Month: September 2010

Hello readers and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth! As it stands, it still looks like I will be heading out of town again tomorrow and won’t be back until next week so if you don’t see a new post tomorrow, don’t panic. There is simply other business that I must take care of.

Today, I’d like to take a look at the standard atheist answer to many Christian claims and this is to say “ECREE.” What’s that? It means “Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence.” This is a response that is met so often that it has become a platitude in our times. Indeed, there is a problem when thinking is replaced with soundbites. To be fair, Christians can be just as guilty.

I recall one of the responses a professor of mine has about this kind of objection that is being raised. What is extraordinary evidence? Does it glow? The whole concept of extraordinary evidence is subjective. Propositions do not require extraordinary evidence to believe them. They require sufficient evidence.

Let’s take the claim of an atheist as best exemplified by Carl Sagan. “The cosmos is all there ever was, is, and ever will be.” For Sagan, that sounds certainly like a reasonable claim. However, if we are talking about extraordinary claims, in that there is a claim that is out of the ordinary, Sagan’s claim is just such a claim! The majority of people alive today and who have ever lived in the past have believed in some form of deity.

With that in mind, the rest of humanity can just look at Sagan and say “ECREE!” However, he will look at our beliefs, those of us who are theists and not just Christian theists but all theists, and say “ECREE!” If you are a naturalist, the claim that there is a God will be extraordinary. If you are a theist, the claim that there is no God is the claim that will be extraordinary.

When we reach this point then, the problem becomes more along the lines of examining the believers of the worldview instead of the evidence. It’s “I hold this worldview and yours is contrary and therefore, I must view your belief system with suspicion. I cannot believe it lightly. I require extraordinary evidence.”

None of us should take our worldview lightly, but we should not assume that we have no burden of proof. My thinking is that everyone who is asserting a truth claim has a burden of proof. The atheist needs to demonstrate that there is no God. The theist needs to demonstrate that there is. Of course, there are different methods of demonstration.

ECREE is not a response. It is an excuse to not give a response. It is a way of avoiding thinking because you could always look at the data and just say “Not extraordinary enough.” Instead, it’s best to look at the data for any claim and say “Does this match the claim? Yes or no. Is this data verifiable and/or believable? Yes or no. Do those who are knowledgeable on both sides hold to this? Yes or no.”

With the last one for instance, if you are arguing for a position, you want to get as much of your opponent’s worldview in as possible. For instance, Richard Dawkins in The Blind Watchmaker argues that macroevolutionary theory is true. Because macroevolutionary theory is true, God does not exist. That is not part of a Christian worldview however. The Christian worldview does not necessarily say either God or evolutionary theory. There can be both/and. I could grant everything Dawkins says about evolutionary theory from a scientific perspective and that would not disprove that God raised Jesus from the dead.

Meanwhile, when I approach my opponent, that is what I want to do. I want to say “I will grant you your macroevolutionary belief for the sake of argument. I will argue as if the proposition ‘Human beings are the result of a macroevolutionary process’ is true.” Now of course, I don’t mean a naturalistic process, but a process nonetheless. Upon saying that I will then say “Now give me your argument against my theistic beliefs.”

This is coming to the table and accepting the data. A way the new atheists misconstrue this often is their common notion of faith as believing something without evidence. I don’t know of one dictionary of biblical words that defines faith in that way. It is certainly not the way I understand faith. Still, the new atheists regularly trot this out. I only wish to ask “Do you have any evidence that that is the definition of faith?” If they do, then please give it because it has never been found in any dictionaries of biblical words. If not, then they are believing something without evidence, the very act that they condemn.

Instead, the new atheists need to come and say “Here is the data the apologists put forward. Here’s where we think the data is right. Here’s where we think the inference from the data is wrong.” (Check the bibliography several times in works of the new atheists. It is woefully lacking in Christian sources and if they are cited, interacting with them is negligible.)

We Christians need to do better than our opponents are and part of this is calling ECREE the nonsense that it is and really arguing. ECREE has been an excuse for too many people to avoid thinking about data for a long time and really confront it. It is entirely subjective, which is amusing as most of our opponents pride themselves on being objective thinkers.

Christians also need to realize something else. We do have the evidence. It’s whether we present it rightly and if the heart is receptive.

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters. It looks like I could be out of town again shortly. I have done the major work I need to do for my project, but again, I want it to be that I have uninterrupted focus. I shall let you readers know for sure, but I am not putting something off for the sake of putting it off.

Tonight, I’d like to comment on something I heard today with an atheist on a program talking about the exclusivity of Christianity and how they don’t like that idea and it keeps them away from the Christian faith. Now we could do a blog sometime on how Christianity is exclusive and why this is the way it is and answer objections to it, but I’d like to deal with another point.

There is an underlying issue many of us have it seems that we think an argument or position cannot be true because we do not like something about it. There are some things we don’t want to think and so we automatically say they’re untrue. In some cases, this is denial. Not all doubt is like this, but some of it is.

What we as Christians must learn to do however and encourage others to do is to seek truth for the sake of truth. We must realize that even if we do not like a particular belief, that will not change the truth of that belief. If we are to be people who say we believe in truth, then we have to accept the painful truths. In fact, for all of us, there are painful truths.

Consider the doctrine of Hell. I believe in Hell. I do not believe in a literal flaming furnace, but I believe there is a place of the greatest misery and suffering possible. Do I like this belief? No. I agree with C.S. Lewis that it would be wonderful if universalism could be true and somehow all could be saved, but reality doesn’t work that way.

I would encourage any atheist who sincerely is wanting an answer in these areas, and I believe the one I heard today was open, that we have to all put aside what we like and don’t like. If I could have it proven to me that Christianity is false, I would not want to believe in it just because I like it. On the other hand, if Jesus is who he said he was, and there is a God who will judge the world, and there’s a heaven to gain and a hell to lose, then none of that will change just because that belief is not liked.

Consider if you are a non-believer this point. What if Christianity is true? If it is, the denial of hell will not change the existence of hell. The denial of Jesus being the only way will not change Him being the only way. What you must first ask yourself is not “Is this doctrine something I like?” You must ask yourself “Is it true?” If it is true, you have to accept it whether you like it or not. The universe does not change to fit us.

Let’s not think I’m just being hard on atheists here. Many Christians fall into the same boat. Because you don’t like Calvinism, that does not mean Calvinism is false. Because you don’t like Arminianism, that does not mean Arminianism is false. To reverse things also, because a belief is comforting, that does not mean that that belief is true. It would be very comforting for me to wake up tomorrow and know I have a lot of money in my bank account, especially in my financial situation as it is now. However, I cannot just say “I’m going to wake up tomorrow and believe that!” Reality will have me in a bind very quickly if I go to a bookstore believing that.

Now once again, in any case, this does not mean that you like the belief that you accept. It simply means that you accept it. We are to be seek to understand the world around us as it is and not as we wish to see it. Part of being an honest thinker is realizing that, going where the evidence leads, and believing it and letting things work out as they will.

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth! Tonight will be it for a very limited time. In the morning, I head out to see my wife’s family so traveling mercies for our journeys included in your prayers for us would be greatly appreciated. However, before I return and then get to work on the project I have in mind, I would like to share an idea I’ve been pondering lately that I notice in atheistic thought.

One of the most notorious claims that atheists make about theistic thinking is that it’s a “God of the Gaps” mentality. In other words, when there’s some gap that the theist doesn’t know about, well then God did it. Now in many ways sadly, this reputation has been fairly earned. In fact, it was a Methodist layman who first coined the term “God-of-the-gaps.” Too many Christians have looked at any gap in history, put in God, and said that was it.

It’s an attitude we should avoid. Now there are no doubt times in history when God has acted, but we dare not say God is the one who acted immediately just because we know of no other explanation. I have no problem with saying “Let’s exhaust all natural possibilities first and then see what we have left.” If we can’t find anything, we might have something miraculous, but let’s not just assume that a priori.

The atheist says the ignorance of the theist makes them plug in God automatically and keeps them from thinking and that a theist shouldn’t be ignorant. Now insofar as that happens, I do agree. However, my problem is that the atheist has his own problem of ignorance and yet, in that case, it’s justified to him.

When the problem of evil comes to the theist from the atheist, the theist is expected to know why it is that God allowed particular evil X to occur. If the theist does not know the reason, then the atheist can be very quick to assume victory. Why? If no one can think of a good reason, surely there isn’t one.

But this is just another case of ignorance and while the Christian should not be too quick to throw in a “God-of-the-gaps”, the atheist is way too quick to think that because no good reason for an event can be thought of at the time, then there can be no good reason for it.

Now my thinking on this is that if I can’t think of a “good reason” for allowing the evil, well the atheist has proven that I’m not omniscient. If that was the goal, well I would have happily conceded that at the start. However, supposing that there was no good reason I can think of. Does that mean I cave in and claim atheism? Not at all. After all, I have several positive claims that need to be addressed. My theism is not built on a subjective experience, but on claims that I believe can be backed with solid argumentation. Because I can’t answer one counter does not mean that all my claims are ipso facto false.

However, for the atheistic thinker, we could just as easily say he’s looking for a “naturalism-of-the gaps.” But what is the basis for knowing naturalism is true? Frankly, it could not be. No one has yet to make an airtight problem of evil argument against God and even the concept of evil relies on an objective moral standard to have meaning of which there is none in naturalism. Now some could try to claim a logical contradiction in the nature of God, but that has yet to be proven either. There would also need to be a disproof of the resurrection of Jesus from the dead.

My conclusion is that on both cases, we have things we frankly don’t know. Now theists should not be too quick to throw in God. In fact, when I debate an atheist, I like to grant them as much of their worldview as I can for the sake of argument. Throw out the gaps and let’s see if you can explain the resurrection of Jesus, the doctrine of being, and the objective moral standard.

And perhaps, we can see some consistency on our atheistic opponents on this one.

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters, a blog where we are always seeking to take you further into the ocean of truth! I’m currently preparing for another project, though not as lengthy as the Trinitarian commentary or our look through the Summa Theologica, and while I wait for that to start, I would like to tackle some objections I see coming especially in light of the Hawking statement put out yesterday and with arguments regularly seen from the new atheists.

For instance, in “The New Atheism: Taking A Stand For Science and Reason”, Victor Stenger says on page 79 in the topic of if science can disprove existence, after talking about definitions, “I won’t get too pedantic and ask for the definition of existence. We all have a pretty good idea what that means.”

Oh really?

Suppose you were in a room one day and I came in and closed the door behind me and said “Something’s outside. I want you to tell me all you know with just one clue about it. It’s red.” Well you could list several things. You’d know it’s colored. You’d know it’s physical. You’d know it can be seen with the eyes. You’d know it has mass. You’d know that it’s extended. etc.

Now suppose the same scenario takes place but this time instead of saying “It’s red”, I say “It exists.”

Suddenly, you don’t know so much. Now it could be I’m thinking of an angel being right outside. You could counter that if you’re a materialist and say “That can’t be because we know that all that exists has physical matter!” That’s your presupposition kicking in. I could just as easily say there is an angel and although it is invisible, it has made its presence known to me somehow and is right outside the door.

Existence is a doctrine we don’t really know much about.

This is in fact a problem many of the new atheists have. They don’t understand existence. Consider Richard Dawkins’s 747 argument where he says that God must be more complex than anything he’s created and therefore will need a creator. To an atheist, that can sound reasonable, but to the informed theologian, this is a terrible argument and we have to wonder about people who put forward such an argument.

Dawkins should have known better seeing as he replied to Aquinas’s five ways in the Summa Theologica, and had he turned to just the very next chapter on the simplicity of God, he would have got an answer. God is the creator of matter and only material things are complex because they have parts. Now angels are complex in the sense that they are essence + existence, but they are simple in their essence. Their essence does not consist of parts.

God’s existence is his very nature and so if we ask “What caused God?” it is asking “What is the cause of that that exists by the very nature of its being?” It’s a nonsense question. We theists can definitely say “Yes. Something does not come from nothing and we do affirm then that something always existed.”

What we do then is get to the nature of this existence. What is it? We speak of the supreme being. He is being unlike any other type of being. He is being with all perfections and being without limitations, hence he is not material for matter is a limiting principle on any being.

Too many ideas in atheistic thought seem to imply that existence is its own explanation. There’s no need to study the concept. If you prove evolutionary theory, then you’ve disproved God. If we have an eternal universe, then there’s no need of God. Both of these are nonsense. I don’t even do the creation/evolution debate any more because I see it as pointless. I would prefer to grant my opponent macroevolutionary theory and then say “Now give me your argument against God’s existence.” I would even grant him an eternal universe and say “What is the cause of the universe’s existing?” (I am open to something being eternal but having an eternally derived existence)

Our trouble is that we’ve exchanged the authority of religion for the authority of science. It’s not an either/or game and the more we set it up, the more one side loses. Some people will avoid science thinking it is a threat to religion. Others will avoid religion thinking it has no truth since it’s not determinable by science. Both sides are making serious mistakes. (Although I consider the latter far more. Someone can be a Christian and think science is a threat)

Theologians who are unqualified in science need to stop playing scientist. Scientists who are unqualified in theology and philosophy need to stay out of that area. We can all have opinions in areas we don’t have much skill in, but we dare not speak as if we are authorities in those areas.

For those wanting further information, I highly recommend Joseph Owens’s book “An Interpretation of Existence.”

Hello readers and welcome back to Deeper Waters, a blog dedicated to diving into the ocean of truth! I do have another project in the works, but I am going to be taking a little vacation this Sunday. The wife and I are going on a trip to see her family for an annual get-together the family has with other friends. I wish to wait until I get back before I do anything on the project. Of course, if I need to change the plan of the next project, I can do that. For now, I’d like to comment on a story that hit the news today.

The story comes from an announcement by Stephen Hawking that God did not create the universe. The news can be found here

What do I have to say about this? First off, I have a problem with so many atheists who want Christians to remain quiet on scientific issues without proper study. Is my problem with that position? No. I don’t think we Christians should speak authoritatively on science unless we’ve really done the proper study on science. However, I think the sword cuts both ways and scientists should not comment on philosophy and/or theology without the proper study. A work such as Richard Dawkins’s “The God Delusion” shows just what happens when someone comments without proper study. Anyone who thinks that book makes a persuasive case is just uninformed on the topics.

Second, I wonder what is going on when I am told however that the universe came from nothing. Nothing is non-existence. It has no properties. You cannot say anything about it. You can only say what it is not really. It is not anything ultimately. Am I to believe non-existence is capable of bringing about existence? Now I do know physicists and others can use the word “nothing” differently than I do as a philosopher, but if they have something in mind, they do not have nothing in mind.

Third, this doesn’t answer the question of existence. What is the basis for existence? Existence does not come from non-existence. Not only what is the cause of the universe coming into existence, which is a deep enough problem, but what is the cause of the universe existing?

Now someone can reply “Well what about the cause of God?” This is a question acceptable if you’re in Sunday School. It’s not one if you’re trying to be a serious philosopher. God’s very nature is His existence, as we saw in our study on the doctrine of God. Existence does not need a cause.

How do we know the universe is not exempt? Because we have evidence that the universe came into being first off. Second, even if it didn’t, the universe is also changing. It is growing older and it is losing usable energy. It is moving from one state of existence to another. My getting up and walking across the room would be a change in existence. The universe is in time and is bound by matter. Whatever is material is not the ultimate cause of all things since it is matter + form + existence.

Finally, Christians also have other arguments for God’s existence, such as the argument from morality, the argument from beauty, and the evidence that Jesus Christ rose from the dead. Unfortunately in our world, science is taken to be the final authority. Science is great, if you want to do science. It’s not the tool to use however to do philosophy, theology, history, mathematics, etc. Now there is some overlap in these areas no doubt. But theology is primarily about God even if it uses philosophy and history. Those areas are just tools used by the science of theology to study its main subject, God. Being a physicist does not mean you’re qualified as a metaphysician.