Calculating the Odds

With each passing year, science is providing more evidence that the universe is exquisitely fine-tuned to support human life. Change any one of dozens of parameters by even a small amount and life on Planet Earth would never have arisen. These findings provide strong support for the Christian argument that behind this universe lies an all powerful, super-intelligent Designer.

Many atheists try to sidestep this problem. After decades of Darwinism giving them false solace, atheists face a serious worldview problem making sense of these discoveries, which challenge the wisdom of believing in random self assembly as an adequate cause for the specified complexity inherent in nature.

A favorite dodge goes something like this: there’s nothing particularly noteworthy about fine-tuning in the universe because, had it not been so, we would not be here to make any observations. We simply happened to arise because we just happen to be in a universe – probably one of an infinite number – that can support our form of life.

This is a clever argument, but one that won’t survive scrutiny, because it deliberately misses the point of the fine-tuning argument. It assumes that there is no designer, then asks to make sense of this fine-tuning we see all around. It does this by assuming that other universes exist, and with enough such universes, the existence of our particular universe, with its unique characteristics, becomes predictable. But there is no evidence - at present anyway - that we inhabit one of a limitless number of other universes. So, our presence in this universe cannot simply be taken as a given; instead, the question we are trying to answer is whether such fine-tuning can truly be an accident - a true "billion to one shot" - or whether, by contrast, this evidence of design is the result of, well, a Designer?

Because our existence is the result of the coinciding of hundreds of highly improbable events, basic probability theory tells us that to determine the cumulative probability requires that we multiply these probabilities. Increase the number of "just so" parameters and life becomes incredibly unlikely to have arisen by chance. Some examples might help make the point. The Apollo 11 mission successfully landed men on the moon and returned them safely to Earth. Imagine that on his return, someone asked Neil Armstrong to comment on the stunning success of the mission. If he thought like the new atheists, he might have said: “There was nothing amazing about the mission’s success. After all, if something failed, I wouldn’t be here to discuss the effectiveness of the mission.” Such an answer is ludricous; it simply avoids the question of what the odds were that each of hundreds of systems would work as designed. That such novel technology achieved its goals is a tribute to the intelligence and workmanship of its designers. To say that Armstrong just happened to live in the universe in which his mission succeeded is, in reality, to say nothing at all.

To this, the atheist will likely respond: your example is flawed, because we already know that the Apollo mission was designed by an intelligence, and we don't know that about the universe. But this too missses the point. The Apollo mission was fine-tuned for success. If the universe shows signs of similar fine-tuning, then we can logically conclude that it too bears the marks of an intelligent designer.

Which leads me to a different example: a condemned man stands before a firing squad, awaiting the crack of rifles that will precede his demise. The signal is given, he hears the shots and feels the bullets whizzing nearby, but not a single round hits. He has survived the execution and is here to comment on the probability of so unlikely an event. Imagine if he answered: “there was nothing special about this execution. After all, I wouldn’t be here to comment on it if it had been otherwise.” But this too would be so much nonsense. The question is whether we can infer from this result that each of the marksmen just happened to miss, or whether the better inference would be that missing was “designed,” that the marksmen were following a plan to miss.

Following the evidence where it leads can cause us to question our deeply held beliefs. But if we do, the odds are in our favor that we will eventually find the truth.

Calculating the Odds

Emotionally Charged Rhetoric

President Obama was recently asked when during a pregnancy (at what month) should abortion remain legal. The president responded at the town hall-style meeting quoting Bill Clinton that abortion should be "safe, legal and rare." He continued regarding abortion,

"I think that it's something that all of us should recognize is a difficult, sometimes, often times tragic situation that families are wrestling with. I think the families and the women involved are the ones who should make the decision, not the government. But I do think actually that there are a whole host of laws on the books that after a certain period, the interest shift such that you can have some restrictions, for example on late term abortions, and appropriately so. There is in fact a set of rules in place. Now, people still argue about it and still deeply disagree about it. That's part of our Democratic way."

Let's face it. He wants it to be legal. Everything else is emotionally charged rhetoric used to distract from this fact. Ideas like safe, rare, wrestling with a tragic situation, empowering women and families to have the freedom to choose - who could disagree with that? The problem with the desire for abortion to be rare is why? If the unborn baby is simply a part of the woman's body (as pro-choice advocates would have us believe) then there is no difference between abortion and removing a cyst. No one really cares how rare or frequent cyst removals are being performed unless we are concerned for the well being of the women who are incurring the unwanted masses of tissue. Why then would it be a tragic situation in which women and families would have to wrestle with the decision to remove it and with greater emotional turmoil as it got bigger?

The question that needs to be answered is, "what are the unborn?" If they are human, then the freedom to kill them at any stage of development should not be a choice given to mothers, families or government. It should not be a concern that those who would kill another human be able to do so "safely".

Scott Klusendorf from the Life Training Institute points out that

...the federal government IS involved in abortion! Indeed, When people tell me the federal government should stay out of the abortion issue, I ask what they mean by that. Truth is, Roe and Doe did not get the federal government out of abortion. Instead, one branch of the federal government, the judiciary, co-opted the issue from the other two branches of government, leaving them no say on the issue. Put simply, the Court in both cases struck down the abortion laws of all 50 states and concluded that a woman may obtain an abortion for any reason she deems fit through all nine months of pregnancy if needed for "health." As you might imagine, the Court then defined "health" so broadly that you can drive a Mack Truck through it! In short, the Court mandated a policy of abortion-on-demand that no state anticipated prior to the ruling. Thus, the federal government is totally involved in abortion such that families and voters have no legal say in the matter...

...the President wants to have his cake and eat it too. That is, if abortion is a private matter for families to decide, then laws against late-term abortion are every bit as unjust as those limiting early abortion. He can't have it both ways. Truth is, he does not support any laws which limit abortion. Remember: Three times as an Illinois State Senator he refused to protect babies AFTER they survive abortion. But that aside, if abortion is indeed a private family matter, no laws restricting it can be justified.

Emotionally Charged Rhetoric

PleaseConvinceMe Podcast 171

What Should We Expect If Jesus Really Lived?

In this podcast, Jim examines the historical and cultural patterns that are created by true, historical "impact players". Does the life of Jesus reflect the historical pattern we should expect, and if so, does this help us to determine if Jesus really lived? Also, Jim answers listener email about war and Christian pacifism.

Check out the podcast homepage for subscription information and archives.

PleaseConvinceMe Podcast 171

Are We Alone In The Universe?

Many atheists refuse to consider the evidence for God's existence, insisting that "faith" and reason are opposites, and that matters of faith and matters of science occupy separate and non-intersecting fields. Getting them to see the flaw in this thinking can be the first step in getting them to consider the truth claims of Christianity.

In my last post, I offered some analogies that might be useful in showing how reason allows us to infer "someone is there" from the evidence he left behind. The evidence in the universe of exquisite order and complexity, the information embedded in life, the existence of consciousness, morality, music and math, all bear witness to the Designer's hand. But, the atheist objects, we already know people exist, so proving, for example, that someone walked in the sand - by his footprints - doesn't really translate into proof that God exists.

But this challenge can also be met, by using an example from a modern scientific endeavor. All around the globe, radiotelescopes are probing the distant reaches of space, hoping to pick up the telltale signals of intelligent life. Frequency ranges have be devoted to this pursuit by international agreement, so as to increase the chance that signal pollution from Earth bound sources do not interfere. Hundreds of thousands of dollars have been have been committed to this effort to find what no one definitively can say exists - life in the cosmos. The effort is called SETI - the Search for Extra Terrestrial Intelligence.

These are not religious fundamentalists at work; they are highly educated and trained scientists who know what so many in academia refuse to acknowledge - that reason can be employed to conclude that "something is out there." What are these scientists hoping to find? Because they believe they can distinguish random noise – things naturally occurring – from signals that are specified and complex, they believe they can see the blueprint of intelligence in signals that are not random but instead designed to convey information. They look primarily for mathematical equations, trusting that universal laws will be knowable to any sentient being and will be a means to communicate, even if our spoken languages are different. NASA did something similar with its deep space probes Pioneer and Voyager; information encoded in the universal language of math and music even now hurtle further into the abyss, awaiting, perhaps, discovery by some advanced intelligence.

Now, let’s suppose that these scientists begin receiving a coded message. With effort, they eventually decode the language, finding that it consists of four letters. These four letters are arranged into billions of lines of code, which the scientists ultimately realize constitute a blueprint to build an extremely complex machine - a self-replicating machine with thousands of interdependent parts that must assemble themselves, correct errors as they occur and continue functioning in harmony decade after decade. What if scientists could begin working with this code to make changes and to alter the natural order of things? Would this not be enough to convince even the most skeptical that "something" highly intelligent and highly powerful was out there? That we are not alone?

So why aren't more people convinced. After all, we already are the recipients of such directed intelligence. The four letter language that codes billions of lines of instructions to build a complex machine is, of course, DNA. In short, while the scientific community remains largely materialistic, that façade is starting to crack, as more is learned about the incredibly information-rich nature of DNA, as well as the fine tuned nature of the laws of the universe. Such information, and such laws, are not random. While some continue to insist that DNA evolved from lifeless matter, they have no mechanism to explain the beginning of DNA. Even the earliest single celled life form required such massive amounts of information that self-assembly is simply implausible.

We all know it intuitvely: information requires a source. This alone does not prove the God of the Bible. But knowing that "something" is out there is not a matter of "faith." Reason itself demands it.

There are none so blind as those who, despite the evidence, continue to refuse to see.

Are We Alone In The Universe?

Is Someone There?

Many atheists today hold the view that faith and reason are opposites. They view Christians as believing in God despite the evidence, instead of because of it, and as long as they hold that view, they will not be open to considering the evidence for God's existence. In my last post, I discussed the importance of being precise in our use of language, so as to cogently demonstrate that reason underlies faith, as it underlies all sound thinking. Atheists who realize that there is nothing irrational about "having faith" may eventually be open to considering the evidence for the God of the Bible.

As a picture paints a thousand words, good analogies can go a long way toward making intellectual concepts like this clear. They can help the listener see that they do in fact rely on “faith” all the time. Because no one can know all things with complete certainty, a decision to believe that something not fully known is true - that it describes the way things really are - is a decision that relies at least to some degree on faith. We all do it, often intuitively and without reflection, because it is simply the way our minds work.

Since the specific question at issue is whether “someone” is there, analogies that make that point can be helpful. Of course, the easiest way to know someone is there is to actually see the person. That would constitute direct evidence. But you can also know someone is there by deduction or inference. The footsteps you see in the sand are pretty powerful indicators that someone was recently walking by. Mail in your mailbox did not spontaneously appear. Or imagine being a police officer coming upon the scene of a burglary; you will strongly suspect someone is inside if you see the broken front door lock and hear movement within. You may be wrong, but it would be rational for you to conclude that someone is there. If you bring in a police dog that alerts to a particular closet in the house, you can be quite sure that someone is behind the door. Despite lacking direct or conclusive knowledge, you would not dismiss these inferences as being based “on faith,” but would instead recognize that you are reasoning to form conclusions about things you cannot directly see.

To these analogies, the atheist may respond: “Okay, that makes some sense. I can deduce ‘someone is there’ from circumstantial evidence, but I already know that people exist, so it is no surprise that a particular person might be in the sand, or delivering mail, or hiding in the house. Now you want me to believe in a God with whom no one has any direct experience?”

Yes, in fact, I do. And in my next post, I'll show how scientists employ this type of reasoning to search for life that no one has yet encountered.

Is Someone There?

PleaseConvinceMe Podcast 170

Is God Just a Human Invention? (Sean McDowell Interview)

In this podcast, Jim interviews Sean McDowell and discusses his new book (co-written with Jonathan Morrow), "Is God Just a Human Invention? And Seventeen Other Questions Raised by the New Atheists". Jim also discusses objections to the miraculous that were classically offered by David Hume and repeated by the "New Atheists" in recent books and articles.

Check out the podcast homepage for subscription information and archives.

PleaseConvinceMe Podcast 170

Got Faith?

Sitting in traffic today, I saw once again the bumper sticker “Got Faith?” In this age of sound bites, two words like this can catch people's attention. But when we borrow a catchy commercial slogan, we risk reducing faith to a commodity - like milk. It becomes something we can - and should - acquire, and if we do, other things in life may go better, in the same way that cookies taste better with milk. But is faith a commodity that we can acquire? Or is it something that everyone already has, with the only quesiton being - what is it in which we are placing our faith?

I recently talked to an atheist friend and was reminded how those with a secular worldview respond to words like faith. She told me that in her view, faith and reason are opposites. Faith, she said, means accepting things you can’t understand or explain, and reason, by contrast, is accepting only those things you can understand and explain. With this view of the world, she will never be open to "having faith" in God, because by her definition, to do so would itself be unreasonable. Those who “got faith” may be comforted, but they have nothing of relevance to say to her.

My friend's definition reminded me of the need to be precise in my use of language. So, I tried to get her to see that faith is not "believing despite the evidence" but is instead the act of trusting in something that you cannot know with complete certainty. Faith, then, contains an action part – trusting – and a standard of proof part, for lack of a better term - the degree of certainty you attach to your conclusion. The opposite of faith is not reason, it is disbelief. In other words, to lack faith in something is to believe that the opposite of it is probably true.

Reason, by contrast, is not an act of trusting; it is act of thinking, a process by which we derive conclusions based on evaluating evidence that we receive through our senses. It can be inductive or deductive; it can be sound or fallacious. But in the end, it is simply a tool that we have access to through the use of our minds, much like the tool of vision, imagination or language acquisition. These things are simply available to any human being with a normally functioning mind. So the opposite of reason is not faith, it is irrationality.

Far from being opposites then, reason and faith coexist in a continuum, in which knowledge begins with things that are definitely known through observable evidence and for which faith is not necessary. For example, I can see that the sun is shining. It moves to things which are not definitely known but are highly likely to be true, such as that the mail will be delivered today. At the far end of the continuum are entirely speculative matters, which can only be taken "on faith." I may catch fish today, but faith that I will bag five is speculation, not knowledge.

Moving to the realm of religion, faith in God, like any other conclusion a person reaches, is always the product of reason, because reason is simply the only way anyone can arrive at a conclusion. What distinguishes sound faith from foolish faith is the strength of the evidence that supports the conclusion and the validity of the reasoning process that was used. And here the secularist and the believer will diverge. Those with a secular worldview have "faith" that with more education, man can be perfected, while believers have "faith" that man's only solution to his fallenness is Christ. Each bases his faith on evidence, each is reasoning to a conclusion, and neither can know for certain whether his trust is properly placed.

This, of course, is just the beginning of the conversation. But if the non-believer cannot be shown that faith and reason are not opposites, she will never be open to hearing the many solid reasons we have for placing our faith where we do.

Got Faith?

PleaseConvinceMe Podcast 169

The "Sure" Will of God

In this podcast, Jim answers listener email related to the sovereignty of God and the freedom of man. What does the Bible mean when it talks about the "will of God"? Jim also addresses a challenge from an atheist related to the reliability of the New Testament documents.

Check out the podcast homepage for subscription information and archives.

PleaseConvinceMe Podcast 169

Of Thunderbolts and Ignorance

Scientific discoveries like the Big Bang give support to the Christian position that God created the universe. Nonetheless, the atheist will often challenge the believer by deriding such acknowledgement of God as primitive or foolish. On a recent Stand to Reason broadcast, a caller compared belief in God to a primitive man attributing thunderbolts to Thor. Since we can’t explain the exact mechanism of creation, the caller asked, why can’t the Christian simply admit that he is ignorant?

This argument is clever because it puts the apologist on the defensive. The implied critique goes something like this: if earlier men were ignorant when they assumed a personal agent caused lightning, then all people who draw inferences about personal agents causing events are also guilty of ignorance. But this of course is simply false. Sometimes personal agents cause events – like when someone sets a fire – and sometimes events occur by chance or by some impersonal law. To decide which is the cause, we use reason to assess the available evidence.

Since the primitive man had no scientific knowledge, it is understandable that he might attribute a powerful event like lightning to a personal source. But Christians are not imagining a creator when they look at the evidence of the universe. Quite the contrary: given the nature of the universe – its order, fine tuning and the complex design inherent in life – we quite properly infer that something immensely intelligent and immensely powerful set it in motion.

What, then, of the caller’s challenge that we don’t know how it was done? But what difference does how make, when the only question really at issue is not how, but by whom? By the caller's reasoning, I should also admit that because I am ignorant of how programming, hard drives and BIOS’s work, the source of computers is simply unknowable. I should just "be honest and admit that I don’t know,” as the caller put it. But what I don’t know – as Greg Koukl pointed out – is simply the mechanism by which the thing is done, and this is very different than the existence or the source of the thing itself.

And this is where the caller’s position starts to fall apart. If I really am ignorant of how a computer works, how could I conclude that everyone else must be as well? Would it not be possible that others who had studied the question more or who had access to other sources of knowledge might know what I didn’t? So, if I really believed my own ignorance, why challenge others to also admit ignorance? Why bother to call at all? Could it be that the atheist doesn't just feign ignorance, but is succeeding in making himself so?

As Christians, we bear witness to a personal God, not because we are grasping at myths, but because we believe the evidence of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection sufficient for us to know Him in a personal way. In other words, we personalize the source of the Big Bang not by myth but by specific revelation.

In the end, science and the Christian worldview are not in conflict. It is the one who insists despite the evidence that there is no God – and ultimately no one to whom we will one day be called to answer – that is persisting in ignorance.

Of Thunderbolts and Ignorance

As We Remember 9/11

Everyone remembers where they were on that day. I was at home when the phone rang. “Erin, turn on the television. You have to see this,” my close friend urged with shock in her voice. It was September 11, 2001. As we commemorate the 9th anniversary, Christians should keep several things in mind.

First, we should remember that great evil was experienced on that day. Yes, it was evil and we should not be bullied into calling it anything less. Time passes and we may forget much of the fear, misery, disbelief, and sadness. This slideshow captures well the events of September 11th and helps us not forget the deeds of men can bring great evil. The Christian worldview accounts for such evil, affirming the sinfulness of man.

Second, we should remember who perpetrated the evils of September 11. Radical Islamic terrorists who hate America attacked the U.S. They hate us for many reasons but especially for the freedoms we enjoy and for the Christian nation they believe us to be. Because the attackers were Muslim, conversations about Islam come up every year. The topic is on the front page of every paper right now. There’s the Ground Zero mosque, which is to be built a few blocks from where the World Trade Center stood. Then there’s Pastor Terry Jones, a Baptist minster who had plans to burn copies of the Quran. Christians must be informed about Islam and be prepared to engage others in thoughtful conversations about the differences between Islam and Christianity. Of course we should be charitable and kind in our discussions (unlike current public discourse), but also speak the truth about Islam and its logical out-workings. Alan Shlemon of Stand to Reason has written a great resource to help Christians engage.

At PleaseConvinceMe, we seek truth first and foremost in our beliefs. Many outside of the church, and even inside, claim all religious beliefs are equally valid. The September 11th hijackers sincerely believed what they were doing was good and right and that they would be rewarded in their afterlife. As we remember September 11th as a nation, remember as a Christian to pray for those who experienced great pain that day. And pray for opportunities to talk to others about the truth of Christianity. September 11 is a stark reminder that ideas have consequences.

As We Remember 9/11

What the Fool Believes

“The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.” If this passage from Psalms is correct, then many people today are fools, for they insist that God does not exist. My last post discussed one such person, the renowned physicist Stephen Hawking, whose new book apparently attempts to make that case.

What makes such a person – especially such a highly intelligent and successful scientist – nonetheless a “fool,” and not merely someone with whom we disagree?

Well, let’s begin with a look at the definition of “fool,” which includes “a person who has been tricked or deceived into appearing or acting silly or stupid.” Now, sometimes we trick ourselves, and thereby make fools of ourselves. And other times we are misled. But either way, most would agree that someone who holds contradictory views has deceived himself. Imagine a person proudly proclaiming that the prime rib he is about to eat is an important part of his vegetarian diet. Or the person who says that the only medicine that can save him is the one with no ingredients.

But sometimes contradictions aren’t as obvious. Why, then, is it a contradiction to insist there is no God? It doesn’t appear to be contradictory - at first glance anyway. For the answer to that question, we are indebted to St. Anselm of Canterbury, who lived and pondered these questions some ten centuries ago. I can’t do justice to Anselm’s argument in this brief piece, but perhaps some concepts borrowed from Anselm may help make the point.

The first requires consideration of just what the mind does. Anyone who has seen a baby develop realizes that the human mind comes preprogrammed with an “operating system” of sorts. This allows us to acquire language, to reason, to recognize concepts such as fairness and truth and beauty, and other intangible things, and to make use of imagination. This ability for abstract thought lends itself to “got it” moments, when a problem that has been puzzling us all of a sudden makes sense. We all use these systems intuitively; of course there is no other way, since we could never use reason, for instance, to prove the validity or usefulness of reason.

One aspect of this ability for abstract thought is the ability to conceptualize. Food, for instance, can encompass a million different things, but to qualify it must be edible and serve to nourish, and not poison, us. We can call an ash tray food, but the underlying thing is not a matter of what we call it, but of what it consists.

So, with this observation in view, consider for a moment not what a definition of God might be, but what the conception of God is. What is it that we are struggling to grasp when we use that term? Anselm’s definition was simply this – God is that being a greater than which cannot be conceived. Whatever attributes God would have – omnipotence, omnipresence, perfect goodness, etc. – if you can conceive of a being with all those attributes plus an additional one, then the latter would be God. So, imagine two beings then – each with exhaustive, infinite powers. One of the two has the attribute of necessary existence, while the other may or may not exist. Clearly, the former – the one with necessary existence – would be the greater. Consequently, to fully conceive of God, we must be conceiving of a Being who can’t not exist, whose existence must always have been and will always continue to be. Anything else simply cannot fit the conception of God.

So, what does that prove? Maybe this conception of God is imaginary. Not so, Anselm would contend. And here’s why: the mind is not capable of conceptualizing something that does not in fact exist, that does not relate to something real. Now, this premise is a bit harder to get one’s mind around. The normal response to this part of the argument is that we create imaginary things all the time, from unicorns to tooth fairies to Jedi Knights. But each of these things, while imaginary, is the combining of things that are real: a horse and a horn; a person with wings and unusual powers; a warrior with special abilities and unusual weapons. And, moreover, neither a unicorn nor a tooth fairy nor a Jedi Knight would possess the attribute of necessary existence. If a unicorn did exist, it would have to consist of a horse with a single horn in its head; but its existence could have occurred briefly in the distant past, or could arise in the distant future or could not occur at all. We can fully conceptualize such a creature without the need that the creature itself actually exist, because the conceptualization does not require necessary existence. For God, by contrast, the only way to conceptualize Him is as a necessarily existent being. If you are not seeing Him that way, says Anselm, you are not yet thinking about God, but about something lesser.

This foray into philosophy can be difficult. Fortunately, there are many other proofs for God’s existence, ones much easier with which to grapple, but this one stands out for its elegance. For if it has merit, then God has embedded within us the means to find Him in the one place we have exclusive and special access to: our very minds.

If Anselm is right, then the fool who denies God is saying something like “I believe that the Being who must necessarily exist does not exist.” A rather foolish thing to say, when you see it clearly.

The Bible says that God has written his law on our heart. Perhaps if we probe a bit deeper still, we can also begin to see in its depths the first faint scratching of His signature.

What the Fool Believes

What Shall We Say Then?

Paul says in Romans, chapter 6, “What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase?” and also, “What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace?” These are not questions that are in Paul’s mind but are the push back; the questions that he is getting from those that he is preaching to regarding grace and obedience. So whenever I get this response from LDS I feel that I am in good company and hopefully portraying the ideas of grace and works in a way that is consistent with the biblical account. Paul answers both with, “May it never be!”

I recently received this comment from the post Glenn Beck and the Gospel? and it is common to get these questions from Mormons as we begin to discuss the notions of grace and faith within orthodox Christianity.

Anonymous - So lets say a person goes to church and accepts Jesus as his Savior and acknowledges it is only through Jesus's atonement he is saved. He then murders and rapes a few women-is he still saved?

My understanding of the atonement is without Christ, no matter how good we are we can not be "saved." Without grace no matter how "good" I am-no matter how many good works I do, I cannot dwell with God because I would always have imperfections and sins. It is only through grace I am saved. Without Christ's atonement, the ability to repent of ones sins would not even exist.

We do have a part to do and that is to have faith, strive to obey God's commandments and repent of our sins-knowing there is no way to be absolutely perfect. In the Bible James 2 says faith without works is dead. Don't you think Christ wants us to do good.

Conversely, I do not believe someone who stands up in church and and says "I believe in Jesus and Grace" is saved no matter what his actions are. If he then goes around doing all manner of evil, I do not believe he will "dwell with God."

Is my understanding incorrect?

My response is:

Anonymous, thanks for commenting. These are good questions. First let’s examine atonement and repentance. Repentance is turning from a life of sin to trusting in God, not a process that includes the requirement of forsaking all sins brought about by the action of Christ through His atonement to allow us the ability to repent of ones sins as Mormonism teaches. The atonement is Christ taking our rightful place under God’s wrath (Romans 5:8-9), not an opportunity to be resurrected and judged by our works - again how the LDS church portrays this idea. We have to trust fully in Christ’s perfect work (nothing else is needed) on the cross alone for our salvation. That is faith - a living faith (to use James’ analogy) that will produce the works James is talking about. A dead faith (a non-existent faith) can be seen by man when no good works come forth so that faith without works is dead.

Now, here’s the kicker… just because someone does good works, does not mean that they have a living faith. There are lots of reasons someone may do good works and one of the reasons is that man can be fooled by someone doing good and assume that they have a living faith and are saved. God can not. God is not fooled and so we know that we are justified (made right before God despite our sinfulness) only by our faith in Christ’s sufficient sacrifice (Romans 3:28). So can someone be truly saved and sin? Yes. Can someone claim to be saved and live a sinful lifestyle –or- can someone live a life that appears good to man but doesn’t fully trust in God for their salvation? Yes, but they aren’t fooling God.

Read Can I Save Myself with my Good Works? at pleaseconvinceme.com.

What Shall We Say Then?

PleaseConvinceMe Podcast 168

What Do the Non-Canonical Gospels Say About Jesus? (Part 3)

In this podcast, Jim finishes his examination of the ancient non-canonical writings by examining some of the better known (and more controversial) non-canonical texts.

Check out the podcast homepage for subscription information and archives.

PleaseConvinceMe Podcast 168

So Whose Hands Are They Anyway?

Doctors recently preformed an amazing double hand transplant surgery giving recipient Richard Edwards donor hands to replace his own which had been severely burned in a fire in 2006. While this is an incredible story and a testament as to how advanced we’ve become medically I think it raises an even more interesting and valuable insight about the nature of what man essentially is.

There are two basic views of what man is. The first one is called naturalism or physicalism and it says that man is a purely physical object with no soul or immaterial properties. On this view man is a complicated piece of meat made up of various physical parts and there is nothing more to him. The second view is called substance dualism. It says that man possesses both a physical body and an immaterial substance called a soul. On this view man is not a body that has a soul, but a soul that has a body.

So how does the story of a hand transplant give us any insight or clues as to which of these two ideas is more reasonable to believe? First let’s take a look at the language the news story writer uses to convey what’s happened. I think we can safely assume that the writer used the phrases and words that came naturally rather than attempting to defend some type of philosophical position.

The first line of the news story says, “The recipient of a rare double hand transplant says he feels "fantastic" and can wiggle fingers on both his new hands.” Notice the word “his”. The word “his” in this context implies that the recipient is something other than the new hands that were attached to “his” body. If naturalism were true then the most accurate way to describe the transplant would be something like, “The body known as Richard Edwards had donor hands attached to it.” To some this might seem like just an issue of semantics but I think it actually reveals something else. I think it reveals that the writer intuitively assumes that Edwards is something other than his physical body. Why else would he use the type of language that he does?

So whose hands are they anyway? Do they belong to the body known as Richard Edwards simply because they’re attached to it? If we did a DNA comparison between the cells in the donor hands and the cells in Edwards feet would they be an exact match? Clearly not. If we took fingerprints from the donor hands and compared them to fingerprints Edwards had given with his birth hands would they be a match? Again, no. So who is Edwards? Is he a purely physical body with some extreme irregularities or an immaterial soul that now has use of two different sets of body parts? Is he the same person he was to friends and family before the surgery or now a substantially different person from the one they had known before? An honest naturalist would have to conclude that Edwards is now a completely different husband, father, brother and co-worker than he was before. But isn't that conclusion obviously false?

What if tomorrow a cold case homicide investigator runs a set of fingerprints and a DNA signature through a law enforcement data base and gets a match on the donor hands Edwards now possesses for a crime committed 20 years ago? Obviously these are the hands that committed the crime. Do we now charge Edwards with murder? No you object, those hands weren’t attached to “his” body when the crime was committed. But aren’t these the hands that committed the crime? Do we charge the “person” who possessed the hands at the time of the crime or do we charge the body parts that committed it? We know the right answer to this and that’s because we intuitively know that the immaterial person should be held responsible and not the body.

Scientists tell us that virtually every cell in our body changes and is renewed every seven years. This means that “you” have an absolutely different body then “you” had seven years ago. What if you had committed a crime ten years ago and the evidence had you before a judge answering for it today? From a naturalist point of view wouldn’t it be wise to say that your current body hadn’t committed the crime? You could further explain that it was the old body that had. Therefore you should be exonerated and let go, right? Wrong. No one would argue this way, but why not if naturalism is true? I think we all know the answer to this. We know that there is something immaterial about us that endures and makes us who we are though our bodies are completely changing and different throughout our lives. That thing that endures and is our essential self is our immaterial soul. We are souls that have bodies.

For an excellent lecture by J.P. Moreland on worldview and the soul check out this video link.

So Whose Hands Are They Anyway?

Hawking's Universe

In the beginning was… not the Word … but the singularity event occurring in absolute nothingness and timelessness that spontaneously created all we see in the universe around us. So says physicist Stephen Hawking, anyway, in a recent book, where he apparently explains that "it is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper [fuse] and set the universe going.” All it takes is gravity and the existence of, well, multiple other universes.

Headlines like these can be very disturbing for people of faith, and provide false comfort to those who prefer to suppress their innate knowledge of God. But how does one argue with an expert, especially one with the obvious knowledge and world renown of a Stephen Hawking?

Actually, it’s done all the time. Every week in criminal courtrooms across America, experts from a variety of disciplines take the witness stand, with the expectation that the jury will follow along. These experts must first be qualified before they are allowed to offer an opinion. But their qualifications – even qualifications as weighty as Hawking’s – do not give them a free pass. The expert's opinions, like all evidence presented in court, must be tested. While the prosecutors who are called upon to test that evidence lack the expert’s depth of knowledge, they nonetheless can apply sound thinking skills to show that the expert opinions do not change the fact of guilt for the defendant whose fate the jury must decide. Often in fact, despite their great intelligence and knowledge of their particular field of study, the experts reach erroneous, often foolish, conclusions.

Before testing Hawking’s claim, it’s worth noting that his very effort to dethrone God is itself powerful evidence that the modern atheist’s position is, simply, irrational. Hawking has poured so much effort into using science to provide an alternate explanation for how the universe began precisely because we all know – intuitively and through our senses – that you cannot get something from nothing. No matter how long or how hard you try. More to the point, you cannot get all that surrounds us – the grandeur of nature, the inner working of the cell, the incredible complexity of the human brain, the existence of order, design, beauty, truth, morality – without some adequate underlying source.

What is the mistake in Hawking’s approach? Simply this: you can’t use science to prove what occurred prior to, and outside of, nature. This is because science is a tool for discovering things about nature, not things outside of nature. It is not a book of wisdom, or a book of ultimate origins, but is instead a method for using our senses, and reason, to learn how and why things occur or are the way they are. So, even if there are a multitude of universes, and even if gravity could cause creation – as Hawking claims - there is simply no way for us - the created - to see beyond creation to know what set those things into motion. Even if Hawking is right, there is no way he – or anyone else on Earth – could know it.

Consider a programmer writing a computer simulation in which a virtual soldier is given artificial intelligence, and a set of missions to perform. If the soldier uses his intelligence to begin inquiring as to the nature of the computer in which he is housed, what information would that provide him about the programmer? Only such information as the programmer wanted his creation to know. Regardless of how clever this soldier became, he could never know what the programmer wished to accomplish with the program, or what motivated him to write it, unless the programmer gave him that information. What stunning arrogance it would be for the soldier to nonetheless conclude from his inquiry that he self assembled - that there was not a programmer at all.

This, too, is Hawking’s problem. As a scientist, he no doubt understands that theories must be tested in some fashion to give them scientific weight. How can a theory about multiple universes which do not intersect in any fashion with our own ever be tested? How can he demonstrate that gravity was not first created by Someone immensely powerful and completely outside of our physical reality?

Why then write a “science” book that is itself a foray outside of science, if not to prove something that science simply cannot prove? Why indeed. The Bible warns that the wisdom of the world is folly to God. Perhaps this is what it means.

Hawking's Universe

What, Me Worry?

Alfred E. Neumann, the famous face of Mad Magazine for many decades, popularized this slogan. While he wasn’t referring to the question of salvation, this saying does seem to describe the way many people view that question today. Yes, there may be a God, they will concede. But “I’m not worried,” they say. “I’m a good person, after all, and God will judge me accordingly.”

In my last post, I considered one of the ways to address this modern mindset, by making the point that expecting God to grade on a curve may not be a smart bet. This time, I’d like to explore a different approach, by examining what people mean when they say they are good and why a God they never bothered to get to know should care.

We can be “good” at things that do not involve others. For instance, we can be good at building sandcastles or doing crossword puzzles. But usually, when we say we are good at something, we mean that our performance is meeting or surpassing expectations. While we might not be aware of it, we are sneaking in a standard against which we judge what we have done. For instance, if we’re talking about sports, we mean we possess the skill set, discipline and experience necessary to play effectively and to win. If we’re dealing with academics, we mean that we are sufficiently bright, hardworking and knowledgeable to demonstrate our mastery of the subject on the test or in the class we have taken. If we’re thinking about the work environment, we mean that we know what is expected in our role and we have the skills, experience and dedication to accomplish our goals.

What do these things have in common? In addition to a standard, they all involve relationship, or in other words, a standard setter. We measure the good based on what performance is expected of us by someone who is in charge, who is setting the standard, and who in the end will measure the performance. Whether the ref, the teacher or the boss, if we really want to stand out as good, we’d be well advised to find out what the particular judge thinks qualifies as good. And, the more powerful the judge, the more important it is to understand the standard and to get it right. After all, it’s more important for the employee or the prison inmate to understand what good means, than the person who is trying to finish a crossword puzzle.

Now the only way we can know for sure what qualifies as good is to get to know the one who is setting the standard. The modern secularist isn’t bothering to do this. He doesn’t know anything about the One who in the end will judge his performance, the One who is going to say whether all these so called good works amounted to anything of value. More importantly, he doesn’t seem to care. Yet he thinks he will approach this judge in the end and ask for a reward for the things he has done. Perhaps he is picturing a sort of cosmic subway station: he keeps putting “good deed” coins in until finally the gate swings open allowing him entry.

As Christians, we know that our good works don’t earn us admission. But the secularist isn’t thinking that way. When he tells you he is good, he means he expects God to see this as well. You should remind him that by his own standard, he may be in a bit more trouble than he thinks. The coins he is depositing are from a different realm, and they don’t work with the guardian of the gate. It’s actually the wrong currency.

Think of it this way: can I ask the teacher of a different class to give me an A based on the good work I am doing in my class? Can I ask your employer to pay me for the good work I am doing for my employer? Should I expect my friend to give my son an allowance for the chores he performs at my home? If you weren’t doing the work for someone you knew, the way you knew he wanted it, why would you expect a reward?

Why then should the secularist who knows nothing about God, and cares even less, expect God to recognize any of his works as good?

What, Me Worry?

The Glenn Beck Revival

When Glenn Beck called for a religious awakening in this country, all the people said “Amen!” When Glenn Beck said he was bringing a message about “God and faith” to the steps of the Lincoln Memorial on August 28th, again all the people said, “Amen!” I mean what believer doesn’t want to see our country return to the place of our founding, where Americans believed our rights came from God and gave Him the recognition for those rights?

Evangelicals have found a friend in Beck recently because of his fight for conservative values and principles, many of which align with biblical teaching. But his rally in Washington was described as “not political” but “religious.” Beck believes to “save our country” we must have “a religious awakening and return to God.” The problem comes when Beck begins to talk about the God that he believes in. Beck is a Mormon and has repeatedly affirmed his allegiance to the LDS church.

As a Mormon, Beck’s god is not the God that we would turn to and therefore, creates a problem when Christians get behind a religious rally that is led by a Mormon. Beck is clear that he doesn’t care “what God you turn to,” just that we “get back to church.” As Christians, we certainly care what god you turn to because a false god cannot provide the salvation you seek.

Also troubling are some of Beck’s beliefs regarding American history. Listen closely to the first few minutes of this clip as he describes the time of Moses and talks about the same thing happening here in America.

This is clearly Mormon teaching. He describes the Native Americans as “God’s chosen people” because Mormons believe that they are descendants of the Jews.

Evangelicals can get behind Glenn Beck on a number of political issues: life, government, freedom, our culture, and economics. But that support must end when he moves to the topic of religion. That is where our commonalities end because the Gospel is a stake and the Gospel always takes precedent over politics.

The Glenn Beck Revival

I Love Jesus; Why Do You Say I Am Not Christian?

One of the most difficult things about witnessing to a Mormon is how they want to show that we are in agreement. In fact, it's hard to even know where to begin showing them that we are not agreeing. We are conversing with the same terminology after all, right? We use the same words like God, Jesus, Holy Spirit, repentance, scripture, faith and heaven. We both believe that Jesus was born in the Jerusalem area, that He lived a perfect life and that He died on the cross and rose three days later. We both claim to be Christian. But our ‘agreement’ is effectively keeping us from a meaningful discussion, and the Mormon from true salvation.

You see, each of the words listed above (and many others) have been redefined in Mormonism. According to Mormonism, God is not the God, but a god; god's name is Elohim and we are his literal spirit children by one of his many goddess wives. Jesus is not God but the eldest of Elohim's children; he's our and Satan's spirit-brother. Repentance is the process of turning from each specific sin, to never repeat it again, and making restitution when possible. Scripture includes the books written by Joseph Smith and latter-day prophets.

I was Mormon, so when I finally read the Bible without trying to find my LDS beliefs in it, it got a lot easier to understand... and told a different story than I expected. The Bible only allows for one God - YHWH - who is eternally self-existent in three 'persons', one of which is the virgin-born Hebrew Yeshua (YHWH becomes Salvation). Repentance is not abandonment of sin, but the change of heart/mind that accompanies realizing that Jesus is God come to earth to take the punishment we deserve and believing on Him as Savior. Heaven is not layered, with divisions according to the righteousness we displayed in our 'mortal probation', but it is where God is, which is why it is Paradise.

The LDS will chalk these differences in meaning up to a different interpretation of scripture. They believe that Christians are the ones who do not understand; that when Joseph Smith restored true Christianity to the earth, he corrected what had been ruined and/or misunderstood. LDS will also try to point to specific Bible verses they've been taught, to justify their beliefs. But the differences cannot be explained away by simple misinterpretation; and Smith's 'restoration' is completely contrary to the most fundamental truths of the Bible. Mormons do not even know that they are taught a system of Biblical eisegesis which injects LDS beliefs into the Bible, instead of searching the Bible to see what it teaches.

And there's more.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints gives people a false Jesus not just by redefining Him, but by allowing Mormons to simply incorporate Christ into their lives. In Mormonism (as perhaps in many religions), a person can begin to do what they think is more Christ-like -- donating money to charity, visiting the sick, praying, etc. -- without ever having to personally meet and go up against God one-on-one.

Christianity is not this way. There is no making Jesus a part of the life you already have. When I first was saved, I tried to do that. I wanted my worldly life and God's grace, too. But God was emphatic. He absolutely broke me down until all there was left to do - and I knew it - was to say, "I surrender. You are God." I was not good; I finally understood that. He alone is good; and He expected me to die to myself, to kill my fleshly desires, so that I could have the ONE THING that I was really looking for - Him.

Mormonism gives people the right words to hold, the good ideals to shoot for. What it does not and cannot give its people is GOD Almighty. Believing God is my father and Jesus is my brother makes salvation/atonement not as significant an issue. The belief that I can become a god(dess) keeps me from prostrating myself before the One unimaginably Worthy and Holy God that there ever is and ever will be, in fear, admiration, and utter awe and worthlessness. My salvation came when I finally saw God for who He truly is, and myself for who I truly am – this is the truth that has set me free. And I had to fully reject my Mormon thinking to do come to that place.

I hope that you can see why I believe a Mormon who believes the LDS doctrine is not a Christian. I have no doubts that there are some LDS who, in their hearts, worship only One God, and will be saved. But it is in spite of their religion that they do this, not because of it. I've been told by some Mormons that I am trying to create my own super-exclusive definition of the word "Christian" - but I am only trying to put the right words to my understanding of the term as I find it in the Bible. A family-oriented, hard-working, good-as-can-be, church-attendee is not, by biblical definition, a Christian. A person who knows they deserve to die because of their sin against YHWH, who has turned to the Jesus of the Bible as the only solution and believes He alone is the way to be reconciled with God... is.

A few pertinent verses: Luke 18:19; Mark 10:18; Romans 3:9-13,23, 5:8, 6:23; John 1:12-13, 3:15-17, 5:24,28, 11:25,26,27, 12:24-25, 14:16; Galatians 2:16, 3:10-14; Colossians 1:15-17, 2:4-20; Hebrews 10:10-12; 1 John 1:1,5,8-10, 2:1-2, 5:10-13; 1 Corinthians 15:1-4; Ephesians 2:8-9.

I Love Jesus; Why Do You Say I Am Not Christian?