Church Voices

G. K. Chesterton was one of the first thinkers to put his finger on an argument against atheism known as the problem of pleasure. This of course contrasting the argument against theism: the problem of pain. Phillip Yancey briefly mentions this in the introduction he authored in a newer release of Chesterton’s Orthodoxy. Yancey writes:

Why is sex fun? Reproduction surely doesn’t require pleasure: Some animals simply split in half to reproduce, and even humans use methods of artificial insemination that involve no pleasure. Why is eating enjoyable? Plants and the lower animals manage to obtain their quota of nutrients without the luxury of taste buds. Why are there colors? Some people get along fine without the ability to detect color. Why complicate vision for all the rest of us?

[. . .]

On the issue of pleasure, Christians can breathe easier. A good and loving God would naturally want his creatures to experience delight, joy, and personal fulfillment. We Christians start from that assumption and then look for ways to explain the origin of suffering. But should atheists not have an equal obligation to explain the origin of pleasure in a world or randomness and meaninglessness?

What I find most interesting is the claim that this argument has equal force against atheism as the problem of pain does against theism:

[The problem of pleasure] looms as huge a question—the philosophical equivelent, for atheists, to the problem of pain for Christians.

Obviously this argument hasn’t received nearly as much attention as the problem of pain, but do you think what Yancey is claiming is correct? Are the two arguments, the problem of pleasure and the problem of pain equally challenging to the alternate worldviews of theism and atheism in terms of logic? (Generally speaking, being aware of the many different forms each argument could take.)

After reading Alvin Plantinga’s Advice to Christian Philosophers, I feel both shamed and greatly motivated. In this article, Plantinga expounds upon what attitude he thinks Christians in all fields of study should reflect in their disciplines. He discusses three points:

First, Christian philosophers and Christian intellectuals generally must display more autonomy—more independence of the rest of philosophical world. Second, Christian philosophers must display more integrity—integrity in the sense of integral wholeness, or oneness, or unity, being all of one piece. Perhaps ‘integrality’ would be the better word here. And necessary to these two is a third: Christian courage, or boldness, or strength, or perhaps Christian self-confidence. We Christian philosophers must display more faith, more trust in the Lord; we must put on the whole armor of God.

Shamed, because all too often I cower from situations that I know might lend themselves toward me defending my faith. For example, how many times I flip a book whose cover may read something apologetically oriented face down to avoid making it seem as if I “dogmatically” affirm/deny various beliefs, having the pressures of both an antisupernatulistic and religiously pluralistic society force me into silent retreat before anyone even draws a sword. Coincidentally, I was just recently enjoying fellowship with a brother who was telling me about how the Lord was giving him a message similar to the one Plantinga is suggesting: we need to be bold with our faith. Passivity simply will not suffice. And motivated, simply because Plantinga’s and my friend’s wise words remind me of what needs to be done in order for an impact to be made today.

Plantinga then gives examples of how we, as Christian philosophers, have in the past failed to take the reins and exercise these qualities when opposing ideas dominated philosophical thought; which, in essence, resulted in primarily secular (if not wholly antisupernatural) presuppositions in most universities and contemporary scholarship. He writes:

…[M]ost of the major philosophy departments in America have next to nothing to offer the student intent on coming to see how to be a Christian in philosophy—how to assess and develop the bearing of Christianity on matters of current philosophical concern, and how to think about those philosophical matters of interest to the Christian community. In the typical graduate philosophy department there will be little more, along these lines, than a course in philosophy of religion in which it is suggested that the evidence for the existence of God—the classical theistic proofs, say—is at least counterbalanced by the evidence against the existence of God—the problem of evil, perhaps; and it may then be added that the wisest course, in view of such maxims as Ockham’s Razor, is to dispense with the whole idea of God, at least for philosophical purposes.

This is so true. I can’t even begin to recount how many college syllabuses of philosophy courses I’ve read that resound exactly these sentiments, not to mention the professors with which I’ve actually had dialogue who parent this attitude (and as I’m sure reflect in the classroom). Further, perhaps the saddest part of this historical blunder is the lack of depth in those who wantonly entertain these presuppositions prima facie. Apologist William Lane Craig agrees, making the following observation regarding the many leaders working under similar notions in the college atmosphere:

As I travel around North America and Europe speaking on university campuses, I think that most of the non-Christian university professors that I meet would probably say [there’s not enough evidence for belief in God]. And this attitude is in turn communicated to their students…[M]ost people aren’t even acquainted with the evidence for Christianity. This is true in particular for university professors. One of the most interesting aspects of my work is the debates I participate in on university campuses. Typically I’ll be invited onto a campus to debate some professor who has a reputation of being especially abusive to Christian students in his classes. We’ll have a public debate on, say, the existence of God, or Christianity vs. humanism, or some such topic. And you know what? I find that while most of these fellows are pretty good at beating up intellectually on an 18 year [old] student, they can’t even hold their own when it comes to going toe to toe with one of their peers. In their first speech they usually trot out the obsolete, 18th century objections of Hume and Kant, and after I answer these, they’re just left with nothing much to say, so they start repeating themselves or making emotional appeals…Most of them turn out to be just big, inflated, intellectual blowhards who have no good reasons for rejecting Christianity and ridiculing their students’ faith. [Both the audio and text version of this can be found here]

While the above observations may be true, and Plantinga’s suggestions definitely worthwhile to consider/practice, I think the best point he made was that just as the secularist presupposes antisupernaturalism in thought, it should be no less justified for the believer to likewise presuppose the fundaments of theism in his:

Many Christian philosophers appear to think of themselves qua philosophers as engaged with the atheist and agnostic philosopher in a common search for the correct philosophical position vis a vis the question whether there is such a person as God. Of course the Christian philosopher will have his own private conviction on the point; he will believe, of course, that indeed there is such a person as God. But he will think, or be inclined to think, or half inclined to think that as a philosopher he has no right to this position unless he is able to show that it follows from, or is probable, or justified with respect to premises accepted by all parties to the discussion—theist, agnostic and atheist alike. Furthermore, he will be half inclined to think he has no right, as a philosopher, to positions that presuppose the existence of God, if he can’t show that belief to be justified in this way. What I want to urge is that the Christian philosophical community ought not think of itself as engaged in this common effort to determine the probability or philosophical plausibility of belief in God. The Christian philosopher quite properly starts from the existence of God, and presupposes it in philosophical work, whether or not he can show it to be probable or plausible with respect to premises accepted by all philosophers, or most philosophers at the great contemporary centers of philosophy. Taking it for granted, for example, that there is such a person as God and that we are indeed within our epistemic rights (are in that sense justified) in believing that there is…

Although already somewhat familiar with Plantinga’s arguments for belief in God to be properly-basic, admittedly, my stance when approaching philosophical endeavors has always been one similar to that given in the example above: feeling wrong to assume God’s existence before rational justification could be granted my positions. I suppose I never thought to apply Plantinga’s good reasoning to my approach in apologetics (perhaps such a starting point is inappropriate in apologetical work, but I don’t think this “epistemic right” of ours should be considered exclusive to any said field(s) of study). The main point I think Plantinga was making is that it’s obvious from various past issues in philosophy that the Christian has failed to speak out with strength, and thus we now have secular overtones in most all of education generally accepted without question. The only way we can reverse this is by demonstrating the autonomy, ‘integrality,’ and boldness now that we lacked in history. After considering the words in this article and those of my friend’s, it has given me a more solid perspective on engaging in apologetics in particular and managing my faith before others in general. I highly suggest this article for anyone with similar interests.

The apex of my studies on deism reached a mountaintop experience last night as I finally compiled and added an exhaustive critique of it to the apologetics section on my blog. Let me now add a few final remarks I thought slightly inappropriate for the pseudo-scholarly tone of that in my apologetics pages.

Though not included in my critique, deism should be accredited several positive historical contributions, specifically to the development of a strategical defense of classical theism; namely, validity of the scriptures. Considering the intellectual capacity of deism’s defenders (Voltaire, particularly, not to mention deists siding with the likes of Hume and Spinoza with their arguments against miracles) in the eighteenth century and their relentless attacks on both the scriptures and special revelation such as miracles, much work has been done philosophically and historically in defense of classical theism in their wake. I’d even go as far as to say that without the barrage of Christian responses the deists were met with, both the historical value of apologetics and a strong theology of miracles would be altogether lacking. As Norman Geisler put it,

“The deistic siege called forth some of the most scholarly and stout defenses of orthodox Christianity in modern times. Bishop Berkeley, Bishop Butler, and William Paley [and much more] all contributed masterful works to this apologetic cause. Even skeptics like Lord Lytleton and Frank Morrison were converted and became ardent defenders of Christianity. Deistic criticism gave impetus to the study of archaeology which yielded not only the conversion of such notable men as Sir William Ramsay, but hundreds of thousands of archaeological confirmations of the Biblical worldview. For all of this the bitter and sustained attack of deism on Biblical Christianity is to be indirectly thanked.”

Some other positive aspects deism birthed was its stress on natural revelation, which served much to the development of the teleological argument. Moreover, deist’s stress on reason and rationale in religious belief I think really improved the bravado of those participating in the intellectual arena in years past and present. And admittedly, deism’s outspoken skeptical outlook on the supernatural really helped thwart the uprising of much cultic and or other significant religious activity at the time as well as cleaned any dust off the traditional miracles professed by Christianity that might have settled. For one must remember, for almost an entire century, it wasn’t theism versus atheism; it was Christian theism versus deism. Thus, we were brought a reform in much Biblical scholarship—to which we may now say that the presupposition against miracles survives in theology now only as a hangover from the earlier deistic age and ought now to be once for all abandoned.

So one might ask, “where is deism today?” Technically speaking, primarily in the scientific community where Newtonian-like mechanistic thinking might dominate, kind of similar to that of scientism and the empirically verifiable language constructs found in its literature. But personally, I think it can be efficiently surmised that deism has since been relegated to those who have submitted themselves to the present domineering grip theism has on cosmology but have yet to or cannot reconcile the personal convictions that would follow belief in the Judeo-Christian God. Clearly, deism has nothing to offer intellectually, for it’s shown to be both philosophically and scientifically wanting, or experientially, for what difference could this belief possibly yield in one’s personal life (if you say none, then I think you’re on the same page as the deists, which is exactly my point)? In other words, it’s far easier on one’s conscience to profess a God of no concern who resides afar off (thus leaving said individual without, say, a transcendent paradigm imposing certain sexual decorums by which to oblige) than to reckon the holiness and self-sacrifice that a real personal and loving God would demand of them.

The great atheist philosopher Bertrand Russell was once asked what he would say if he found himself standing before God on the judgement day and God asked him, “Why didn’t you believe in Me?” Russell replied, “I would say, ‘Not enough evidence, God! Not enough evidence!’”

To me for one who claims there not to be enough evidence for the existence of God possesses either little thinking power or has neglected thought altogether. For when I look around at times I’m simply overwhelmed by how many ontologies seem to necessitate the existence of a Perfect Being from which we have such conceptual notions as perfection, rationale, meaning, morale, aesthetical appeal, etc. (Not to mention the innumerous subsets which fall under each category.) Boldly I say, one of the most assuring aspects of my faith is its alternative—life without it. Meditate on like cosmic questions apart from a loving God and before long the lights start to fade, eventually becoming so dark, in fact, the mere possibility of life itself is breached. William Lane Craig writes,

“Modern man thought that in divesting himself of God, he had freed himself from all that stifled and repressed him. Instead, he unwittingly discovered that in killing God, he had also killed himself. For if there is no God, then man’s life becomes ultimately absurd.”

There are a great many examples of how God makes His presence known in our everyday lives, at times more obvious than others depending on the caliber of intellect and spiritual convictions one might have. Take simple quantifications, for example; like C. S. Lewis’ famous argument from joy, Hartshorne’s musings on the nature of meaning, the various classical forms of ontological arguments that link perfection and being to a Necessary or Necessarily Perfect Being. Similarly, the axiological argument seeks to draw all moral notion directly from an absolute moral Being—even the basic constructs of language itself breaks without a transcendent signified from which understanding is wrought. Even Nietzsche recognized this as he once said, “We cannot get rid of God until we get rid of grammar.” The possibility of all subjective distinction is literally impossible without God.

Take one look at the newest television programs and any number of commercial advertisements and you’ll quickly note that culture has put all its eggs in one basket; that is, sex appeal. Conditioned to think nothing is more virtuous than sexual freedom, people carelessly have bought into the sham. Presumably without the chains of guilt and shame to tame their unbridled passions, culture has done nothing but mask the consequences as praiseworthy. Yet it’s common for believers and nonbelievers alike to voice long struggles of lust and acts of defiling the body, themselves knowing there to be ‘oughts’ and ‘ought nots’ in such a regard. Feelings of dissatisfaction and dirtiness after having promiscuously indulged oneself to the ‘enth degree quickly reframes the once thought frameless surfeits professed by the hedonistic lifestyle. It seems even sexually people cannot hide themselves from the Creator’s face.

The only answer is that there’s in all of us a telos, purpose or end goal in our nature in which to conform in order to bring the coherence and understanding our lives cry for—and when averted, varying emotional disparities inescapably follow. The severity of the effects of course differs accordingly (in this life, anyway), but the noetic despondency of sin and disconcertedness in life without God is clearly etched into the hearts of men everywhere. God is everywhere, whether we identify Him or not. I once heard Christianity be compared to a very big inside joke. One can only make sense of the joke’s applications once sense is made of the joke itself. Likewise, one can only make sense of this life once sense is made of the Life Giver.

James 4:7, 8 – [Submit therefore to God…Draw near to God and He will draw near to you.]

Here is the way the problem of evil is typically argued. Its competent as far as it goes, however, it leaves out at least two very important details that would de-rail the argument (which would, of course change the entire tone, and conclusion of it).
Read the rest of this entry »

Earlier I put up a an analysis of the Craig/Edwards debate on the veracity of the resurrection. I came across it a few years ago on Ravi Zacharias’ website, but I was having trouble finding it so I turned to that greatest of all research tools: google. As I poked around the web trying to locate the mp3 of the debate I also came across other people’s assessment of the debate. A common theme among skeptics was to question the reliablity of the gospels. One even went so far as to claim the gospels were nothing more than hearsay, of course then we get into a question of authorship as both John and Matthew were eye witnesses. But, here’s my point, all too often when skeptics criticize scripture, and the supporting extrabiblical documents that confirm the truth in it they fall back to a legal standard of evidence. But this is an improper categorization of scripture.
Read the rest of this entry »

I’m listening to a debate about the resurrection of Christ between Dr. Brian Edwards and Dr. William Lane Craig. Dr. Craig takes the position that the resurrection did happen. Naturally much of the discussion centered around the possiblity of miracles (I’m speaking of miracles within a theistic context).
Read the rest of this entry »

Was Auschwitz evil?

I hope your answer was yes, but ask yourself why you think the events that took place in Auschwitz was evil. What makes an act evil? Why was it evil for the German government to toss primarily Jews, but also cripples, gypsies, homosexuals, and others they considered to be defective into concentration camps in an attempt to wipe them off the face of the earth?

Lets take it a step further. If what is good and what is evil is nothing more than a device developed to increase the possiblity of survival than a society that has decided its good to burn Jews has just defined those pictures I linked up above as a good thing, and there is no way to argue it is wrong. What’s more there is nothing to say they were wrong to do so. Consider for a moment that had Germany won, or at least drawn out the war into a stalemate then Auschwitz would never have been considered evil. Without employing God you have no way of cogently labeling Nazi politics as evil.

Without God morality is reduced to the same level of every other social convention. Genocide assumes the same moral priority as stopping on a red light and going on a green one. Without God society can ostracize someone for eating human flesh with the wrong type of fork without any way to judge either act as morally abhorrent.

Lets say you were witnessing an on-line debate between an atheist and a Christian over the existence of God. The Christian enters into evidence a series of conclusions reached by several prominent scientists, the atheist sneers, “Furthermore, as for the scientists, isn’t this the community that still claims that Kyoto will work to eliminate the imaginary problem of global warming?”. Does this strike anyone as odd?

For anyone who hasn’t kept up with the state of science this isn’t surprising at all. With (now former) atheists like Anthony Flew conceding the power of the Teleogical and Cosmological Argument in light of new cosmological findings the tension between science and Christianity is looking downright cuddly. Sure there’s still some sticky issues, much as there is with any relationship that is somewhere in the neighborhood of 450 anniversaries. But the atheistic-science-Christianity love triangle is looking more and more like a science-Christianity re-unification dinner. The really sad part is that this issue has been completely overlooked.

Just in the last few weeks we’ve been treated to Newsweek’s assault on the historicity of the Christmas story (or is that holiday story?), and the Washington Post’s front page hit piece on Intelligent Design (nicely dissected by Hugh Hewitt). But those are hardly new stories. Since the late 1800s deists, agnostics and atheists have launched an all-out attack on Christianity using science as their weapon of choice. And now, through a stunning reversal of fortunes, like some sort of kung fu master using his opponents own attacks against him Christians are using science to advance Christianity.

But the number of stories from the main stream media about this is underwhelming to say the least. Instead we get tired recycled stories that have been done to death, and are, at best, shoddy reporting. Anthony Flew eschews atheism in favor of theism, swayed by arguments generated largely by science and we get hackneyed reporting that acts like the Jesus Seminar hasn’t been gutted both in terms of membership and ideology.

Why should anyone take these publications seriously anymore? Reading the main stream media tells me far more about how the main stream media thinks than it does about what’s going on in the world.

Either the cause of the universe is supernatural or scientific inquiry itself is invalid.

This conclusion is based on what we know about cause and effect. Scientific inquiry is based on the supposition that natural law (ie physical constants, gravity etc) can be observed and studied via observation. These observations can be repeated and verified by other people who can then confirm the results. This process relies on cause and effect. The same effects are generated in the same way by the same causes. If this is not true then science can no longer operate in any meaningful way, because then when experiments, or other types of research are performed then completely different results would occur each time it is performed in exactly the same way.

This being the case the history of the universe is ultimately just a series of effects which themselves were causes just a moment before. For example, when the Big Bang burst into existence it unleashed all the matter in the universe which would eventually become stars and planets, of which a very small part of this matter would eventually become the Earth, on which life developed to the point that I am sitting here typing out this blog entry. Take away any of these events and I’m not here to write this.

None of this is all that controversial just yet. Where the rub comes in is that if the universe is nothing more than a series of causes and effects then how did we get to this point in history? Either something beyond this universe that doesn’t play by the rules of cause and effect put that first cause into motion, or we’re so clueless about cause and effect that the foundations upon which science is built just aren’t there.

Of course we could theorize that there is simply an infinite amount of causes and their subsequent effects. Then the question becomes how in the world did we traverse an infinite amount of causes? Because for infinity to truly be infinite it has to be “without boundaries, or limits”, and if we have historically experienced an infinite amount of causes then it is clearly not without boundaries or limits. This problem is referred to as “infinite regress”.

And infinite regress demands an accounting. Either a will with enough power to create this universe, and who doesn’t have to play by the rules of cause and effect began the universe with the very first cause, or we have failed to grasp the way the universe operates on such a fundamental level that the scientific method shouldn’t work.

Knowing the way that cause and effect works demands that somehow some sort of exception to the rules of cause and effect have to be made in order to put the first cause into play without falling into infinite regress. Thus far we haven’t found any sort of exception in the natural world. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that cause of the universe has to be supernatural.