Advertisements

apologetics

This tag is associated with 259 posts

Book Review: “Can a Scientist Believe in Miracles?” by Ian Hutchinson

Can a Scientist Believe in Miracles? by Ian Hutchinson is an introductory-level apologetics work by a scientist that touches upon many, many questions that might be asked of believers.

The book is based largely upon Hutchinson’s own experiences of fielding questions as a speaker at Veritas Forum engagements. Thus, the book is set up in a question-and-answer format which groups like questions together. The book is a kind of grab-bag of topics that can be read either cover-to-cover or skimmed to find relevant questions.

The whole thing, however, is a fairly basic introduction to apologetics. Given the number of books of this particular type, readers may immediately, and fairly, ask why this book is relevant to them. The simplest answer is that this book is written by someone who, as a physicist, approaches the scientific questions with greater detail and knowledge than most books of this type. Hutchinson writes in a winsome manner, but he doesn’t skirt tough topics. Moreover, he approaches the questions included in  the volume with the mind of a scientist. He does not pull punches when it comes to scientific theories that have been demonstrated through many strands of evidence.

Can a Scientist Believe in Miracles? is a good introduction to a number of apologetics questions. It is particularly useful as a book to give to those who may be more interested in the scientific aspects of faith questions.

Disclaimer: I was provided with a copy of the book for review by the publisher. I was not required to give any specific kind of feedback whatsoever.

Links

Be sure to check out the page for this site on Facebook and Twitter for discussion of posts, links to other pages of interest, random talk about theology/philosophy/apologetics/movies and more!

Book Reviews– There are plenty more book reviews to read! Read like crazy! (Scroll down for more, and click at bottom for even more!)

SDG.

——

The preceding post is the property of J.W. Wartick (apart from quotations, which are the property of their respective owners, and works of art as credited; images are often freely available to the public and J.W. Wartick makes no claims of owning rights to the images unless he makes that explicit) and should not be reproduced in part or in whole without the expressed consent of the author. All content on this site is the property of J.W. Wartick and is made available for individual and personal usage. If you cite from these documents, whether for personal or professional purposes, please give appropriate citation with both the name of the author (J.W. Wartick) and a link to the original URL. If you’d like to repost a post, you may do so, provided you show less than half of the original post on your own site and link to the original post for the rest. You must also appropriately cite the post as noted above. This blog is protected by Creative Commons licensing. By viewing any part of this site, you are agreeing to this usage policy.

Advertisements

What’s Wrong With Apologetics?

One thing that strikes me is how dim a view so many have of apologetics. This is not just from people who aren’t Christian. I see theologians, clergy, etc. who don’t trust apologists. I say “don’t trust” because that’s accurately what people say: there is a perception of apologists or those doing apologetics as people who just want to win an argument. Apologists are viewed negatively with almost universal unanimity by those who are not Christians as well. Such universal aversion, even from within, ought to tell us that Something is wrong with apologetics. I wanted to spend some time to talk about what’s wrong with apologetics. I don’t have any quick fixes; I don’t have any way to repair the damage we apologists often do. I do offer a few possible solutions, so this doesn’t feel as hopeless as it might otherwise.

1. We are too quick to teach rather than learn.

We often have a lot of training and we do a lot of reading. So when someone comes along and makes a “basic” objection to Christianity or a clear mistake, we tend to shift to lecturing almost immediately. Rather than listening to the real concerns of others, we tend to move too swiftly into correction or trying to tell them why they’re wrong. It is rarely, if ever, helpful to try to lecture someone into your own position. Moreover, it shows a remarkable amount of self-importance and arrogance when we assume that others want or need us to teach them. Yes, it’s possible that people we speak with are woefully uninformed on a topic at hand; but that doesn’t mean it is our job to teach them or that they want us to do so.

Possible solutions: Refrain from teaching others unless they ask. Example: The person you are engaging says “Really? I don’t know much about that. Could you tell me more?”
Make every effort to spend at least as much time listening to others as you do talking. Example: You’re speaking with a non-Christian who appears not to know much about the topic; instead of lecturing them so they can learn about it, ask probing questions: “Why do you think that is?” “Have you heard about other possibilities?”
Before jumping into any explanation of something, ask if that is what the other person wants. Example: “May I share my perspective?” Note that genuine listening to their perspective will make it much more likely that they value hearing your own.

 2. We believe we are experts where we are not.

I think this one is hugely important. Training in apologetics is a kind of jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none training. You may think you’re an expert in evolutionary biology because you took a graduate or undergraduate level course on it. You’re not. I may think I am qualified to lecture on the history of philosophy given how many philosophers I’ve read. I’m not. No one can be an expert on everything, and becoming an expert on just one thing takes a massive investment of time and resources. But I see and have heard of Christian apologists constantly firing off on things they simply don’t know anything about. It’s okay to have an opinion, but acting as if that opinion is a reasoned response to thousands of hours of study when it is really just a general sense is deeply problematic. Moreover, apologists too often engage in fields where they are not even close to experts, and end up coming off as rather arrogant and ignorant as a result.

Possible solutions: Admit you are not an expert. “I had one class in college on economics, so I am sure you know more than I do. Perhaps you can tell me why you feel so strongly about your differing position?”
Do not lecture (see above!). Unless you have an advanced degree in biology, your attempts to argue that there must be a creator for the origin of life might actually be amateurish without you knowing it. An expert in that field may see you as a fraud. It is okay to say “I don’t know much about this topic, but it seems to me that x requires y. Could you explain why you think differently?”

3. We do not value other perspectives.

Just the fact that someone else is a different religion than your own or -gasp- a different denomination or political party does not mean they are automatically wrong. Guess what, you make mistakes too! Indeed, I have been forced to change my perspective on a large number of things upon deeper examination of the evidence. You’re probably wrong about something, so maybe other people with different perspectives can present great learning opportunities for you or ways to challenge your own beliefs.

Possible solutions: Don’t waste time trying to correct others’ (wrong) opinions. They don’t need that and probably won’t value what you’re doing at all. Use disagreement to come to deeper understanding and respect. Our ultimate goal may be to “win others to Christ,” but we can’t do that if we’re too busy being complete meatheads to everyone we disagree with in the meantime.

4. We don’t actually treat others with gentleness and respect.

I think this is pretty obvious. We all know we’ve seen apologists being totally rude and disrespectful to others. Don’t do it. If you see it, call that out.

5. We are too dismissive of the difficult history of Christians and Christianity.

“That’s a ad hominem!” “That’s a genetic fallacy!” “That was so long ago and not my denomination!”

Yep. We have all done this when confronted with the very real, long, horrible history of Christians behaving badly. Antebellum slavery, Crusades, witch hunts, inquisitions, the list can go on and on. If your gut reaction to that list was to say one of the above, you’re part of the problem. Martin Luther was anti-Semitic, so were a boatload of the Reformers. Maybe instead of dismissing that history, we ought to apologize for and reject it. It would go a long way.

6. We dismiss concerns of others by calling them logical fallacies.

There was a little bit of this seen in the previous point, but we apologists love pointing out fallacies. I know I do. It’s kind of like the “Gnostic” card for theologians, it gives a thrill to bust your opponents’ use of the genetic fallacy. Boom, argument won, right? Well, maybe, but it hardly comes across as “kindness/gentleness and respect” when you’re talking to someone at Thanksgiving and telling them they’re guilty of post hoc ergo propter hoc. Fallacies are a real thing, but it’s also possible to misidentify a fallacy and make a fallacy fallacy, as I call it: saying someone is being fallacious when they’re not. Indeed, many fallacies can be too liberally applied: the fallacy of appealing to an expert may be mistaken, but if 99% of all experts in a given field agree on something, that ought to give us pause if we disagree. Again, we’re not experts on everything.

Possible solutions: don’t jump to conclusions regarding fallacies. If someone is truly engaging in a lengthy argument with you, maybe it’s okay to start pointing them out by name, but it usually doesn’t expand the conversation.
Instead of calling fallacies by name, which may come off as throwing your learning in someone’s face, just explain the issue. “You suggested Lutheranism must be false because Martin Luther was an anti-Semite. I agree he was anti-Semitic, and I think that is deeply, horribly wrong. It is possible to be wrong about one thing and right about other things, though, don’t you agree?” It takes more work than shouting “genetic fallacy, you lose!” but it may get you farther in conversation.

7. We over-value our heroes and under-value our “foes.” 

William Lane Craig said it, so it must be true, right?

Cornelius Van Til’s apologetic approach can’t be wrong, can it?

Yeah, we have heroes. They make mistakes, too. Just because William Lane Craig did a Defenders podcast about something doesn’t mean he actually is right about a specific doctrinal point. Moreover, we’re too willing to look over real moral or philosophical failings in our heroes. It’s okay to acknowledge that someone we admire can be wrong about something. They certainly are. More importantly, it is altogether possible that some of the “arch-enemies” of Christianity have some things right. Richard Dawkins. The name alone is enough to raise hackles for some, but we should not dismiss everything the man says. He is truly an expert on evolutionary biology who taught at Oxford as a Professor for Public Understanding of Science! Is it possible that we might gain some understanding of science from the guy? Probably. Yes. We would.

Possible solutions: Be ready to admit when your favorites get things wrong and be willing to acknowledge it.
Read works by others with the intent to understand what they’re saying rather than exclusively to refute it.

8. We do not practice what we preach.

I heard it time and again in apologetics classes: “Christianity is offensive enough, we don’t need to make it more offensive.” The general implication was that we ought not to add baggage to Christianity that might drive others off. But far, far too many apologists are all too willing to dismiss others’ real world concerns as the ramblings of a “social justice warrior” (itself seen as a bad thing) or to write off ethical concerns as beneath us. Yet it is definitely not wrong to say that Jesus loved the poor, warned the rich, and came for the sinner. Those “social justice” concerns that altogether too many apologists write off as some kind of conspiracy of atheists are truly concerns of the Christian and found in the Bible, which exhorts us to “do justice.” Yes, yes, I now: “justice” may look different to different people. But before you rush off to dismiss others’ concerns, maybe spend some time listening to why they have whatever catch phrase written on their T-shirt or why they feel so strongly about a topic that they’re marching for what they believe is justice. Genuine, caring listening–especially to those with whom we disagree–can go a long way to heal the perception that Christian apologists currently have.

9. We circle the wagons.

There’s not an easy way to say this, and I’ve said it a few times already: you’re wrong about a lot of things. No one’s perfect; it’s okay. But if your gut reaction to someone’s challenge to your belief is to double down rather than even listen to their perspective, that might mean you need to spend some time really thinking about that topic. Simply standing up and re-asserting you’re right again and again doesn’t actually engage anyone else.

Conclusion

There’s a lot wrong with apologetics. A lot. I say this as someone with an advanced degree in the field. Hopefully reading this will lead to some introspection, and some other bloggers going and writing their own reflections, and maybe some changing of hearts can happen. We need to fix apologetics. We need to take seriously the fact that it has such a negative perception, even within the church. It’s not a matter of arguing more–it’s a matter of truly taking feedback and acting on it. I hope this helps.

In Christ,

J.W. Wartick

SDG.

Book Review: “The Morals of the Story: Good News about a Good God” by David Baggett and Marybeth Baggett

The Morals of the Story: Good News about a Good God is a witty look at the moral argument and some objections to it.

The book begins with an overview of the moral argument (more like moral arguments because there are several varieties) throughout the centuries, giving readers a working knowledge of the major philosophers who have engaged with the argument in the past. A brief section addresses Euthyphro’s dilemma in between the major sections before transitioning into positive arguments in favor of the premises of the moral argument. The argument the Baggett’s present is an abductive version of the argument rather than a deductive one. That is, their argument relies on observations of moral facts leads to God’s existence as the best conclusion from these facts.

David and Marybeth Baggett provide readers with anecdotes and examples to break up the more philosophical portions of the book, and there are study questions at the end of each chapter. The book is geared towards those with up to a moderate knowledge of the moral argument and can serve as an introduction to the same. Overall, the book seems to be presenting the argument in a winsome way alongside giving the basics such that readers will come away able to articulate the argument themselves.

The Morals of the Story: Good News about a Good God is a good introduction to one of the more intriguing theistic proofs. It acts as an introductory synthesis to much of David Baggett’s earlier work on the same argument. It’s recommended for those who are engaging in apologetics and interested in exploring this argument further. It could be used as a study group book, as well.

Disclaimer: I was provided with a copy of the book for review by the publisher. I was not required to give any specific kind of feedback whatsoever.

Links

Be sure to check out the page for this site on Facebook and Twitter for discussion of posts, links to other pages of interest, random talk about theology/philosophy/apologetics/movies and more!

Book Reviews– There are plenty more book reviews to read! Read like crazy! (Scroll down for more, and click at bottom for even more!)

SDG.

——

The preceding post is the property of J.W. Wartick (apart from quotations, which are the property of their respective owners, and works of art as credited; images are often freely available to the public and J.W. Wartick makes no claims of owning rights to the images unless he makes that explicit) and should not be reproduced in part or in whole without the expressed consent of the author. All content on this site is the property of J.W. Wartick and is made available for individual and personal usage. If you cite from these documents, whether for personal or professional purposes, please give appropriate citation with both the name of the author (J.W. Wartick) and a link to the original URL. If you’d like to repost a post, you may do so, provided you show less than half of the original post on your own site and link to the original post for the rest. You must also appropriately cite the post as noted above. This blog is protected by Creative Commons licensing. By viewing any part of this site, you are agreeing to this usage policy.

Book Review: “Mad or God?” by Pablo Martinez and Andrew Sims

C.S. Lewis’s famous trilemma is central to Martinez and Sims’s investigation in Mad or God? That trilemma states:

A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic… or else he would be the devil of hell…” (cited on page xi)

The trilemma, then, is that Jesus is, as many have put it, mad, bad, or God (or Liar, Lord, or Lunatic). In Mad or God?, Martinez and Sims examine the claim in light of whether Jesus can be read as a madman. What’s interesting is that, unlike many works on the trilemma (or ones which reference it), this one is written by two who have expertise in the topic. According to the author blurbs, Pablo Martinez is a psychiatrist and Andrew Sims is a “world-renowned authority on the study of the symptoms of the mind (psychopathology).”

The book is centered around chapters which examine Jesus’s words in the Gospels and looking at whether, from a psychiatric standpoint, they qualify as various forms of psychopathy. These chapters examine, then, whether Jesus was mentally disturbed, psychotic, suffered from mental impairment, had a questionable character, lived a consistent life, sustained healthy relationships, was tested by adversity, had a positive influence, and made claims that might be sustained.

Each chapter is fairly short and gets straight to the heart of the claim. While acknowledging the difficulty with psychoanalysis of people who are long-dead, the authors work with the information on hand–the words and acts of Jesus in the Gospels. For example, in the chapter on psychosis, the authors outline the symptoms of psychopathy and look at the accusation of the same for Jesus. Of particular interest is the reaction of Jesus’s family, which the authors argue is understandable given the claims Jesus was making. Then, the authors go through individual symptoms of psychosis and argue that Jesus does not cohere with these symptoms. This is essentially the model for each chapter of the book, making it an easy reference for those interested in the trilemma argument. If someone says that Jesus was mentally impaired, flip to that chapter and see why we may trust he was not. If they wish for positive evidence of soundness of mind, a perusal of the chapters on relationships and consistency will serve.

An objection that might immediately come up to this work is that if the Gospels are not trustworthy historical accounts of Jesus’s words, then the whole argument falls apart. Sims and Martinez essentially leave this argument to others, and indeed there are many, many works which seek to answer this objection. Essentially, this book’s aim is to show that if we take the words and actions of Jesus as having been reported in a trustworthy manner, then it is clear that Jesus is not a lunatic.

Mad or God? is a unique and pithy look at one of the most popular arguments for the deity of Christ. With its short length, it does not comprehensively deal with every issue that may come up, but as a quick reference for those wishing to make this argument, it is excellent.

Links

Be sure to check out the page for this site on Facebook and Twitter for discussion of posts, links to other pages of interest, random talk about theology/philosophy/apologetics/movies and more!

Book Reviews– There are plenty more book reviews to read! Read like crazy! (Scroll down for more, and click at bottom for even more!)

SDG.

——

The preceding post is the property of J.W. Wartick (apart from quotations, which are the property of their respective owners, and works of art as credited; images are often freely available to the public and J.W. Wartick makes no claims of owning rights to the images unless he makes that explicit) and should not be reproduced in part or in whole without the expressed consent of the author. All content on this site is the property of J.W. Wartick and is made available for individual and personal usage. If you cite from these documents, whether for personal or professional purposes, please give appropriate citation with both the name of the author (J.W. Wartick) and a link to the original URL. If you’d like to repost a post, you may do so, provided you show less than half of the original post on your own site and link to the original post for the rest. You must also appropriately cite the post as noted above. This blog is protected by Creative Commons licensing. By viewing any part of this site, you are agreeing to this usage policy.

Presuppositionalism vs. Evidentialism – A case study on apologetic method featuring Cornelius Van Til and John Warwick Montgomery

Cornelius Van Til

Cornelius Van Til and John Warwick Montgomery are two of the most prominent defenders of opposing views of apologetics. Van Til defends presuppositionalism, an apologetic method that is founded on the notion that God’s existence must be presupposed–it is the beginning of the reasoning process rather than the end. Evidentialism is a school of apologetics that seeks to show that evidences–often historical evidence for the Resurrection–yield the conclusion that God exists and that Christianity is true. One of these views (presuppositionalism), in other words, argues top down by assuming God exists and showing how the world cannot be understood without that posited fact; the other (evidentialism) goes bottom up, showing how beliefs that are, purportedly [1], shared by Christians and non-Christians may demonstrate the truth of Christianity.

What makes these two particularly interesting is that they each offer a kind of parable for their position. These parables each, individually, reveal much about how the apologist thinks apologetics ought–and ought not–to be done. Though their parables are too long to post in their entirety, we will here examine some key aspects of both Van Til’s and Montgomery’s picture imagery about how apologetics should work.

Cornelius Van Til’s Misters White, Grey, and Black

Cornelius Van Til’s apologetic approach is illustrated in an extended section of his work The Defense of the Faith. Here, he utilizes three men: Mr. White (standing in for the presuppositional apologist), Mr. Grey (standing in for the evidential–he calls “Romanist-evangelical”–apologist), and Mr. Black (standing in for the non-Christian) in dialogue with each other to illustrate how he believes apologetics should work, as well as what he sees as fatal objections to his opposition.

The section in question is found in p. 312-340 of the aforementioned work. Van Til argues that Mr. Black will be more comfortable with Mr. Grey because Mr. Grey concedes some ground to him: “Mr. Grey uses the Bible, experience, reason, or logic as equally independent sources of information about his own and therefore about Mr. Black’s predicament” (313). Though he concedes that Mr. Grey may see the Bible as “by far the most important” of these sources, the problem is that he sees these sources of knowledge independently. A problem that develops over this dialogue as Van Til develops it is that Mr. Black refuses to see himself as a lost person in need of repentance, and so Mr. Grey’s position cannot challenge the foundation of his view: a rejection of the authority of the Bible.

Mr. Grey can stand on “common ground” with Mr. Black (320) and this allows for a quicker response from Mr. Black to Mr. Grey than to Mr. White. Here, of course, we begin to see Van Til’s explicitly Calvinist/Reformed position come through. It is simply the case that Van Til believed that his position was such that it would offer an absolute refutation of all but the Calvinist/Reformed position, in addition to being used with non-Christians. This limits the applicability of his argument a bit for those who do not accept that position, but we’ll press on.

The crux of the argument comes when the question of proofs of the existence of God and Christianity come up. Here, Van Til notes that “If one reasons for the existence of God and for the truth of Christianity on the assumption that Mr. Black’s principles of explanation are valid, then one must witness on the same assumption” (339). Thus, in the dialogue, we see Mr. Grey attempting to witness to Mr. Black, having come to an agreement that Mr. White is wrong on a number of levels. But Mr. Grey is taken aback when Mr. Black fails to concede the argument. Here, we see Mr. Black speaking to Mr. Grey:

“[Y]ou are now witnessing to Christ as well as to God, to Christianity as well as to theism. I suppose your argument… would be similar in nature… You would argue that the Jesus of the New Testament is probably the Son of God and that he quite probably died for the sins of men…. by witnessing instead of reasoning you seem to admit that there is no objective claim for the truth of what you hold with respect to Christ. Am I right in all this?” (337-338)

This, for Van Til, is where the evidentialist argument completely collapses. Because they fail to have an objective basis for believing in God/Christ, they ultimately concede the position to the non-Christian, allowing only for subjective witness to the truth of Christianity. Because Mr. Grey concedes that Mr. Black can reason independently of the truth of the Bible, he allows Mr. Black to use his independent reason to utterly reject the same. This concession is seen when Mr. Grey “nods approval” to Mr. Black’s argument that “unconditional surrender to the authority of Scripture is irrational” (332). He does the same when Mr. Black objects that it is rationalistic (ibid). Further, because Mr. Grey admits of “possibility” rather than certainty when it comes to arguments about the existence of God, he allows the non-Christian Mr. Black to reject God based on “possibility” as well. Probability does not yield certainty, so certainty is what is required. Only Mr. White’s position which argues from absolute certainty by presupposing the truth of the Bible is capable of granting an objective basis for affirming God’s existence and Jesus Christ as God, in addition to many other Christian doctrines.

Thus, for Van Til, the necessity of his position is proved by the argument that, without such a presupposition, the non-Christian may be perfectly comfortable rejecting Christianity through means of “probability” already present in his or her view of the world.

John Warwick Montgomery’s “Once Upon an A Priori

John Warwick Montgomery, a prominent evidential apologist, felt the weight of Van Til’s argument and offered his own parable in response. Montgomery’s parable may be found in his work Faith Founded on Fact: Essays in Evidential Apologetics. There, he writes of the people of Shadok and Gibi, who each refuse to concede any “brute” or “neutral” ground regarding facts. For each, it is his or her own God who is the one, single, true God that must be presupposed (God-Sh for Shadok and God-G for Gibi). A brief excerpt gets at the heart of John Warwick Montgomery’s argument:

Shadok: You will never discover the truth, for instead of subordinating yourself to revelation truth (Bible-SH), you sinfully insist on maintaining the autonomy of your fallen intellect.
Gibi: Quite the contrary! [He repeats exactly the same asseriton, substituting (Bible-G) for (Bible-Sh)]… (114)

The conversation goes on, referencing Van Til’s insistence on the notion that the non-Christian wears colored glasses that make it impossible for them to see anything outside of their single-hued world. Montgomery concludes “The hopelessness of this encounter should be painfully evident. Neither viewpoint can prevail, since by definition all appeal  to neutral evidence is eliminated” (115, emphasis his). Thus, John Warwick Montgomery’s own parable is a counter to Van Til’s, one which argues instead that neutral evidence–evidence that Mr. Grey, Mr. White, and Mr. Black all have access to–must exist, for otherwise they would have nothing to which they could appeal to determine who is right.

A Critical Comparison

The conversation between these competing parables does not, of course, stop with the original authors. The late Greg Bahnsen, a defender of Van Til’s apologetic, wrote an article responding to John Warwick Montgomery’s critique. There, Bahnsen argues that Montgomery misunderstands presuppositionalism on a number of accounts, but primarily because “Montgomery fails to see that Van Til’s apologetic claims that use of facts and logic is not simply directed in a different direction on non-Christian presuppositions, but is in principle impossible” (see link, emphasis his). In contrast, Greg Habermas, another evidentialist, argued that it was Bahnsen who failed to get at the critique Montgomery offered. In his own article, he replies to Bahnsen by arguing that:

the often contradictory interpretations of facts must be taken, in the sense of the
creative intermix between induction and deduction that Piercean abduction or “inference
to the best explanation” typifies, to the facts themselves. (see link)

These hint at a much broader debate, largely centered around the nature of facts. The presuppositionalist argues there is no neutral ground (a position that appealed to me enough at one point [almost 10 years ago! ah!] to write a post on it). The evidentialist argues that, quite contrary, there must be neutral facts because otherwise no one could determine whether their own view is correct. The presuppositionalist responds by arguing that it is only by presupposing the one true worldview (eg. Christianity) that one may correctly analyze facts. Indeed, it is perfectly possible to appeal to facts, not because they are “brute” or “neutral,” but because worldviews other than Christianity are necessarily inconsistent. That is, it is certainly possible for any non-Christian to know truth, but only because they have inconsistently turned from their worldview to adopt presuppositions of Christianity on certain points. The extent to which the non-Christian has true knowledge, then, is the extent to which their own worldview is inconsistent.

Conclusions

At this point, readers may wonder how these two contrary positions could ever meet. I honestly begin to despair myself, trying to draw this to a close. Rather than attempting to offer decisive conclusions in this debate that has gone on for years and thousands upon thousands of words, I want to offer a few of my own observations.

First, it seems to me that, supposing presuppostionalists are correct and there is no neutral ground, it is impossible to engage with other worldviews without making a practical, working assumption that there is such neutral ground. Though the presuppositionalist may be correct in that the non-Christian is inconsistent at every point they can agree on facts, they must come to some facts that they do agree on. At that point, the presuppositionalist may point out the non-Christian is inconsistent, and thus build their case from there, but it is only at that point that the methods truly diverge. Indeed, when one observes someone like Greg Bahnsen in debate (a review that is probably more favorable than I would be now), one sees the vast difference in method from someone who uses a more evidential or classical approach. But my point is that, on a practical level, there isn’t actually a huge difference between the evidentialist and the presuppositionalist when it comes to utilizing facts. They may both object to this, but the presuppositionalist would point to a fact (which they would, yes, hold may only be properly understood or believed from a Christian perspective) that Jesus was in fact crucified and died in order to show the truth of the Resurrection, and the evidentialist would point to that same fact, though their overall cases may differ. It is only when the presuppositionalist moves to the overarching, so-named transcendetal argument that the methods would radically differ. Now, plenty of presuppositionalists would use the TAG (transcendental argument for God) immediately, so their method will be quite different.

It does seem to me that the above comments yield the notion that presuppositionalism may be a bit too strong in its utter denial of any possibility of contact with the unbeliever. On an objective, totally abstract level one may concede that. But given that human language works for communication, there must be points of contact. Sure, that may mean the non-Christian is inconsistent on that high, abstract level, but it also means that the presuppositionalist can operate around the same when it comes to offering evidence–which itself falsifies the accusation that presuppositionalists don’t utilize evidence.

Another possible negative of the presuppositional view is that it is unfalsifiable, because at every point on which there is disagreement, the presuppositionalist may simply appeal to a misunderstanding. Like John Warwick Montgomery’s parable, they may simply assert the non-Christian is not understanding or suppressing the truth, and that’s why they don’t acknowledge it. Of course, some presuppositionalists may see this unfalsifiability as a strength of their position, which, they might argue, yields certainty of belief. But then, we come full circle into the notion that any other unfalsifiable view could appeal to the same reasoning.

I hardly think I’ve solved these problems, but it is a worthy exercise for those interested in apologetics to engage with these two divergent methods and try to learn from them. For myself, I think an integration of various methods works best.

All quotations used are from the works cited and used under fair use for purposes such as criticism. 

Works Cited

Cornelius Van Til, The Defense of the Faith (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2008).

Gary Habermas, “Greg Bahnsen, John Warwick Montgomery, and Evidential Apologetics.” https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.bing.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1108&context=lts_fac_pubs. Accessed January 2019.

Greg Bahnsen, “A Critique of the Evidentialist Apologetical Method of John Warwick Montgomery.” http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pa016.htm. Accessed January 2019.

John Warwick Montgomery, Faith Founded on Fact (Edmonton, AB Canada: Canadian Institute for Law, Theology, and Public Policy, Inc., 2001).

Links

Be sure to check out the page for this site on Facebook and Twitter for discussion of posts, links to other pages of interest, random talk about theology/philosophy/apologetics/movies and more!

SDG.

——

The preceding post is the property of J.W. Wartick (apart from quotations, which are the property of their respective owners, and works of art as credited; images are often freely available to the public and J.W. Wartick makes no claims of owning rights to the images unless he makes that explicit) and should not be reproduced in part or in whole without the expressed consent of the author. All content on this site is the property of J.W. Wartick and is made available for individual and personal usage. If you cite from these documents, whether for personal or professional purposes, please give appropriate citation with both the name of the author (J.W. Wartick) and a link to the original URL. If you’d like to repost a post, you may do so, provided you show less than half of the original post on your own site and link to the original post for the rest. You must also appropriately cite the post as noted above. This blog is protected by Creative Commons licensing. By viewing any part of this site, you are agreeing to this usage policy.

[1] I say “purportedly” because presuppositionalists would deny that non-Christians may share any beliefs with Christians. By not having the same starting point–God–all other facts come into question.

 

Apologetics Guided Reading: George Park Fisher “Manual of Christian Evidences” Chapter 10

I am leading a guided reading of the Manual of Christian Evidences by George Park Fisher. It is freely available online and will serve as a base for discussing Christian apologetics throughout this series. The chapters are short and readable. I encourage you to join in by reading the chapters and commenting with your thoughts. When I discuss the book, I will be citing page numbers from the edition linked above

Chapter 10

Fisher here builds upon his arguments from chapter 8 and chapter 9 regarding the trustworthiness of the Gospels and the apostles, building a case for the resurrection once we have found the Gospels to be trustworthy.

First, Fisher notes that the detail that Jesus actually died needs little defense. The idea that Jesus could have survived crucifixion seems impossible. Moreover, that Jesus began appearing on the third day doesn’t give enough time for expectations or development of theology to occur such that the disciples could have imagined fulfillment for it. The most powerful evidence, argues Fisher, for the resurrection of Jesus comes from the appearances to the apostles and their accounting of them. These show that Jesus was physically present and unexpected.

Study Questions

1. What kind of things occurred during crucifixion? Could someone have survived them? What kind of responsibility did Roman guards have for those whose executions they were guarding?

2. Write down aspects of Jesus’s appearance to the apostles found in the Gospels. What things do we know about Jesus from these accounts? Include physical details.

Links

Be sure to check out the page for this site on Facebook and Twitter for discussion of posts, links to other pages of interest, random talk about theology/philosophy/apologetics/movies and more!

Apologetics Read-Through: Historical Apologetics Read-Along– Here are links for the collected posts in this series and other read-throughs of apologetics books (forthcoming).

Dead Apologists Society– A page for Christians interested in the works of historical apologetics. There is also a Facebook group for it.

SDG.

——

The preceding post is the property of J.W. Wartick (apart from quotations, which are the property of their respective owners, and works of art as credited; images are often freely available to the public and J.W. Wartick makes no claims of owning rights to the images unless he makes that explicit) and should not be reproduced in part or in whole without the expressed consent of the author. All content on this site is the property of J.W. Wartick and is made available for individual and personal usage. If you cite from these documents, whether for personal or professional purposes, please give appropriate citation with both the name of the author (J.W. Wartick) and a link to the original URL. If you’d like to repost a post, you may do so, provided you show less than half of the original post on your own site and link to the original post for the rest. You must also appropriately cite the post as noted above. This blog is protected by Creative Commons licensing. By viewing any part of this site, you are agreeing to this usage policy.

Jehovah’s Witnesses are in your community. What do you do?

The headquarters of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society- credit: By Sergio Herrera – Sergio Herrera’s (Q.Entropy) Flickr page, CC BY-SA 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=15112279

Over the weekend, there were Jehovah’s Witnesses that had flown in to go door-to-door in our community. I typed up a brief list of things to think about or discuss if they are in your own neighborhood. I do not claim this is comprehensive; this is just a starting point for discussions.

Above all else, please be courteous and kind in all of your interactions with Jehovah’s Witnesses.

If you are interested in having a discussion, be aware of a few things:
1) They have certain passages they have been trained to expect (eg. John 1:1) and will not deviate from their own “translation” which, though wrong, will not be fruitful in trying to dissuade them from.
2) They are seeking the truth, just as we are.
3) They do not believe Jesus is God, but rather Michael the Archangel (though I have had some deny this)–see below for a few verses to discuss this.
4) They believe they must work to get to heaven. Emphasize God’s grace in your own interactions with them.

If you do want to go into some depth, here are some good passages:
1. Compare Isaiah 44:24 (YHWH/The LORD [they’d say Jehovah] is speaking and says that God made the heavens “by myself.” to Colossians 1:16 in which the son creates all things–if the Son creates all and God creates all “by myself,” who is the Son? [Note: their translation will say that the Son creates all “other” things in Colossians 1, inserting the word “other” many times in the opening chapter where it doesn’t exist in the Greek manuscripts, but this doesn’t undermine the point, because even if it says “other” things, those other things are things Jehovah creates “by myself” in Isaiah]
2. Compare Revelation 22:8-9 [John bows down to an angel, thinking, apparently, the angel is God or worthy of worship] to Hebrews 1:5-6 (and following) [the Son is listed as being worshiped and even angels must worship the Son].
3. Walk through Jeremiah 23:5-6 in their own translation. Ask who the first verse is about–who is the one from the branch of David? Jesus, clearly, and they’ll agree. Then in verse 6, what is the name that Jesus will be called–JEHOVAH our righteousness. It says this in their own translation. So if the prophecy is about Jesus, and Jehovah says the name of this coming king will be Jehovah…. who is Jesus?

Finally, pray for those with whom you disagree.

SDG.

Apologetics Guided Reading: George Park Fisher “Manual of Christian Evidences” Chapter 9

I am leading a guided reading of the Manual of Christian Evidences by George Park Fisher. It is freely available online and will serve as a base for discussing Christian apologetics throughout this series. The chapters are short and readable. I encourage you to join in by reading the chapters and commenting with your thoughts. When I discuss the book, I will be citing page numbers from the edition linked above.

Chapter 9

Fisher’s argument in chapter 9 centers on the credibility of the apostles. In Chapter 8, he argued for the credibility of the Gospels, so he builds on the notion that the Gospels may be trusted to report the words of the Apostles to the question of why we ought to trust them.

First, he notes that we ought to generally trust people unless we have reason to distrust them, whether through intent to deceive or some independent reason to doubt their testimony (71). Other reasons to distrust them may be that they were “enthusiasts” or “simpletons.” A primary reason Fisher cites to trust the apostles is that they give testimony that shows them in a poor light. One example is Paul’s own writings in which he states that he persecuted the church (72-73). They also admit their own contentions about who should be first–the inner fights they had, and the rebukes against some of them by Jesus. Their willingness to show themselves as foolish or mistaken in various forms lends credence to their reports as truth.

Regarding the miracles they report, Fisher touches on the mythic theory put forward by David Friedrich Strauss–that the miracles found in the Gospels were imagined by followers of Jesus who were so caught up in him that they (intentionally or not) invented tales about his power. Fisher counters this by noting that this gets the story backwards, for the reason so many were interested in Jesus was because of the very miracles those selfsame people are alleged to have invented. How could they have become followers of Christ on account of miracles if they themselves invented them (74-75)?

One objection to the authenticity of the Gospels is found in alleged discrepancies between their accounts. Fisher approaches this argument from a few different ways. First, he notes that many of these alleged contradictions are not actually contradictions at all. He does not exhaustively look at such contradictions (for such a look, it is interesting to look at J.J. Blunt’s Undesigned Coincidences). Second, Fisher argues that minor discrepancies are to be expected in any human testimony. Should we demand 100% agreement in all testimony everywhere, courts would have to be “shut up, for the most veracious witnesses seldom agree in all the minutiae which enter into their testimony” (76).  One example I use personally is that of someone’s height. I’m short for an adult man, so on the witness stand I may call someone “tall” who someone of average of height might call “average.” Such a discrepancy in testimony doesn’t suggest we’d both be wrong, but that human perspective changes based on who the witness is. Fisher’s comments here would likely make some uncomfortable regarding specific doctrines of inspiration, particularly a stringent view of inerrancy. It seems Fisher is willing to allow for their to be even some factual discrepancies between the Gospels due to their human authorship. Third, Fisher notes that the Gospels are not intended to be exhaustive historical accounts but rather the remembrances of eyewitnesses, and so frequently the apparent contradictions or discrepancies could be resolved by simply having more detail. These details are often provided by other Gospel accounts, so it is important to compare them.

Regarding the miracles in the apostles’ accounts, Fisher notes a few lines of evidence. First, they verify revelations. Second, the miracles go against prevailing belief, such that they went against expectations. Third, several of the miracles were in circumstances people felt they were highly unlikely to occur. Fourth, the apostles were subject to persecution regarding their belief in many of these miracles. Thus, if they were inventing them, it was likely they would have given up the invention rather than try to maintain their false pretense. Fifth, the manner of reporting of miracles the apostles had was such that it lends credence to “sobriety of mind” rather than invented myths. Regarding the appearances of Christ, one of the points Fisher makes is that they were limited in time and scope. If they were invented, why would the appearances have stopped?

I think regarding Fisher’s last point, we could note that some do still allege appearances of Christ here and there. There are the infamous “Jesus toast” type of instances, which are dismissed by virtually all, including believers. So again, this seems to go against the idea that Christ-followers were or continue to be particularly prone to the invention and perpetuation of the miraculous. This doesn’t go into issues of charismata and the like, but questions and responses could be asked here as we continue to look at the nature of the miraculous.

Fisher’s succinct chapter here is filled with lines of thought. Again, he merely touches on most issues, but his arguments seem powerful. What takeaways did you have from this chapter?

Study Questions

  1. Fisher’s response to Strauss is quite brief. How might you expand it? What other interactions with Strauss have you run into?
  2. What do you think of Fisher’s comments regarding discrepancies in the apostles’ accounts? How might his answer impact one’s view of the Bible?
  3. What apparent contradictions have you seen in the Bible that you have been able to resolve?

Links

Be sure to check out the page for this site on Facebook and Twitter for discussion of posts, links to other pages of interest, random talk about theology/philosophy/apologetics/movies and more!

Apologetics Read-Through: Historical Apologetics Read-Along– Here are links for the collected posts in this series and other read-throughs of apologetics books (forthcoming).

Dead Apologists Society– A page for Christians interested in the works of historical apologetics. There is also a Facebook group for it.

SDG.

——

The preceding post is the property of J.W. Wartick (apart from quotations, which are the property of their respective owners, and works of art as credited; images are often freely available to the public and J.W. Wartick makes no claims of owning rights to the images unless he makes that explicit) and should not be reproduced in part or in whole without the expressed consent of the author. All content on this site is the property of J.W. Wartick and is made available for individual and personal usage. If you cite from these documents, whether for personal or professional purposes, please give appropriate citation with both the name of the author (J.W. Wartick) and a link to the original URL. If you’d like to repost a post, you may do so, provided you show less than half of the original post on your own site and link to the original post for the rest. You must also appropriately cite the post as noted above. This blog is protected by Creative Commons licensing. By viewing any part of this site, you are agreeing to this usage policy.

Book Review: “Always Be Ready” by Hugh Ross with Kathy Ross

Always Be Ready is another entry in the crowded field of introductory apologetics works. What sets it apart? I’d answer the question two ways: first, it has a number of deeply personal stories about faith and defending the faith from a noted apologist, Hugh Ross; second, it gives more insight than most books do into how to set up your own apologetics group/meeting/blog/etc.

The Ross couple give a number of anecdotes about their experience sharing the faith. As with most of the books from Reasons to Believe, there are a number of scientific discoveries sprinkled throughout the work. But the focus of the book is really on the title and the verse(s) it is taken from, 1 Peter 3:15-16 (NIV) “Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.”

Too often, apologists focus on the preparation and being ready, but not on the gentleness and respect aspects of it. The authors do a great job preparing readers for that side, while also opening readers to the resources to explore how to be ready for a defense when needed. The aspects of apologetic argument that are offered are in line with other Reasons to Believe publications, primarily focused upon an old earth creationist, concordist view of science, and seeing science as directly related to specific statements in the Bible. Whether one finds such a view of hermeneutics compelling or not will determine, largely, how useful such sections are.

But the book also has a surprising latter part, which deals in specifics of setting up small or large groups for apologetics discussions, along with a few tips that can apply to blogging, other online ministries, and more. I found these sections particularly useful, because they aren’t often things that apologetics works touch upon. It’s one thing to have an apologetics method and knowledge, but what if we don’t know how to sit down and compassionately, compellingly share that? The authors prepare readers for just that activity, making the last section of the book extremely valuable. Tips include thinking about your goal for the group. A large group is nice on the “numbers” front, but you won’t be able to make it as personalized as a smaller group. On the flip side, a larger group may allow some people who aren’t comfortable in small group settings to come and be somewhat anonymous. These kinds of tips that direct thinking for those who are eager to go and share their faith are essential reading.

Always Be Ready is a solid, introductory apologetics work with a focus on method and storytelling. Those are two aspects that aren’t discussed enough in much of the apologetics-related literature.

Disclaimer: I was provided with a copy of the book for review by the publisher. I was not required to give any specific kind of feedback whatsoever.

Links

Be sure to check out the page for this site on Facebook and Twitter for discussion of posts, links to other pages of interest, random talk about theology/philosophy/apologetics/movies and more!

Book Reviews– There are plenty more book reviews to read! Read like crazy! (Scroll down for more, and click at bottom for even more!)

SDG.

——

The preceding post is the property of J.W. Wartick (apart from quotations, which are the property of their respective owners, and works of art as credited; images are often freely available to the public and J.W. Wartick makes no claims of owning rights to the images unless he makes that explicit) and should not be reproduced in part or in whole without the expressed consent of the author. All content on this site is the property of J.W. Wartick and is made available for individual and personal usage. If you cite from these documents, whether for personal or professional purposes, please give appropriate citation with both the name of the author (J.W. Wartick) and a link to the original URL. If you’d like to repost a post, you may do so, provided you show less than half of the original post on your own site and link to the original post for the rest. You must also appropriately cite the post as noted above. This blog is protected by Creative Commons licensing. By viewing any part of this site, you are agreeing to this usage policy.

Book Review: “Scrooge and the Question of God’s Existence” by Steve Luhring

Scrooge and the Question of God’s Existence is a modern day retelling of Charles Dickens’ classic, A Christmas Carol. In this version, Scrooge is a militant atheist who does his best to write works to convince people to become atheists themselves. Not only that, but he is working to pass legislation that makes certain forms of speech illegal. There will be some minor SPOILERS for the plot in this review.

There are other twists to the basic plotline of A Christmas Carol, as well. In this one, Cratchit is a pastor who has been imprisoned because of legislation Scrooge helped pass. Also, one of Cratchit’s children has been influenced by Scrooge’s writings and himself turned to atheism, much to the chagrin of his parents. When the ghosts come to visit Scrooge, they don’t merely show him the fruits of his life, they also bring up significant arguments for the existence of God, most forcefully the Leibnizian Cosmological Argument.

One aspect of the work that is perhaps a little overdone is its commitment to the idea that non-Christians automatically try to silence Christians. Though this does happen occasionally, those cases are often highlighted at the expense of the many non-Christians who do not do anything of the sort. It would have been interesting, perhaps, to see a more reasonable atheist perspective presented here, though I understand the limits of the format.

The book is well-written and in places even manages to capture the feel of the original work by Dickens. It has clever turns of phrase and an attention to detail that give it a similar feel to the original. Though I tend to be hyper-aware of grammatical and spelling errors, I didn’t notice anything particularly egregious as I went through. Overall, the story is interesting and actually feels like a fresh take rather than something that’s just aping the source material.

I enjoyed my read-through of Scrooge and the Question of God’s Existence. It’s a clever, well-written little play on the classic work, though it does feel somewhat heavy-handed at times in its presentation of a particular brand of Christianity. Recommended.

Disclaimer: I was provided with a copy of the book for review by the publisher. I was not required to give any specific kind of feedback whatsoever.

Links

Be sure to check out the page for this site on Facebook and Twitter for discussion of posts, links to other pages of interest, random talk about theology/philosophy/apologetics/movies and more!

SDG.

——

The preceding post is the property of J.W. Wartick (apart from quotations, which are the property of their respective owners, and works of art as credited; images are often freely available to the public and J.W. Wartick makes no claims of owning rights to the images unless he makes that explicit) and should not be reproduced in part or in whole without the expressed consent of the author. All content on this site is the property of J.W. Wartick and is made available for individual and personal usage. If you cite from these documents, whether for personal or professional purposes, please give appropriate citation with both the name of the author (J.W. Wartick) and a link to the original URL. If you’d like to repost a post, you may do so, provided you show less than half of the original post on your own site and link to the original post for the rest. You must also appropriately cite the post as noted above. This blog is protected by Creative Commons licensing. By viewing any part of this site, you are agreeing to this usage policy.

Advertisements

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 2,521 other followers

Archives

Like me on Facebook: Always Have a Reason
Advertisements