Skeptic: Here is my one big objection to your religion: Faith is the opposite of real knowledge. It is the enemy of skepticism. As a skeptic, I doubt everything and I explore and I search out...but a person of faith simply says, "I believe it" and that settles it. If we followed this process in the sciences, we would have no light, electricity, or nuclear power, etc.
Apologist: Are you talking about blind faith or all faith?
Skeptic: All faith, I suppose.
Apologist: Think carefully about that. I think you mean to make a distinction.
Skeptic: I suppose blind faith is worse, but all faith cuts discussion and skepticism short.
Apologist: Do you "believe" in the periodic table?
Skeptic: Of course. It was scientifically proven. Many experiments were made, and they were re-made and cross-checked.
Apologist: Have you done any of these experiments?
Skeptic: Actually, yes. In High School I did a few of them.
Apologist: Have you done all of them?
Skeptic: No, but others have, and they wrote about their experiments.
Apologist: Have you read the reports they wrote?
Skeptic: No, but other people read these reports, and summarized them. I suppose others read those people, and wrote text books. Then my teacher read the text books and taught me. A few experiments were used to substantiate the whole theory.
Apologist: And you believe it?
Skeptic: Of course I do! Everybody does! It is grounded on the information gathered by really professional people.
Apologist: So you have faith in these people?
Skeptic: I suppose. But it is not a blind faith. These people are known, their work is cross-checked. When it is disproven, people make their findings known. There is no heirarchy, saying what does and does not go in science - the facts always rule the day.
Apologist: Always?
Skeptic: Well, at least that is the theory (laughs).
Apologist: So you see now my distinction between blind faith and tested faith?
Skeptic: I suppose I did make that distinction, didn't I?
Apologist: Do you think it is a bad thing for the rank-and-file of the scientific students to have a fairly "blind" faith in the periodic table?
Skeptic: Well, a lot of very reputable people have tested that out. So sure - I suppose that it makes sense that every Joe-Blow college student doesn't try to go back and re-invent the wheel. At some point, you need to just trust the findings of somebody else.
Apologist: Exactly. Exactly. You need to trust somebody at some point, or you will never know anything. I know about Australia, Antarctica, the Moon, and the ocean floor - places I will probably never go - simply because I trust people. Einstein was one of the most important scientists of our time - but he never did any experiments himself. He simply trusted the findings of others, and thought really hard about them. He was a man of faith in more ways than one, I suppose! Here is a real powerful thought from Augustine, who also struggled with the faith aspect of Christianity young in life: if you did not trust anybody for anything, if you had to test everything yourself, if you never took anybody's word for it, if you assumed that if it could not be proved it was not true - if this was your method, you would be a bastard.
Skeptic: Excuse me?
Apologist: Lol. Sorry - just seeing if you were still awake! But let me ask you...no, let me use myself. I have always believed that I am the legitimate son of my father. If I stopped to think of it, so much of my life has been built upon this one fundamental fact. But what evidence is there? I have never done genetic testing, and if I did, I have heard these tests are not 100% accurate. What can I do to prove this? There is only one place this evidence can come from: my mother. She is the only person who knows who my real father is. My knowledge of my history, my ancestry, my genes - my very name - all that rests on the word of my mother.
Skeptic: But you trust her?
Apologist: Yes, definitely. Think carefully: if I had to assume that anything I could not prove did not exist, I would have to assume that I am a bastard, or else I would have to take genetic testing. Of course all of this is uneccessary if I just trust my mother.
Skeptic: I suppose it's all about that - who you trust.
Apologist: Exactly. The writers of the New Testament were very well aware of this. They said, "we have seen this. We have touched this. We have heard this." (1 John 1:1) At one point they said, 'The person who saw this and testified to it is true.' (John 19:35). They were adamant that their stories were not stories invented or cleverly devised, but actual eye-witness accounts (2 Peter 1:16). On several occasions, they urged their readers to check the evidence for themselves - to go and ask, for example, one of the many people healed by Jesus, or raised from the dead (1 Cor. 15:6). Christianity has always held up the example of "Doubting Thomas" as a good example of a skeptic who was only convinced with the facts. Christianity is willing to supply those facts, if you are willing to dig.
Skeptic: Can I put it in a test-tube? Can I look at it myself, can I touch it?
Apologist: You cannot put your own mother in a test tube! The rules of historical investigation are different from the rules of chemistry. I think it would be quite silly to say that the rules of chemistry should be applied to all of life, and that nothing which could be proven by these rules did not exist - but then there are a lot of people who believe just that. To be really consistent, though, these people would have to be equally skeptical about Napoleon or the Vikings as they are about Christ.
Skeptic: No, it's different. We have writings and letters directly from Napoleon and people who knew him.
Apologist: Yes. And we have real accounts of Jesus of Nazareth. No serious historian doubts that he existed. Those who spend serious time researching have made a very good case for his birth in fulfillment of prophecy, his healing and miracle-working powers. There is even good proof of his resurrection, so long as one does not assume from the beginning such things are impossible.
Skeptic: Where would I find such information?
Apologist: Josh McDowell's "Evidence that demands a verdict" is the logical place to start. But before we move on - let me just summarize: so you agree that faith is not the enemy of science?
Skeptic: I suppose true skepticism, investigation and, yes, science, is built in large part upon trusting the right people. So yeah - I guess that's what I will do. Check the information, to see what the really credible sources say about Jesus.
Apologist: Let me know what you find out!
Showing posts with label Apologetics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Apologetics. Show all posts
Sunday, December 5, 2010
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Does God have the right to judge?
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZB0lLIcXIA],
In this video, Todd Friel attempts to use his standard Ray Comfort-evangelism logic-train on Christopher Hitchens. (For those unaware, it is supposed to goes like this: 1) Do you think you are a sinner? "No" 2) Would you like to know what God thinks sins are? "Sure" 3) He says lying is bad. Have you ever lied? "Yes." He says lust is bad, have you done that? "Yes" (etc.) 4) Well then, according to God's standards, do you think you are a sinner? "Yes." 5) Okay then. Based on what you just said, if you died right now, do you think God would judge you as worthy of heaven or hell? "Hell." 6) Would you like to know about how God made a way for you to receive mercy, and avoid this terrible judgment? "Sure...") On Todd's web-site, he has many examples of himself using this methodology to evangelize, with varying results.
However, it did not work at all with Hitchens. It all seems to have gone south because Friel could not offer a good answer to Hitchen's first and great objection, namely, "What right has God got to judge the human race?" Because Friel's whole train of logic as based on God as judge, the rest of the conversation didn't really make sense and one can understand - although not completely endorse - Hitchen's choice to simply start hurling obscenities at the end of it.
The question "Does God have a right to judge" is a central and important one. It is very clear that Hitchens believes that nobody has a right to judge him. But is this really consistent with his own reasoning?
To summarize, Hitchens feels that several of the commandments are insultingly obvious (e.g. don't lie, steal, murder). He then rejects several of the commandments (e.g. worship the Lord only, do not covet), and he notes with disapproval that several very important commandments (e.g. love your children) are not on this list at all.
Please take careful note: he does not say, "I believe it would be convenient if these changes were made to the Ten Commandments." Rather, he says, "These changes should be made." He states that it is unethical and downright wrongthat these additions and subtractions are not made. Now, what is Hitchens implying here? Statements of desire denote a personal preference: statements of necessity, or moral obligation denote some higher power to which Hitchens is appealing.
We say that one mathematical equation is wrong, another right, and (possibly) a third is close but slightly off. In so saying, we are implying that there is some absolute standard of "mathematical correctness" out there.
And I believe that Hitchens believes that there is such a moral standard. How could Hitchen's statement that some of the commandments are wrong, some are good, and some are insultingly obvious make sense unless there is some universal code of ethics, which we are all aware of, and to which we all must appeal as the higher authority.
In Christianity, there is a very minute amount of disagreement between those who believe that Justice is an ideal which is external to God (but to which He completely conforms) and those who believe that Justice is internal to God. Either way, the Christian belief is that God is the just one, who presides over the earth.
We could ask, "Does lady justice have the right to judge?" ...but this would be a logical fallacy. Justice judges. That's what she does. Saying that justice has no right to judge is like saying that logic has no right to think. None of us fully attains to pure justice, and so we need to walk humbly: but if justice did not exist, any notion of "right" and "wrong" would completely crumble. In such a case we would be down to nothing more than personal opinion - and then we would be down to "The caveman with the biggest club decides what is right."
In the simple statement, "Hey, that's not fair!" We are asserting our belief that there is a universal standard of "fairness," which we believe is external to us and morally binding on all people. We are angry when the laws of "fairness" are violated to our hurt: we feel guilty when we violate them.
Justice is personified and explained different ways in different religions. In Christianity, Justice is personified in the person of God Himself. Therefore, the question of "Does God have the right to judge" becomes absurd. Of course He does - He is justice itself. How could He do otherwise? As the good book says, "shall not the judge of all the earth deal justly?"
If God is Justice, then He has the right to judge, and can do nothing other than judge justly. We must now, then, move to the next logical step - asking ourselves, "how will we fare under the judgment of pure Justice?"
At this point, we may get pack onto Ray Comfort's train. Rather than examining the Ten Commandments, however, we may ask Hitchens, "You have identified loving one's children as a virtue. Now, if you were before the absolute personifaction of justice, do you think you would be able to say that you have loved your children perfectly, and never hurt them unjustly?" We could then ask, "If we were imagining a place where only perfect people could go, do you think you would deserve to go there?" The answer, as Hitchens would likely admit, would be no." This would enable us to speak of the grace of Christ: although, of course, there are many other questions which would need to also be answered along the way.
In this video, Todd Friel attempts to use his standard Ray Comfort-evangelism logic-train on Christopher Hitchens. (For those unaware, it is supposed to goes like this: 1) Do you think you are a sinner? "No" 2) Would you like to know what God thinks sins are? "Sure" 3) He says lying is bad. Have you ever lied? "Yes." He says lust is bad, have you done that? "Yes" (etc.) 4) Well then, according to God's standards, do you think you are a sinner? "Yes." 5) Okay then. Based on what you just said, if you died right now, do you think God would judge you as worthy of heaven or hell? "Hell." 6) Would you like to know about how God made a way for you to receive mercy, and avoid this terrible judgment? "Sure...") On Todd's web-site, he has many examples of himself using this methodology to evangelize, with varying results.
However, it did not work at all with Hitchens. It all seems to have gone south because Friel could not offer a good answer to Hitchen's first and great objection, namely, "What right has God got to judge the human race?" Because Friel's whole train of logic as based on God as judge, the rest of the conversation didn't really make sense and one can understand - although not completely endorse - Hitchen's choice to simply start hurling obscenities at the end of it.
The question "Does God have a right to judge" is a central and important one. It is very clear that Hitchens believes that nobody has a right to judge him. But is this really consistent with his own reasoning?
To summarize, Hitchens feels that several of the commandments are insultingly obvious (e.g. don't lie, steal, murder). He then rejects several of the commandments (e.g. worship the Lord only, do not covet), and he notes with disapproval that several very important commandments (e.g. love your children) are not on this list at all.
Please take careful note: he does not say, "I believe it would be convenient if these changes were made to the Ten Commandments." Rather, he says, "These changes should be made." He states that it is unethical and downright wrongthat these additions and subtractions are not made. Now, what is Hitchens implying here? Statements of desire denote a personal preference: statements of necessity, or moral obligation denote some higher power to which Hitchens is appealing.
We say that one mathematical equation is wrong, another right, and (possibly) a third is close but slightly off. In so saying, we are implying that there is some absolute standard of "mathematical correctness" out there.
And I believe that Hitchens believes that there is such a moral standard. How could Hitchen's statement that some of the commandments are wrong, some are good, and some are insultingly obvious make sense unless there is some universal code of ethics, which we are all aware of, and to which we all must appeal as the higher authority.
In Christianity, there is a very minute amount of disagreement between those who believe that Justice is an ideal which is external to God (but to which He completely conforms) and those who believe that Justice is internal to God. Either way, the Christian belief is that God is the just one, who presides over the earth.
We could ask, "Does lady justice have the right to judge?" ...but this would be a logical fallacy. Justice judges. That's what she does. Saying that justice has no right to judge is like saying that logic has no right to think. None of us fully attains to pure justice, and so we need to walk humbly: but if justice did not exist, any notion of "right" and "wrong" would completely crumble. In such a case we would be down to nothing more than personal opinion - and then we would be down to "The caveman with the biggest club decides what is right."
In the simple statement, "Hey, that's not fair!" We are asserting our belief that there is a universal standard of "fairness," which we believe is external to us and morally binding on all people. We are angry when the laws of "fairness" are violated to our hurt: we feel guilty when we violate them.
Justice is personified and explained different ways in different religions. In Christianity, Justice is personified in the person of God Himself. Therefore, the question of "Does God have the right to judge" becomes absurd. Of course He does - He is justice itself. How could He do otherwise? As the good book says, "shall not the judge of all the earth deal justly?"
If God is Justice, then He has the right to judge, and can do nothing other than judge justly. We must now, then, move to the next logical step - asking ourselves, "how will we fare under the judgment of pure Justice?"
At this point, we may get pack onto Ray Comfort's train. Rather than examining the Ten Commandments, however, we may ask Hitchens, "You have identified loving one's children as a virtue. Now, if you were before the absolute personifaction of justice, do you think you would be able to say that you have loved your children perfectly, and never hurt them unjustly?" We could then ask, "If we were imagining a place where only perfect people could go, do you think you would deserve to go there?" The answer, as Hitchens would likely admit, would be no." This would enable us to speak of the grace of Christ: although, of course, there are many other questions which would need to also be answered along the way.
Saturday, July 10, 2010
Zeitgeist Debunked!
Most of you will have no idea what "Zeitgeist" is. However, it is an internet phenomenon youtube documentary which (supposedly) completely disproves Christianity and especially the existence of Jesus Christ.
You can view this video here:
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNf-P_5u_Hw]
You can hear Bruxy Cavey respond to this clip and also to Dan Brown's "Davinci Code" in a more quick, sound-bite way in the following clips:
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPu_SRQI4nk]
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPu_SRQI4nk]
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LT40LtmPgM]
After years of responding to e-mails on this topic, Bruxy Cavey preached two sermons specifically on Zeitgeist. You can access them by subscribing to theMeetingHouse Audiocast, or the MeetingHouse VideoCast. The sermons are in the series "Duped," and are the two sermons entitled "Did Jesus Exist" and "Jesus - Christ or Copycat?". These sermons are also available from the MeetingHouse homepage. (Note: if you watch the video, be sure to also get the audio version, which has the so-called "drive-home" section. This is where Bruxy talks about everything he didn't have time to say in the sermon. In this case, it is a lot of very interesting material!)
In litsening to these two sermons, I was reminded again of how often Christanity has expressed its core identity most concisely and clearly in the face of detractors. In the first few centuries, this was certainly the case. There were many occasions when Greeks would write malicious misunderstandings and misrepresentations of Christianity, and Christians would respond by debunking the false accounts, and writing "Apologies" of their true, core identity. From these documents we now have a clear understanding of how the early Christians saw themselves. In Bruxy's response also, we get a very clear and well-formulated understanding of how Christianity sees itself, especially in relation to the essential questions of Jesus' life, his originality, and the authenticity of Scriptures.
I would really recommend accessing these two sermons, as they provide a beautifully concise but exceedingly compact and well-researched defense of Christianity, against those who still - in spite of all of the facts - cling desperately to the fictions of the Davinci Code or Zeitgeist. Against the notion that Christianity is only a borrowed religion which grew out of paganism, Bruxy presents the truth that a real Jewish person, living in the first century A.D. actually taught something which has literally changed the world.
You can view this video here:
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNf-P_5u_Hw]
You can hear Bruxy Cavey respond to this clip and also to Dan Brown's "Davinci Code" in a more quick, sound-bite way in the following clips:
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPu_SRQI4nk]
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPu_SRQI4nk]
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LT40LtmPgM]
After years of responding to e-mails on this topic, Bruxy Cavey preached two sermons specifically on Zeitgeist. You can access them by subscribing to theMeetingHouse Audiocast, or the MeetingHouse VideoCast. The sermons are in the series "Duped," and are the two sermons entitled "Did Jesus Exist" and "Jesus - Christ or Copycat?". These sermons are also available from the MeetingHouse homepage. (Note: if you watch the video, be sure to also get the audio version, which has the so-called "drive-home" section. This is where Bruxy talks about everything he didn't have time to say in the sermon. In this case, it is a lot of very interesting material!)
In litsening to these two sermons, I was reminded again of how often Christanity has expressed its core identity most concisely and clearly in the face of detractors. In the first few centuries, this was certainly the case. There were many occasions when Greeks would write malicious misunderstandings and misrepresentations of Christianity, and Christians would respond by debunking the false accounts, and writing "Apologies" of their true, core identity. From these documents we now have a clear understanding of how the early Christians saw themselves. In Bruxy's response also, we get a very clear and well-formulated understanding of how Christianity sees itself, especially in relation to the essential questions of Jesus' life, his originality, and the authenticity of Scriptures.
I would really recommend accessing these two sermons, as they provide a beautifully concise but exceedingly compact and well-researched defense of Christianity, against those who still - in spite of all of the facts - cling desperately to the fictions of the Davinci Code or Zeitgeist. Against the notion that Christianity is only a borrowed religion which grew out of paganism, Bruxy presents the truth that a real Jewish person, living in the first century A.D. actually taught something which has literally changed the world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)