Category: Apologetics

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth! We’ve spent a lot of time lately looking at atheistic soundbites that one will regularly encounter in the blogosphere. Tonight, I’m going to look at one that I think really shows the new atheist movement for what it is.

Before that however, let’s be clear about words. The meaning of a word is inherent in the text the word is in. I cannot go to what you say, attribute my own meaning to the words you use, and make you mean something different. No. I need to seek to understand how you mean the word to be used and if it’s a word in an ancient book, I need to understand how the people of the time used that word and not how people today use it.

For instance, we can read about marriage in the Bible and while it is still a relationship between a man and a woman that’s monogamous and sexual and life-long, that does not mean everything is the same. We will be hard-pressed to find information about choosing your spouse in the Bible and how to behave on a date. The concept just wasn’t around back then.

I’d like to apply this to faith. Go through the new atheists be it their books or their audio debates and hear how they talk about faith. See constantly how they berate people believing something for which they say they don’t have evidence. The irony is rich and it should be something that the new atheists deserve to be shamed for.

Each of them should know better, and none of them apparently do. Dawkins knows Alister McGrath. He can disagree with McGrath, but he surely knows McGrath doesn’t believe without evidence. Harris is supposed to be a graduate in philosophy from Stanford. He should know about the philosophical arguments for God’s existence from Christian philosophers.

Consider also Victor Stenger who regularly makes this kind of claim as well. Oh Stenger will every now and then reference Craig and Zacharias, but he will not really interact with them. In his book “The New Atheism: Taking A Stand For Science and Reason” he will counter apologists who argue against the new atheism. Now I find nothing wrong with that. I think if you’re of a belief and you think an argument against your belief is faulty, you should argue against it. However, I also think if an argument is for your belief and faulty, you should argue against it. I certainly don’t want my viewpoint to be presented with bad arguments.

The problem is Stenger will give the impression that there are no arguments for theism. In fact, his total jump to science shows this. Oh we’ve heard the philosophy and the theology before, but we all know that doesn’t matter! Let’s go to science and if science says it’s not true, then it’s not true! It’s the priesthood of science that I’ve spoken about here. Forget philosophy and forget theology. They don’t matter. I think atheists would rightly reply with scorn if a Christian said “Forget science! All we need is Jesus and the Bible.” Heck. I’d reply with scorn. That’s not a Christian attitude at all since we are to be people of truth. That’s not just biblical truth. That’s ALL truth!

However, the sad irony of all of this is while the new atheists condemn faith as believing something without evidence, I have never seen them give any evidence that this is what the biblical writers meant by faith. Readers. I ask you this and you can tell me if I’ve missed it. Have they ever once cited a Greek lexicon that says this is the definition of faith? Have they pointed to any Greek authorities? Have they shown any research abilities whatsoever in looking up what faith means?

I have a few copies of Vine’s in my room. Vine’s does not say that this is what faith is. Faith is instead to be granted to that which is trustworthy and reliable. To have faith in Jesus means to say that you find Jesus to be one who is worthy of trust and you choose to side with him.

Where do the new atheists get the idea? The first place I checked is the abomination that causes misinformation. Here’s what the first sentence on Wikipedia is about the topic:

“Faith is the confident belief or trust in a person, idea, or thing that is not based on proof.”

Well to begin with, very few of our beliefs are based on absolute proof. You do not have proof that that box of cereal at the grocery store contains cereal. You do not have proof that the surgery you’re going to undertake will succeed and you’ll walk away more healthy. You do not have proof that that airplane you’re about to board will get you where you want to go.

What’s really bad about the Wikipedia definition however is that it gets its definition from a dictionary. That’s just fine if you want to use a word in its modern sense and I can agree that sadly to many moderns, faith means believing something without evidence. To argue against the Bible however, you must take the word as the writers of the Bible took it to mean.

For instance, when the Christmas carol says “Don we now our gay apparel”, we don’t look at that and say “They want us to dress like homosexuals?” We know that “gay” meant happy. Today, it’s been twisted to mean something else. It doesn’t mean we look back and think the writers of the Christmas carol had some sexual fetishes we don’t know about.

The new atheists however don’t do that. For them, shoddy research has been their calling card. God belief is not something any rational person would believe to them a priori so why spend any real time studying it? Why also think any readers would do the same? The new atheists say that this is what faith is, so let’s just have all the drones repeat it. (For people claiming to be free-thinkers, you’d think some of them would actually think differently)

Even if atheism were true, I think arguments like this should be enough to discredit the new atheists as not doing appropriate research. What’s the result of this? They end knocking down a straw man that doesn’t exist, having several atheists think Christians don’t have real arguments, having some Christians think likewise, and destroying the false faith of many who really do believe without evidence.

Not only that, it is just intellectual dishonesty. When you present your opponents’ viewpoints, you present them in their best possible light with the best arguments that you can possibly come up with. The new atheists do not do this and I cannot think of any good reason why they do not.

If you are a follower of the new atheists, I urge you to consider this. If they’ve done this bad of research on a basic point, can you trust them on greater points?

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth! I’ve said I’d like to look at some atheist sound bites. Fear not however. I will be looking at some Christian ones as well and there very well could be more Christian sound bites that cause me grief than atheist ones. Tonight on the atheist side, I’d like to look at the topic of how some claim science makes them naturalists.

The problem with this statement is that it is actually a statement that assumes a certain kind of theology. Whenever I deal with such people, I like to grant them as much as I can for the sake of argument. You believe in macroevolution? Fine. I’ll accept that. You believe in an eternal universe? Fine. I’ll accept that. You believe in a multiverse instead? Fine. I’ll accept that. Whatever they believe, I will accept.

Now what’s their argument?

The idea is that God must be necessary to fill in some gaps in the scientific record. Somewhere along the way of natural processes, there must be some sort of gap and lo and behold, this is where God steps in. Now let’s be fair here. It could be that there are some gaps in science in which the answer is that God did indeed act. I believe every Christian scientist should be open to that. I do not see how this should be seen as a science stopper. We can ask how he did it instead if possible.

Or, we can look and use science as a tool to ask why he created something that way. Imagine for instance if somehow we could find the very first cell that ever was and somehow know that God made it the way it is fossilized. We would all want to study that cell and compare it to cells today and say “This is the prototype. Why is it this way? Is this the best or is it meant to improve from here?”

The Christian can be open to any way however. If God did do it, whatever it is, then fine. He did it. However, the atheist cannot be open to any way. The answer cannot be that God did it. While the Christian can often be accused of being closed-minded, it is the atheist who must be closed-minded. His system cannot admit of any supernaturalism whatsoever. The Christian system can freely admit of naturalistic hypotheses.

However, let us suppose natural causes were found for all that goes on in our universe. The Christian is not in trouble and the atheist is still making a leap from a physical claim to a metaphysical claim. He can say that he thinks it less likely that God exists. To say that science demonstrates this is nonsense, a lesson it would have been good for Victor Stenger to learn.

Consider Dawkins in the same way. Dawkins has a whole book on this called The Blind Watchmaker. Dawkins believes that once he has demonstrated macroevolution, then theism is dead. Even the Christian who does not believe in macroevolution need not fear Dawkins. Evolution can be an instrumental means for instance. God could have used evolution to bring about humanity. Some might find the idea abhorrent or just flat-out wrong, but even if you do, why not grant it for the sake of argument? Your goal is not to get your potential convert and disciple to affirm a scientific view but to affirm a theistic view.

Ultimately, the problem with this idea is that it defines God by function rather than by essence. Christians believe God would be God even if He had never created a universe. Why? What is it about Him that makes it so that he just exists even if nothing else does? Just think about it. Does he have a derived existence or not? Does God have a nature plus existence? If so, can God’s nature, which is to be, be without being? (Note that He says it is His nature to be in Exodus 3:14)

I am not saying the ontological argument is valid. I do not believe the idea of God can produce the reality of God. However, if by our reasoning we come to see that God is that which exists by nature, then it naturally follows that God exists. He cannot not exist. Of course, I refer the reader to my studies in the Summa Theologica on this blog for more information.

For too long scientists have been the new priesthood. I fear that when we give science the highest authority, then we are stating something not just about God but about man and reality as well. We will be stating that the greatest matters are those which are purely physical. None of us I know of believe that, but in giving science the highest grounds, we affirm it.

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth! I’d like us to start taking a look at some atheist soundbites that are often thrown around the blogosphere. Some of these can be found in the books of the new atheists as well, which isn’t surprising, though it’s something I wonder of who borrowed from whom.

Anyway, one that I have seen frequently is that for several atheists, they claim that reading the Bible is what made them atheists.

I find such a claim as highly exaggerated and would reveal poor thinking on the part of one who came to such a conclusion. To begin with, there are some atheists who would say that reading the Bible made them Christians. In fact, I would in a way disagree with that statement as well.

The Bible does not have some magic power in itself to make someone become something. If it did, everyone would lead a more holy life by reading the text. The knowledge that the devil and the demons have of the text would enable them to be pure and holy angels. (Of course, I don’t believe fallen angels can repent)

What matters is how the person approaches the text and what their will is. We all know that if we want to find fault with something we usually can. Of course, if that something has no fault, such as God, then we are not seeing Him as He is, but as we want to picture Him.

Picture instead someone coming to the Bible not really knowing about the book. They don’t know that it claims to be the Word of God. Naturally, they will see this as they go along in the text. However, they just pick it up and read and start at the beginning seeing the existence of a God that created the world.

Will they find things that puzzle them? Yes. Will they find things they like? Yes. Will they find things they don’t like? Yes. The question is, how will they respond? Will they see if the things they like are really as they see them and rejoice in them? Will they study the things that puzzle them? When they find things they don’t like, will they study that as well and see if first off that might be something in them wrong that indicates dislike, or if maybe it isn’t what they thought it was after study?

Let’s suppose we focus on the parts of the Bible that people don’t like often, such as the wars in the Old Testament and the doctrine of Hell in the New Testament. Let’s suppose that someone decided that there was no justification for these. I think that would be incorrect, but let’s take it for the sake of argument.

How could you wind up at the doctrine that there is no God from that alone? You haven’t tackled natural theology or other religions or philosophy of any kind. You might have in your minds a disproof of the God of Christianity, but does it follow that you have disproven theism? After all, Christianity could be false and theism still true.

Could it in fact be the presuppositions some come to the text with? They don’t like a God who judges sin. (All the while asking why God doesn’t do anything about evil in the world. When he does nothing, they complain. When he acts, they also complain.) Could it be a belief in a God who does not do miracles? Could it be that you don’t think God should judge you or someone you know?

If that’s the case, it’s not reading the Bible that does it. It’s the ideology one has and uses the reading of the Bible to justify that ideology. Rather than spending time arguing presuppositions, it is just easier to come to the Bible and not let it shape your worldview, but let your worldview shape it. (I don’t think we should do that with any book for that matter. When we read a work, we should take what we can from the author’s worldview to better understand it. We might find a deficiency in our own to improve, or we might even agree with his at the end.)

Frankly, it’s the presuppositions that I think matter. Even if you could prove that there is justification for Hell and the wars in the Old Testament, it does not follow that God exists or Christianity is true. Deal with ideas like an anti-supernatural bias and the standard of good and evil first. Then you are prepared to approach the Bible and be ready to give it the benefit of the doubt. That doesn’t mean believing blindly. It means letting the text speak for itself and have it be innocent until proven guilty.

Watch for this one on the blogosphere, and don’t fall for it.

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. Tonight, we’re going to be continuing our look at becoming a thinking Christian. I wish to thank Joel for his suggestion for tonight’s topic as he played Devil’s Advocate saying essentially that there was no need for this thinking stuff. Just give me Jesus and the Bible!

Unfortunately, this is an all too common idea in Christian circles. Of course, this isn’t to dismiss Jesus or the Bible. They are essential. It’s to deal with this attitude that the life of the intellect does not help the Christian. It’s a kind of position taken that sounds so spiritual but is oh so not.

To begin with, which Jesus do you mean? Do you mean the Arian Jesus of the Jehovah’s Witnesses who is the archangel Michael and is in no way God? Do you mean the Jesus of the Mormons who is the spirit brother of Lucifer? Do you mean the Jesus of Islam who is the greatest prophet before Muhammad and is virgin-born and a Messiah? Do you mean the Jesus of orthodoxy who is the second person of the Trinity?

Of course, the last one is the correct answer, but the answer is important. Those are all different Jesuses that Paul warned us of in 2 Corinthians. When it comes to Jesus, any old Jesus won’t do. How do you know which Jesus is the correct one? That’s when you get into Christology and thinking.

We get our doctrine of Christology from Scripture, although it does take philosophy to understand a lot of it. What about the Bible? A lot of people pride themselves for instance upon interpreting Scripture literally. The reality is however that there are several parts of Scripture that are not to be taken literally.

How do you know what hermeneutic to use? (Hermeneutics is the art of interpretation) You get that from an understanding of reality. The Bible does not tell you how to read it. It assumes that you are a good reader. In many ways, you must approach the Bible like you do other texts. You realize there are ways that languages operate to communicate reading and whether to take the text literally or not.

Why can’t you get it from the Bible? Because you have to interpret the Bible when you read it to understand it. Even if you are interpreting the text literally, you are still interpreting it. Where do you get the hermeneutic from? Basically, reality. It’s the same way you believe your five senses are giving you valid information about the world.

Do you always interpret the Bible literally? No. Consider it like reading Shakespeare. There are times you will interpret it literally and times you will not. How will you know? It will require you study literature and understand genres. It’s not an easy task, but it must be done. One can pride themselves on taking the text literally and then see what happened when Dake did the same thing in his Study Bible. Ever wonder where Benny Hinn got the idea that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Spirit each have a body, soul, and spirit? Look to Dake.

What about the Holy Spirit? Unfortunately, a lot of people when wanting to interpret a passage of Scripture point to the Spirit as telling them what the text means. This is not the role of the Holy Spirit and frankly, I get concerned when people toss the Holy Spirit around to justify their interpretations because of a lack of study on their part. There’s nothing spiritual about doing that. In fact, I’d say it’s an insult to God that we punt to Him often to excuse our ignorance.

The idea is instead that the Holy Spirit works with you in interpretation by illuminating you on the meaning of the text when you understand it. When you understand the text, the Spirit helps you in seeing how you are to live under the truth of the text. The Holy Spirit is not to be a personal answer-man for when you don’t understand something in the Bible.

Also, if you are a believer in the book, you should be familiar with many books. Don’t be so arrogant as to think you have been the sole beneficiary of the truth of Scripture. Instead, read from those who have spent their lives studying the biblical languages and the art of interpretation. (And some of us could be greatly helped by taking the time to learn those languages, myself included)

Remember. Because something sounds spiritual, that doesn’t mean it’s good. Not everyone is to be an intellectual, but no one who is a Christian is to be an anti-intellectual.

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. We’ve been talking a lot about becoming a thinking Christian lately and I’d like to touch on the aspect of memorization tonight. If you’re going to be equipped to deal with what you see out in the world, you will need to know what to say and when.

When you read a book, you want to take in as much information as you can. When you meet the skeptic on the street, you can’t say “Let me look this up” or “Let me get out my notes.” You need to know what to say then and there. How can you get your memory in that kind of shape?

To begin with, rely less on technology. Make sure you have some phone numbers in your memory. Most numbers put out that are meant to be memorized follow the seven plus or minus two rule. In other words, the number will consist of five to nine digits. Your phone number minus area code has seven. Your zip code has five. Your zip code more precise has nine. Your social security number has nine.

It is easy to use the contacts list on your cell phone, but make sure you’re not totally dependent on that for every number. If you always let technology remember everything for you, then your own memory will suffer for it. The memory is like any other muscle. The more you use it, the stronger it will become. The less you use it, the more it will waste away.

Start off small if you’re working on this as well. Don’t be trying to memorize a highly extensive list. I recommend starting with a list of three items and then moving up from there. There are several games you can get such as games on a phone that can help you with this. Think of the old Simon games with four colors and having to push the colors in order.

Music can also be an excellent aid to memorization. If you listen to a song, you can usually remember it easily because there’s a tune that sticks in your head. Most of us know the words to song easily, which really shows we can memorize things. When I meet someone who says they can’t remember something, I often like to see how many songs they know, what they can tell me about their favorite sports team, favorite jokes they have, or lines they love from a favorite movie or TV show.

The reason that works that way is that you can remember it if you connect it with something important. Try to establish connections in your mind with what you’re wanting to remember and see if it helps. Repetition will also be helpful. When you hear something you want to remember, repeat it.

Memorization is important to a Christian and was to the Jews as well. In fact, the ancient rabbis said that someone could not comment on a verse of Scripture unless it was memorized. It was not uncommon to meet a Jew who had the entire Old Testament memorized in biblical times, hence Jesus probably made more allusions to it than we recognize because we don’t remember it like they did. We can even place great stock in oral tradition in the ancient Middle East due to their great memories. This still goes on in the Middle East in fact. Muslims memorize the Qur’an.

Knowing the facts entails remembering them. Work on memorization today and remember to work on it tomorrow.

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. We’re looking lately at what it means to be a thinking Christian. I’ve spoken on many aspects of this so far and tonight, I’d like to turn and look at the idea of leisure time and how that is to be spent.

To begin with, Christians should have leisure time. Speaking as a married man, I know my wife would be very disappointed if I spent all my time with books. While I do have a booklight for night time reading in case she wants to sleep early and I’m not ready to nod off just yet, I only do that when she’s asleep. Now I can do that throughout the day from time to time such as if she’s playing a game system or on her laptop, but when it comes time for a date, be it a movie or going out to eat, then it’s time for a date and the books go away.

Of course, we also know that it will be a problem if all we have is leisure time, and the rise of technology has helped us in giving us more leisure time, but the problem is that we are not spending it well. We can spend all our time in the pursuit of many other pleasures without spending that time learning the great ideas or enriching our minds, particularly through reading.

If one wants to be a thinking Christian, one will need to spend some time enriching their mind through activities like this. I do have television shows that I like, namely Smallville, but one should not watch too much television. Otherwise, the images on the screen quickly do one’s thinking for them and becomes their imagination.

I recommend that the reader always have a book with them. Waiting in line at the bank or the check-out aisle? Pull out a book and start reading. At a long red light and you know it will be awhile? Get in a paragraph or two. (You could also while driving try audiobooks or podcasts or check out from your local library works like “The Portable Professor” and “Modern Scholar.”)

When it comes time to read, read hard and try to think about what you’ve read. Digest it. This could involve improving your memory, which will be another blog post. Your mind and memory are like any other muscle in your body. If you use them, they will grow stronger. If you do not use them, they will grow weaker.

However, when it comes time to play, Christians should not be opposed. Aquinas himself said in Question 138 of the second part of the second part of the Summa that

In play two things may be considered. On the first place there is the pleasure, and thus inordinate fondness of play is opposed to eutrapelia. Secondly, we may consider the relaxation or rest which is opposed to toil. Accordingly just as it belongs to effeminacy to be unable to endure toilsome things, so too it belongs thereto to desire play or any other relaxation inordinately.

Play is meant to restore us so we can do the work that we ought to do. Thus, I recommend that when it comes time to play, play hard. Don’t think about all the work that has to be done. There is no sin in enjoying yourself. When you get back to work however, work hard. Remember 1 Corinthians 10:31. Whatever you do, do it to the glory of God, including the usage of your leisure time.

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth! I’ve lately been wanting to impress on you the importance of being a thinking Christian. Toinght, I’m going to tell of another important step that will help you with learning how to think.

A few months ago, I did a debate on the topic of abortion. I thought it was an enjoyable debate and the audience thought I made the most convincing case I believe. However, there was a little problem with all of this. I was arguing on the side of being pro-abortion.

Now readers know that I’m not pro-abortion. What was going on then? It was a project for a friend and while there was a real pro-abortion person supposed to speak, he couldn’t make it and at the last minute, I was asked if I could be devil’s advocate and argue for abortion which I did. (Rest assured also my entire audience knew I was pro-life.)

Why I bring this up is that the reason I was able to argue pro-abortion enough to make an audience think I’d made a case is because it is important to know the arguments of your opponents. When you go to present an opinion on a certain issue, you need to know not only what you believe, but you also need to know what it is that your opponent believes as well and I would argue, you need to know it better than they know it.

What is enjoyable about this is that you can be debating your opponent and have them make an argument finally that they think is the killer argument and then you can say “Well it’s about time! I thought you’d never get to that argument! Here’s why it fails!”

This is also a lesson that the new atheists need to learn. Richard Dawkins, Victor Stenger, and others have been quite clear that they don’t think they need to understand Christian theology. One of the worst mistakes you could make with someone however is to claim to obliterate their worldview when the strongest minds in that worldview can tell you lack sufficient knowledge of that view.

If Stenger and Dawkins think that Christianity is nonsense, that’s their right to do so. However, they need to know what it is that Christianity actually teaches. For instance, when Bill Maher in Religulous talks to some truckers at a trucker’s chapel, he brings up a list of Christian doctrines although two of them are doctrines that are held by Roman Catholics. Maher is too unfamiliar with what Christians believe to realize what any Protestant in the audience who knows his faith would recognize immediately.

Thus, I recommend that you read the literature of the other side. Have fun doing it as well. It’s a great encouragement to know you’ve read the books that your opponent has read and have read your own as well. To argue against the new atheists, you need to be fluent not only in Christianity but atheism as well. That will again require study.

Know your opponent and how he thinks, and you’ll learn more about how you are to think as well.

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. We’ve been looking at the idea of being a thinking Christian. What does it mean? These are tips that I gave to some Middle and High Schoolers and I want to pass on to you readers.

Today, I’m going to suggest that you argue. Now I realize that for many Christians, argue is a dirty word. We are often told that you can’t argue anyone into the kingdom. Where if entering the kingdom is a personal decision, you can’t even love them in. You are a tool the Holy Spirit can use and maybe a means of doing that will be a good argument.

Arguing doesn’t mean to necessarily be combative either. There is a time and a place for that. Right now, I am just saying to go out into the marketplace of ideas and put your ideas out there. I do that on TheologyWeb.com often. In the past when I was a member on AOL, I did that on there. The great thing about this is that you can get to interact with people who really do believe what they believe that is contradictory to you.

Some of you might think I’m only talking about religion, but I’m not. The same can be said of politics or sports or history or most any other field where two people can disagree on something. Of course, religion is a favorite topic of mine to discuss and it is one worthy to discuss.

Here’s something to keep in mind when you start to do this. For awhile when you go out there, you are going to get your tail kicked. You will think you know your side well and then someone’s going to come along and hand you yours. I remember when I started apologetics I had the delusion that people just didn’t know this existed and when the truth is told, there will be mass repentance.

That delusion doesn’t last long.

There are all kinds of reasons why someone doesn’t believe something. Some of them could be factual. A lot of them are emotional and volitional. That’s not just Christians. That’s non-Christians as well. That’s part of being human. The trouble is, for most of us, and mostly guys, we don’t want to admit it’s emotional or volitional.

Thus, when you get your tail kicked, don’t worry about it. You need it. It will force you to go back to your studies and review why you believe what you believe and learn how to address the arguments better. In fact, it could be in some cases, such as secondary issues on Christianity, you’re just wrong and a good argument helps reveal that.

Arguing will also help in that you will become familiar with the ideas that way. When you have to use an argument regularly, you come to know that argument. If you have to read it in a book every few months, you won’t know it as well. Arguing forces you to know the facts and know them quickly.

To be a good thinker, you need to know how to think and a great way to do that is arguing. Whatever your subject, learn it, and then find someone who disagrees.

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth! Tonight, we’re going to be continuing our look on becoming a thinking Christian. I had a very wise friend contact me recently and it was a blessing to hear from them and tell me how much they enjoyed that as a teacher. I wish to continue now with another point that was made when I spoke on this topic.

That is to talk about what has been called the abomination that causes misinformation and that is Wikipedia.

Now if you’re looking up something non-controversial like the plot of a movie or video game, Wiki is fine. When my wife and I went through all of Smallville together, I’d often times look up characters on Wiki and see if anything was known about them that I could check out later. I have no problem with Wiki for that kind of thing.

When it comes to controversial matters however, Wiki is a terrible source to go to and sadly, it is often the first source we go to. Just do a web search for some topic and you’ll get Wiki brought up. In fact, I just went to Google and typed in “Jesus” and what came up first but Wikipedia?

There have been noted errors with Wikipedia in the past. For instance, did you know that Israel once had a death ray to kill non-Jews? Did you know that the comedian Sinbad was dead for several months? Did you know that Tony Blair as a teenager had posters of Hitler hung up on his wall? All of these were on Wikipedia.

The danger with Wikipedia is that it is so capable of being edited. You have no idea who is writing that entry on Wikipedia. Let’s suppose it is the entry on Jesus. It could be by N.T. Wright in which case you would get some excellent information. It could be by a kid at your local high school in which the information might not be so stellar. (Of course, I do know some high school students learning this stuff, but let’s face it, most aren’t) You could never know however. You are merely to trust it because it is on the internet.

There is a reason college professors no longer accept Wikipedia. It is because it is so unreliable, and yet it is what students are relying on. When you’re needing to do research for a class, by all means do some real research. There are excellent web sites you can find online. Take advantage of them. The best method still however is to go to your local library and/or bookstore and get books. When it comes time for me to write a research paper, I jump straight to Amazon and start looking for books. (You can find some amazing deals at times there too!)

Doing serious research will require that you use more than Wiki. That will require time and effort and maybe even money at times. The question to ask yourself however is how much real knowledge is worth to you? Do you really want to learn something or do you just want to get quick information for a paper and not have it make a lasting impression on you?

Note also that if you do debates online, don’t ever cite Wikipedia. As soon as I see someone cite that source, I know that they’re a lazy researcher. This even includes the blogger who made a post about God arguing for atheism and had the link on the word “God” go to Wikipedia.

No one can be an expert in every field, but with time and investment, you can become an expert in some fields. If you really want to be an expert, remember you will get out of your research what you put into it, and that won’t be much if you use a source like Wikipedia.

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth! Tonight, I’d like to write about a topic I got to think about some as I had to speak on it today to some Middle and High Schoolers at a Christian academy and that is the topic of becoming a thinking Christian. This will hopefully also become a regular series.

The first point I’d like to make for tonight is on books. We need to be people who read books. Saturday, I was sitting outside a local library and a little girl comes in ahead of her Mom saying “I just love books!” I’m beaming at that point. It was so relieving to hear of youth in this generation that like to read.

I refer to this generation specifically after reading Mark Bauerlein’s book “The Dumbest Generation.” Bauerlein says that the young generation should be the smartest that we have as they have more access to information than any other generation has ever had, and yet they’re the dumbest. (A full review of the book can be found hopefully one day on the Tekton Ticker.)

Books not being read is a major cause of the problem. This doesn’t just mean knowledge books such as philosophy, theology, and science. This also means fiction, as many of us can be blessed by reading works of fiction. I don’t just mean the Chronicles of Narnia either or Lord of the Rings, although these are fine works to read. I mean fiction that can introduce you to new ways of thinking be it mystery, fantasy, horror, or some other genre.

Read books that will challenge you. Don’t just read the writers that you agree with. Read the writers that you disagree with. If you’re like me and you like to debate online, it will be of great benefit to you to not only know your arguments well, but also the arguments of your opponents. You should know them so well that if need be, you could argue for them.

When reading material that is meant for academic purposes, read books by good authors. What are the credentials of the person writing the book? Don’t be fooled just because it says “PH.D.” on the cover. The person could have a PH.D. in a field completely unrelated to the topic that they are writing on.

If you shop online for books, such as at Amazon, check the other books that come up when you are picking the one you want to read. Who wrote them? What are they about? Feel free to check some reviews and see what other people are saying about the book.

Also, check such things as the date the book was written and the publisher. It could be the book is outdated. (Note: This does not apply to foundational writings like Plato, Aquinas, Tacitus, Newton, etc.) Check the publisher. Is it a reputable one? Don’t just look for the author’s worldview. Many times, I don’t even check it.

Become a friend of books and you are on the path to becoming a thinking Christian.