Month: March 2018

Are You A True Skeptic?

What arguments do you accept? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Just recently, I was in a Facebook group and I saw someone share something from Lawrence Krauss claiming that there were several divine figures at the time of Jesus born of virgins (And I do affirm the virgin birth) who died and rose again. It didn’t take long for a bunch of us to show that this was wrong. What was most amazing to me was that this was accepted.

What matters to me about this is how quickly people who call themselves skeptics will cease to be skeptics. This isn’t to say that their skepticism of Christianity is necessarily unreasonable. Some skepticism is good. The claims we make are pretty intense after all and should be backed by evidence. The problem is that a scholar says something that supports Christianity or shows an attack on i is false and that’s questioned, but show someone who attacks it and that’s an immediate Gospel truth.

I also think it’s important to point out that we Christians can do the same. There are many Christians who will share something immediately if it supports Christianity, but it turns out to be false. This is also true in the area of politics. Many people will share something that supports their political viewpoint without checking up on it.

After the Florida shooting, there were news stories going around about eighteen school shootings taking place this year. Some of you might be surprised by that news. You never heard about all of these school shootings. There’s a good reason for that. They didn’t really happen, at least not the way you would think. One such school shooting was when a man was in the parking lot of an Elementary school that was closed at the time and committed suicide with a gun. Somehow, that qualifies as a school shooting.

Many of you know that I’m a political conservative, yet I have taken enough conservatives to task for sharing false stories about political opponents. Our side is not helped by sharing stories that are false and we damage our reputation by sharing those stories.

The solution to all of this is really simple. Test everything. Check it all out. If you are a Christian, don’t damage your reputation by sharing things that are false. It shows people you are gullible and undermines your witness to Christianity.

If you are a skeptic of Christianity, you should also want to be taken seriously. It’s not going to be happening by sharing copycat myth ideas or even worse, ideas that Jesus never existed. No. Carrier is not the most awesome New Testament scholar of all time. Most of us will actually discount you pretty quickly just for mentioning Carrier.

Everyone should agree to this. Test all things. If you’re a Christian and a skeptic does disprove something you believe to be true, accept it. If you’re a skeptic and a Christian disproves something for you, do likewise. Of course, you’re more prone to accept ideas that already fit with your worldview, but watch your own bias first. If we want to have more informed discussions, it starts with us.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Evidence Considered Chapter 16

What about limits of evolution? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

We continue our work at the look of Glenton Jelbert and Evidence Considered. This time we look at a chapter on the limits of evolution. As a non-scientist, there is not much I can really say.

I do agree with Jelbert that rejecting evolution does not make you a Christian or even a theist. That is true. Also, just because you are a Christian or a theist does not mean that you have to reject evolution. This is why I suggest Christians not try to make this a strong point. I contend that both Christians and atheists are often making the same mistake when evolution is made a central point.

The Christian can often think that if God made the world, He had to make it through a certain methodology. Of course, He could have and maybe He did make life through a non-evolutionary means, but is this necessitated? If every life formed in the womb is formed through a process, could not all life come through such processes? Is God only there if you can find gaps for Him?

Meanwhile, atheists say they don’t care for God of the gaps arguments, and rightfully so, but they often make it that the more we gain knowledge about the world, the less need there is for God. They too have the same kind of mindset. If God created the world, He had to do it this particular way and had to bring about life this particular way. Maybe not.

Both sides also hurt one another because they perpetuate the conflict hypothesis that there is necessarily a conflict between science and religion. Both sides will lose out. For the theist, many times their religion means much more to them. They are happy to accept many things in science, but if accepting evolution as science means they have to ditch God, who is much more central in their lives, forget it.

I’d also say it’s understandable for the theist. The theist looks at the world and sometimes his mind is just blown by the way things are and thinks it just couldn’t possibly happen by chance. Call it incredulity if you want, but there is a certain sense to it that the theist thinks this world didn’t just happen. There is some sort of purpose. He doesn’t want to lose that wonder.

The atheist meanwhile can accept sometimes many good things that religion has done, and if anyone thinks religion has only brought about evil, they don’t know what they’re talking about. Still, if accepting religion means he has to ditch science, forget it. Why should he come to God if that means he has to live in a world where he denies what he sees in the laboratory? As long as the two are seen in conflict, each side will go with what is most important to them. Each side will also miss out on the full benefits of the other.

I also agree with Jelbert that if natural selection is true, it has the aim of getting the most fit species out there and will do so even if without intent. This is actually excellent for theism. It fits in perfectly with the fifth way of Thomas Aquinas. Many people look at the fifth way and think it means everything must act with intent. Not so. It just means that there is a correlation with things working towards an end even if not intentionally.

I also agree with Jelbert that if we go with God of the Gaps, new information can damage the argument. This is a reason why while science is fascinating, I don’t really go with scientific arguments. I don’t think Christianity or science should be married to either.

One small thing, Jelbert does talk about limits and says that zebras haven’t evolved machine guns to survive the lions. I would be amiss to say that if that ever happened, it would be truly one of the coolest things ever.

In Christ,
Nick Peters