation and that works are a result of, not a requirement for, salvation.  We then asked for clarification to make sure we understood exactly what she was saying.  In response, one of the members of class told us that keeping the commandments is not only vital to salvation, but there are some commandments that if not kept, will damn a person.

Unfortunately the bell rang ending class, so we didn’t have time to follow up with more questions.  However, I assume she was referring to Spencer W. Kimball’s book The Miracle of Forgiveness where he points out that murder is a nearly unforgivable sin and that denying the Holy Spirit (decreed by some to be apostasy from the Mormon Church) is unforgivable.

Here is the kicker though… we were taught this by a Mormon Sunday School Teacher in a class designed to teach investigators about Mormon beliefs.  The lady who taught the class has supposedly been called by God to teach the doctrine of God’s one and only true Church to investigators, yet in numerous conversations on-line, I have had internet Mormons tell me repeatedly that the LDS Church does not teach that works are required for salvation.  Instead, they say that the Mormon Church teaches salvation by faith alone.  Why the huge discrepancy?

For a church that is supposed to have the “plain and precious truths” of the restored gospel, there certainly is a lot of confusion amongst its members as to exactly what it teaches.  Perhaps the Church has apostatised again and the on-line Mormons should form a newly restored LDS Church – The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Internet Mormons.

Philosophy

Global Warming: Science and Rhetoric – Part 2

Leave a comment
Save Planet Earth

Post Author: Bill Pratt

This post is a continuation from Part 1 where we introduced the recent NOAA report on global warming.  The purpose of our analysis is to try and find out what the data is actually saying by stripping out some of the non-scientific rhetoric present in the report synopsis.

After presenting the ten indicators of global warming, the report discusses where the warming has been going.  According to the NOAA, “More than 90 percent of the warming that’s happened on earth during the past 50 years has gone into the oceans.”  Why is this important?  First, it explains why sea levels are rising.  Second, the oceans will hold the heat longer, extending the warming trend.  The warming oceans set up the next section of the synopsis.

The next section begins to draw out implications of global warming, and here is where the science moves quickly into fear-mongering.  Consider this passage:

At first glance, the amount of increase each decade – about a fifth of a degree Fahrenheit – may seem small. But the temperature increase of about 1 degree Fahrenheit experienced during the past 50 years has already altered the planet. Glaciers and sea ice are melting, heavy rainfall is intensifying and heat waves are becoming more common and more intense. Continued temperature increases will threaten many aspects of our society, including coastal cities and infrastructure, water supply and agriculture. People have spent thousands of years building society for one climate and now a new one is being created – one that’s warmer and more extreme.

No mention is made of the potential positive impact of a warming planet on agriculture, water supply, etc.  The report just assumes that the climate from 1850 to 1960 is ideal for human civilization without justifying that highly dubious assumption.  Maybe warming will actually be a net positive for human civilization, but nowhere does the report even raise this as a possibility (see this recent essay on how cities will adapt to climate changes).  In addition, notice the use of these inflammatory words: “intensifying,” “intense,” “threaten,” “extreme.”  Why use these words in a dispassionate scientific report unless you are driving an agenda?  Just report the data, please.

The synopsis then anticipates those who will say that short-term temperatures may not be warmer in their location (for example, our local area was much colder than normal last winter).  The report reminds readers that these local fluctuations are to be expected, but the overall trend is toward a warmer planet.  Fair enough.

The most questionable section of the synopsis now takes the stage.  The authors present six extreme weather events from 2009, chronicling deaths and property damage from floods, heat waves, cyclones, and record winds.  Then, without comparing these 2009 weather events to weather events of previous years, the synopsis goes on to say, “Extreme weather events are unavoidable. But a warmer climate means that many of these events will be more frequent and more severe.”  (emphasis added).

The message is clear: if we don’t stop global warming, our way of life is threatened and more of us will die.  Really?  Is there no chance that warming temperatures may produce any good consequences?  Are all the consequences bad?  Surely not, but we don’t hear about any of those possibilities in this report.  It’s doom and gloom.  Why?  Because you can’t get taxpayer money without a crisis.

After analyzing the actual data in the report, there is a compelling case for global warming since 1960.  The data does seem to point in that direction.  The data also seems to indicate that the oceans are retaining the heat.

Beyond that, there is an attempt to scare people.  We are given weather anecdotes from 2009 and told that “more bad stuff like this is going to happen.”  That’s not good science and it is this kind of overblown rhetoric that makes people skeptical of global warming in the first place.  If the authors have real data showing that extreme weather events have trended up over the last 50 years, they should have presented it.

One thing the synopsis made no attempt to do was connect global warming with human causation.  The synopsis completely excludes the cause of the warming, choosing not to speculate (not sure if this is found in the detailed report).

Those are my thoughts.  What do you think about this synopsis?  What conclusions did you draw?

Philosophy

Global Warming: Science and Rhetoric – Part 1

7 Comments
Contoured sea surface temperature map of the S...

Post Author: Bill Pratt

The NOAA has released a new report on global temperatures which indicates that there is a warming trend.  Since few people will read the full report, NOAA prepared a synopsis of the findings that is only 10 pages long.

I want to do two things in this post.  First, I want to review the contents of the synopsis to see what researchers have found.  Second, I want to analyze some of the statements in the synopsis that are not objective statements of data, but political spin.

Here is an opening paragraph:

A comprehensive review of key climate indicators confirms the world is warming and the past decade was the warmest on record. More than 300 scientists from 48 countries analyzed data on 37 climate indicators, including sea ice, glaciers and air temperatures. A more detailed review of 10 of these indicators, selected because they are clearly and directly related to surface temperatures, all tell the same story: global warming is undeniable.

Notice the last phrase: “global warming is undeniable.”  This kind of language is a tip-off that the authors are concerned to push an agenda forward.  A strictly scientific report would have no need for repeating that the evidence is undeniable; they would just let the facts speak for themselves.  It is also telling that many news outlets led with the “undeniable” phrase in their coverage of the report.

The synopsis goes on to highlight 10 indicators that best measure surface temperatures of the earth.  These indicators are: air temp near the surface, humidity, glaciers, snow cover, temp over oceans,  sea surface temp,  sea level, sea ice, ocean heat content, and temp over land.

Seven of the indicators are going up and three of them are going down (snow cover, glaciers, and sea ice).  Together, according to the report, they all point toward a warming trend.

One thing to note is that each of the 10 indicators contains data that covers different time periods.  For example, data on air temperature at the surface (troposphere) only goes back to about 1960, whereas data on air temperature over land goes back to 1850.  So, when the report says the past decade was the “warmest on record,” what they mean to say is that it is the warmest decade since 1960 (if you want to include all 10 indicators as part of the record).  Remember that human civilization has been around for many thousands of years; 50 years seems like a small sample size, doesn’t it?

I would ask the authors why they chose to say “warmest on record” when they could have been more precise.  Again, it seems that this language was clearly chosen for rhetorical impact.

More commentary on the NOAA synopsis in part 2….

Historical Christ, Resurrection

How Did the Apostles Die?

22 Comments
William Hole's interpretation of the Beloved D...
Image via Wikipedia

Post Author: Bill Pratt

One of the most compelling apologetic arguments for the truth of the resurrection of Jesus is the fact that most of his closest followers were martyred for their beliefs.  Since these followers would have had first-hand knowledge of whether he actually did come back from the dead, their willingness to be persecuted and eventually die for this belief is hard to explain if the resurrection never did occur.

One of the challenges with making this argument is that the quality of the historical evidence for these martyr deaths varies greatly.  C. Michael Patton, of the Parchment and Pen blog, attempted to sort out the historical evidence for the deaths of 12 apostles in this blog post.  In his post, he grades the quality of the historical sources based on his own research.  He assigns a grade of “A” to the deaths with the best historical evidence (highest probability) all the way down to a grade of “D” for deaths where he considers the historical evidence to be weak (lowest probability).

For reference, here are each of the disciples along with their alleged year of martyrdom and the grade Patton assigned to their martyrdom accounts:

The Apostle James: year of death – 44-45 A.D.; grade of A

The Apostle Peter: year of death – 64 A.D.; grade of A

The Apostle Andrew: year of death – 70 A.D.; grade of B

The Apostle Thomas: year of death – 70 A.D.; grade of B

The Apostle Philip: year of death – 54 A.D.; grade of C

The Apostle Matthew: year of death – 60-70 A.D.; grade of B

The Apostle Nathaneal: year of death – 70 A.D.; grade of C

James the Brother of Jesus: year of death – 63 A.D.; grade of B

The Apostle Simon the Zealot: year of death – 74 A.D.; grade of B

The Apostle Judas Thaddeus: year of death – 72 A.D.; grade of C

The Apostle Matthias: year of death – 70 A.D.; grade of D

The Apostle Paul: year of death – 67 A.D.; grade of A

Out of the 12 martyrdom accounts he grades, 3 merited an “A,” 5 merited a “B,” 3 merited a “C,” and 1 merited a “D.”  In my opinion, the three accounts that garnered “A”s are enough evidence to uphold the apologetic argument.  What Patton demonstrates is that there is even more evidence than just these three.

Historical research can be very tricky, and these kinds of analyses are somewhat subjective.  I’m sure skeptics of Christianity might grade harder than Patton did, but I commend him for his attempt.  Please read the rest of his blog post if you want to know more of the details surrounding the deaths.

A Christian Apologetics Blog