What Does Evangelism to Mormons Look like?

I recently had the opportunity to spend a week in Manti, Utah enjoying the beautiful San Pete Valley, catching up with old friends, helping some Christian churches with ministry and local outreach, but most importantly talking with Mormons about the truth of God’s word. Every summer, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints puts on an elaborate and free production detailing both the events of the Book of Mormon and the early LDS church history in an outdoor dramatic performance called the Manti Miracle Pageant. The pageant begins at dusk and for several hours prior its start, Christian missionaries and street preachers gather, worship God, pray and converse with LDS who came early for good seats and are waiting for the pageant to begin.

I am often asked, “What goes on during the conversations? Is it hostile? Are you anti-Mormon? Do you hate Mormons? Are you there to protest? Does anything you say matter because Mormons are so entrenched and it’s all about a feeling?”

I wanted to post this great interview as an example of a typical conversation between a Mormon and an Evangelical Christian that occurs on the streets of Manti during the Pageant. Jared, the young man in the interview is a Fundamentalist Mormon, which means that he believes the teachings of Mormonism by the early LDS prophets, but that the LDS church has gone astray at some point and that the original teachings of the LDS church remain true. These teachings include the doctrine that Adam is God, that blacks were unfaithful in the pre-existence and should not be LDS priesthood holders and that God has commanded polygamy as the only way to be exalted. All these ideas were taught as revelations from God at one time in the LDS church, but have been somewhat abandoned due to social pressure from those outside the LDS church. I have spoken with many different fundamentalists (each group has minor differences and follow different non-LDS prophets) and have found them to be open to talking about and at times more consistent in their beliefs than most LDS. Having said that, I still think that this is a terrific example of the conversations that I have experienced over the years in Manti with LDS.

Notice that the Mormon did not fall to his knees and repent of the false ideas of Mormonism, but neither did he angrily storm off. While there have certainly been LDS who have become upset or angry in discussions, every year on the streets, there are also LDS who want freedom from the heavy yoke of Mormonism and are awakened to the truth, giving themselves wholly to Christ. The experience of Mormons that leave the LDS church reveals that it takes about 7 years from the first time they are challenged in their thinking about Mormonism, where a “seed of truth is planted” until they leave the LDS church.

Notice also the interest that the LDS have in the conversation, especially the children. The chain link fence seen in the background borders the LDS church property and there are signs posted that read, “Private Property – Pageant Visitors WELCOME – NO Proselyting or Evangelizing Allowed.” Of course the LDS missionaries evangelize those who have come to see the pageant, passing out information cards to allow Mormon Missionaries to come visit you when you return home. The NO Evangelizing signs are meant for the Christians who have come.

Notice also the love that Aaron, the Christian, has for first, God and second, Mormons. Aaron is also a street preacher who often loudly proclaims God’s word and challenges LDS in their beliefs while standing on a small step-ladder or carrying a large cross. The crowds that form around a street preacher can near 100 people on a given night. The crowd of curious and often angry LDS that form is a great place to engage interested Mormons that choose not to hide within the confines of the chain link and NO Proselyting refuge of the church property. It is fascinating that LDS will often condemn those that would preach on the streets and say to me, “at least you’re not like those guys.” Aaron’s heart doesn’t change as he steps up to preach. He continues to be compelled by love.

I hope you enjoy the video.

What Does Evangelism to Mormons Look like?

Galatians 5:22 - Joy

You hear a knock at your front door. You check your teeth in the living room mirror and hurry to see who has come to visit. To your utter amazement, there stands the Publishers Clearing House Sweepstakes representatives, balloons and flower in hands, to announce that you are the Grand Prize Winner of 1 Billion U.S. dollars (before taxes). Your chin drops to your knees, your eyes roll backward in your skull, and you nearly vomit on the nice Clearing House folks. A few short moments later, though, the paperwork has been finished and your eyes have started to focus again and you are ready to do some serious fantasizing. What are you going to do with all that money? What are all the things you can have now, things you've always wanted? This is finally your chance to be happy for good.

Right?

While you are thinking about what you would do with all that money, I am going to talk about what I believe God's Word says makes a person truly happy. When the Bible speaks of joy, the temporary happiness that comes with the acquisition of possessions or the realization of a worldly desire is not at all what it's talking about. In fact, the joy it speaks of comes from just the opposite, grows over time and trial, and is a true and steady, peaceful happiness.

Each person on the Earth is born with a sinful nature. In essence, that means that what we desire naturally, because we believe it will make us happy, leads us to unhappiness. The only way to conquer the power this nature has over us is to subject it to Christ, to let it die with Him at the cross, and to receive a new nature from Him by faith in His redeeming sacrifice. Therefore, true joy - happiness that is not easily gained or lost - begins when we admit that we are hopelessly sinful, and place our faith in Jesus the Christ as our only hope of salvation.

After we do this, and as we grow closer to God by learning about Him in the Bible, and trusting His Word, we begin to become more aware of the sins we have been favoring in our lives. God has promised to work on us, to help us shed our rebellion, self-righteousness, and false-god-worshiping ways, to develop in us Christ-like characteristics. As we see the habits that were killing us lose their grip, as we begin to witness new and genuinely lovely traits in our personalities, and as we grow to understand that God gave us rules not to imprison us, but to free us - the happiness of our our innocence returns. Therefore, joy is grown through trusting God, believing Him, and being sanctified by Him.

At many points in the believer's walk, he is asked to give up a thing that has made him feel happy or secure, to trade with God again the temporal for the eternal. It may be that the man loses his family, his career, his status, his hard-earned possessions. Most hopefully, the man will lose all faith in the world and what it has to offer, in himself as his qualified leader, and in the need to fret about today. In the place of those things, he gains God as his faithful provider, his most wise and benevolent authority, his good and gentle helper. This makes the man happy in a way that any other method could not. Therefore, joy is tied up with learning the certainty of God's promises, provision, and sovereignty.

There are also believers who are called upon by God to live without the blessings of physical safety for themselves and their families - and yet they live in joy. These are they who willingly risk their lives to communicate to others the hopeful and saving message of Christ crucified. Christians, even today in some countries, are being beaten, raped, skinned, stabbed, blown-up, burned, and killed - but for the joy of having and spreading the Good News that a person can have security in God for eternity, they forebear. God uses their immensely powerful love-witness to draw souls in droves to Himself, to set them free as well. These folks count it a privilege to suffer for Christ, because they understand that He IS EVERYTHING - that without Him, life is meaningless. Therefore, joy unspeakable comes from disregarding one's own self, one's own life, to serve Jesus and one's fellow man to the ultimate goal - the reunion of souls with God. Joy comes from having loosened one's grip on this world, from having a "Kingdom" mindset, and from being completely sold out as a slave to Jesus.

In Galatians 5:22-3, the apostle Paul says that the fruit of the Spirit is first, love, and second, joy. A woman who has learned the truth of God, who has trusted her Savior Jesus Christ with her salvation, and who is being transformed into the creature God intended her to be by the indwelling Holy Spirit, has begun to learn what true love is - that it comes from abandoning one's Self in the hands of the Almighty God, viewing life and herself in the right perspective, and being freed from her selfish nature to serve God and other people. If she will allow it, all of these things bring her a come-what-may, wondrous joy. If she loses this joy for a time, a reminder of God's love for her, her escape from hell and a sin-ruled life, and God's amazing work in and all around her can bring her back to her knees in grateful, liberating, gladness. Therefore, "agape" love and true God-given joy go hand-in-hand.

Once again, it is my hope that this exploration of the word "joy" will convince the LDS reader that Paul was not speaking of a momentary happy feeling, as in an answer to prayer. I strongly suspect that a person exhibiting the kind of joy described in Galatians 5:22, when standing in front of the Clearing House money-bearers, would not even be tempted to buy himself any luxury but would prayerfully and carefully turn it all over to the service of Christ. And how happy he would be that he could do that!

Galatians 5:22 - Joy

The Power of Circumstantial Evidence and the Case for Christianity

PleaseConvinceMe Podcast 210

In this podcast, Jim describes the power and reliability of circumstantial evidence in making a case for the Christian Worldview. Drawing on examples from his work as a Cold Case Detective, Jim explains the cumulative power of circumstantial evidence. He also answers listener email related to the archaeological evidence for the Exodus, the nature of human conception related to the issue of abortion, the problem of evil and the importance of character.

Check out the podcast homepage for subscription information and archives.

The Power of Circumstantial Evidence and the Case for Christianity

Why Failing to Persuade Others Should Not Discourage Us

Many new apologists get right to work trying to convince others of the truth of the Christian worldview. When they meet with limited "success," they often lose heart. A recent email to PCM expressed this view; the writer acknowledged that his inability to convince people that his faith was truth caused him to become discouraged. This discouragement often leads to doubt... and eventually to a loss of faith.

There is, of course, a certain logic to this. After all, ideas that are false - that lack persuasive power- are not likely to be accepted by others. That is one of the strengths that the 1st Amendment supports - the notion that in the marketplace of ideas, good ideas prevail while bad ones are eventually weeded out.

But implied in this understanding is the assumption that the listener will give the ideas a fair shake. If the listener has already decided not to accept the claim, even before he considers the evidence and arguments, then all the persuasiveness in the world will not alter the outcome. Moreover, if the listener is motivated by emotion rather than reason, then evidence and arguments are not likely to have an effect.

One way to test for this is to ask the listener what it would take to get him to change his view. Oftentimes, it's not so much the person's answer that you are looking for but the hesitation in answering, which reveals the person's commitment to persisting in his views despite the evidence. This is especially evident when discussing "hot button" issues such as abortion. When you see hesitation, or a commitment to maintaining one's position, then your apologetical efforts will likely prove futile.

As a prosecutor, identifying hidden biases is of great importance. The jury that is selected to consider a case must be open to hearing and fairly evaluating the evidence. Otherwise, the verdict will be a reflection of their preexisting biases and not of the truth of the underlying charge. Whether its a case of possession of marijuana, or a decision on the death penalty, it's simply not possible to overcome strongly held biases. For this reason, much effort is devoted to excusing jurors who will not consider the evidence so that the trial itself is not simply a waste of time. The point of the trial is to determine whether the claims as to what occurred are true - that is, whether they conform to reality - and not a referendum on the wisdom or efficacy of the law. Similarly with apologetics efforts,the point is to demonstrate that the Resurrection is an historical event, so that the listener might then consider the claims that Jesus and his disciples made. A listener who already believes that all religions are bad, or that miracles don't occur, will not consider the evidence from history.

There are, of course, arguments against the existence of God, or against the truth claims of Christianity. But as a "one dollar apologist," I don't often encounter these. Most people I have discussed Christianity with are simply apathetic. They are living good lives, lives that are full of relationship and activity. They have been led to believe that this life is all that really matters, so they try to live it fully and with gusto, never thinking about what lies beyond. Trying to get them to consider ultimate things is often times frightening and off-putting.

The other type of person I've encountered is not apathetic, but is instead quite opinionated. He might insist that the "telephone game" is a valid description of how the Bible developed, leading him to conclude that the Bible cannot possibly be reliable. Or he will begin with the firm conclusion that miracles are not possible, so that the core belief of Christianity - the miracle of the Resurrection - is simply not a conclusion he will reach.

This is not to say that we should stop trying to convince people that are open to discussion. The Great Commission directs us to engage, as does 1 Peter 3:15, admonishing us to always be ready to provide a reason for our hope. But it does mean that we should have realistic expectations as to what we can accomplish. We may only plant the seed, and may never know what impact our words or deeds will have somewhere down the road.

And, most importantly, we cannot judge the validity of our beliefs based on the reluctance of others to embrace them. To draw conclusions about truth, we need to consider the evidence for and against the claim. A biased jury will not reach the truth. But by the same token, their mistaken "verdict" doesn't alter the truth either.

Why Failing to Persuade Others Should Not Discourage Us

Christian Hypocrisy and Biblical Forgiveness

PleaseConvinceMe Podcast 209

In this podcast, Jim examines Christian “hypocrisy” and the proper definition of Biblical forgiveness as he reflects on his experience in Cold Case murder trials. How are we to respond when people claim that Christians are hypocrites? Are Christians called to forgive those who have victimized them, even when the offenders are unrepentant?

Check out the podcast homepage for subscription information and archives.

Christian Hypocrisy and Biblical Forgiveness

How Can We Know If We Are Good Enough For Heaven?

"Avast yer jabberin, ya bunch a bilge rats!"

The voice sounded strange as it reached into the hallway. The speaker was apparently trying to make a point. “Yer division a booty must be... “ he paused to consider his words, “more equitable if ye be wanting to sail with me.”

He had my attention. I was at a work conference in a hotel, wandering the halls during a break, when I happened across this conference room. I peeked inside. It could have been a scene from the latest Pirates movie. Men of various ages with lots of facial hair, many dressed in striped pants, with the occasional peg leg and hook hand. Yes, I had stumbled across a pirates' convention, the 350th annual, it seemed, from the schedule which I found posted outside.

The speaker’s topic was ethics. He went on to explain what an equitable share of booty amounted to, in his view, using a very modern looking PowerPoint presentation to punctuate his points.

I caught up with him at the break and asked if he had time for a few questions. He seemed a bit suspicious, what with my business casual attire, but nonetheless willing.

“Seriously,” I began. “Ethics for pirates? I mean, for centuries you guys have been boarding and capturing and enslaving people without much regard for ethics. You’ve been known to rape, pillage and plunder, and your personal hygiene is ... not the best.” I quickly ended, seeing that I was crossing a line.

A hurt look crossed his face. “Yer words be stingin,” he began, but my words were nothing compared to his breath. I took a step back and tried not to stare at the parrot on his shoulder. “I don’t suppose ye know bout all the good that we do. Why ar ann'l ball raises thousands for the widows n'orphns fund, and we do lots of behind the scenes work ye never be aware of. Last year alone, we returned almost 30 percent of our captured booty to charitable organizations.”

“Is that a fact?” I asked. “I had no idea. But,” I persisted, “this is stuff that you’re stealing.”

“We make no excuses for that, m'lad. But we’ve been pretty transparent about that from the beginning, ain't we? After all, ye had no trouble spotting us for who we are. If ye want the real thievin' ones, it’s the bankers and lawyers ye want to be houndin...” He pointed down the hall to the lawyers' convention I had been attending.

Yes, of course I’m making this up. But I think there is a valid point here to be made. Human beings have an amazing capacity to judge themselves on a curve. Pirates no doubt convince themselves that they are somehow justified in doing what they do. They may think of harm they suffered when younger, or may feel that life dealt them the hand that they play. And they no doubt have a set of ethics that they follow, however uncivilized it may seem to us. And many, if pressed, would seek to justify their behavior by reference to all the things they don’t do. “Sure, we kill on occasion. But only those who don’t surrender, or those who for whatever reason need killing.” This is the human condition, whether in a high school, at the office, on a pirate ship, or in a prison. We don't seem to have the capacity to see ourselves for what we truly are.

What does any of this have to do with Christian apologetics? Just this: the number one response of nonbelievers as to why they don’t worry about the afterlife goes something like this. “I don’t know if there is a God, but if there is, he will see all the good that I do and accept me. So, I’m not worried. A good God will see that I am living a good life.”

But holding this view is not that different than the pirates in the analogy above. Compared to others of that ilk, an individual pirate might seem like a good guy. But that hardly would qualify him for life in a peaceful and civilized society. His problem isn’t how he compares to his fellows, but how he measures up to the place he’s trying to get to. He may think himself "good" when in an objective sense he is anything but. Similarly, many people today believe they have a proper sense of what “good” human behavior is, but how can they know for sure when they are mired in the corruption of their nature? And more importantly, have they given any thought to what “perfect” behavior requires? What a perfect being might use to measure admission to His realm?

It’s easy for us to pat ourselves on the back for our goodness. But perhaps we are a bit too smug. Our persistent feelings of guilt serve as a guide – a reminder – that all is not well. They serve to call us to account to the One who left us here, and who expects something of us if we are to be in relationship with Him. These feelings of guilt provide the backdrop of bad news, the kind of news from which we naturally shy away. The kind of bad news that sets the stage for the ultimate Good News of the gospel.

So, next time you encounter this response, you might suggest that the nonbeliever consider his frame of reference. Immersed in a sinful culture, inhabiting flesh and blood bodies whose weakness overcomes the willingness of the spirit, we may be as unable to see ourselves for what we truly are as the fictional pirates above would be. In short, we may not be in the best position to know if we are as "good" as we pretend.

Fortunately, there is a better answer, one that does not require us to earn our way back to God's presence. But until we see our need for a Savior, we're not likely to find the answer that is waiting to set us free.

How Can We Know If We Are Good Enough For Heaven?

Practicing One Dollar Apologetics at the Ball Park

I've spent a lot of time sitting in the bleachers at little league baseball games. Apologetics and theology are usually not on the mind of most of my fellow specatators, but every so often an opportunity arises, if you're patient and attentive, and interested in being that "one dollar apologist" Jim talks about on his podcasts.

Tonight was one such night. I was talking to a mom I've known for several years now - our boys play on the same team. I knew a little bit about her - she's a doctor from a prestigious med school and a committed mom and fan of her son. As we talked, she asked if my son had grown much in the past year and expressed her concern that her son may have finished growing. The mom in her was distressed for him; he had always been one of the tallest in his class, but now - at 5'6" - all his friends had been passing him by. It hurt him, and she didn't know how to help. She wondered out loud what she could do to console him.

"Talk to him about how health is more important than height," I offered. "Remind him of all the things that he has to be happy and thankful about."

A pretty secular response, all things considered. It may have ended with that, but I could see by her reaction that she didn't think that answer would resonate. So I tried to be more direct; I reached into my pocket for that one dollar's worth of apologetics. I told her that if he were my son, I would tell him that God created him in His image and that God loves him and values him for who he is, not for his physical attributes. I told her that was the advantage that Christianity has; in addition to being true, it makes raising children a whole lot easier when a transcendent source of good stands behind this creation and provides reasons for the way things are. She looked interested, so I asked her what her faith background was. She told me that her parents had left the Catholic Church when she was very young, and that she was raised essentially without religion.

This led to a rather disquieting, but necessary, question: "How then do you answer the tough questions your kids ask about where we came from, why we are here, and most importantly, what lies beyond?" She replied that they hadn't asked yet, but the look on her face conveyed that she wasn't looking forward to ever answering it.

She admitted that she didn't have any answers, not good ones anyway. Her career, she said, was quite demanding and between that and the kids, there was little time for pursuing difficult questions. I tried to give her an overview of what Christians believe and she had the usual set of objections: you don't need religion to be "good;" she can't imagine God sending people to hell; all religions teach pretty much the same thing; she trusts that if there is a God she will make the cut.

The innings were drawing to a close, so brief answers were all I could manage. We bounced from topic to topic. I tried to show her that we all, by our nature, deserve separation from God. She seemed to appreciate the implications of this, and asked if we needed to work our way back to Him. Nearby, an older man and woman were watching the game, apparently indifferent to what we were discussing. At this, though, he quickly turned and said - "No, Jesus does all the work." Then he apologized and said he couldn't help but overhearing - listening, actually - to the conversation - one he wasn't expecting to hear at a little league game. I think he chimed in before he realized it.

I think my friend got her $1 worth of apologetics tonight, with an extra quarter thrown in by the man nearby. We agreed that we would keep the conversation going, when her schedule permits. I hope she invests that dollar wisely.

Practicing One Dollar Apologetics at the Ball Park

4th Anniversay Special (Atheist Roleplaying)

PleaseConvinceMe Podcast 208

In this podcast, Jim celebrates the 4 year anniversary of the PleaseConvinceMe Podcast by airing an Atheist Roleplaying session conducted this week as part of a training session for a missions group heading to the UK Creation Fest in August. Jimmy sat in and posed as an atheist to help the students realize their need for apologetics training.

Check out the podcast homepage for subscription information and archives.

4th Anniversay Special (Atheist Roleplaying)

Should God Have Given Us Free Will?

“Do Christians actually believe that it is a preferable state of affairs to have God bestow free will on those he creates, even though it always has and always will result in the atrocities and injustices of life, than for God to not give them free will and simply create humans who always treat their fellow man well?”

This is the question author Vincent Bugliosi puts to believers on page 35 of his recent book The Divinity of Doubt.

“Is free will more important that the absence of pain, misery, death and suffering brought on by the monstrous acts of fellow humans?” These rhetorical questions pepper his entire book; in fact, he uses such questions to avoid the difficult work of actually considering and giving a fair hearing to Christian beliefs.

Now, on its face, this seems a very ironic challenge. Free will encompasses many things, but at the least it involves the desire to shape one’s own destiny. Free will allows us to make choices among competing alternatives. Our will may not be completely unfettered; there are many things that we cannot choose to do, because we lack the power, or that we would not choose to do, because our natural inclination is against it. But the common human condition, throughout the world and throughout time, is a quest for control; first of ourselves, then of our immediate surroundings and then, far too often, of those around us.

The irony is that Bugliosi is no different. He wishes to exercise control over his life and his destiny. When he has “better” ideas, he wills to put them into circulation, trading on his fame in the hopes of shaping other people’s views, and selling books. In fact, at one point in the book, Bugliosi says that he doesn’t want to go to heaven because he doesn’t have any interest in the kinds of things that Christians say are in heaven. But Bugliosi’s ambition is much larger. He wishes to exercise control over all of creation, apparently substituting his perfect world of people who “do no harm” for the harsh world in which we find ourselves.

So which is it? Is it good to have free will or is it better to never have the chance to write books and persuade people and choose where you will go and what you will do? Indeed, it appears that Bugliosi does not really want to give up free will, for himself anyway. He does want to shape other people’s will, to bend it in such a way that they can never do what he considers to be wrong. But what if writing books against Christians offends me? Would it be okay for me to want that choice removed from him? How about if I don’t like any views different from my own? A bit of reflection makes apparent that someone must be the arbiter of what choices are available to us? Christians happen to believe that the Creator – with infinite wisdom – is a better choice than say, Vincent Bugliosi, in making that call.

I also wonder if Bugliosi has thought about what the elimination of free will would accomplish. This of course would not be difficult for God to do. He would simply reoccupy the space He has created between us and Him and would force us to do His will. Whatever God wished to do with us, whatever task He had in mind, we would simply do - without complaining, without resisting, without evading. We would be, in effect, machines. If God ever does listen to Bugliosi and grants this wish, I certainly hope that He also eliminates our self-awareness. I can think of no worse fate than to spend endless time being controlled, directed, adjusted, worked - totally devoid of any ability to plan or to choose or to accomplish.

Bugliosi might object that constraining "true" evil would not be difficult for God. Couldn’t God limit choice so that violent crimes could no longer be committed? And wouldn’t that be preferable? In this, I want to agree with Bugliosi. From my limited perspective, it is difficult to see God’s reasons for allowing suffering. It is even harder to accept it, even with the promise that we will eventually be rescued. But I suspect that God actually does constrain evil. I can easily imagine a world in which the atrocities of the Nazis were practiced on every street corner in every city on every contintent; fortunately, such extreme wickedness is not our reality. But the harm is real, and it is great. There is no denying that.

But still Bugliosi is mistaken in his conclusion. He wishes to use the recognition that God allows evil acts to occur to prove that there is no God. He does this by employing a faulty syllogism.

-An all powerful and all good being would not allow evil acts to occur
-Evil acts are all around us
-Therefore God does not exist.

While Bugliosi may mean by “evil” crimes of violence, evil is any departure from the will of God. Some departures are greater and more serious – crimes such as murder and rape – while others are less so – lying to gain an advantage or mocking Christians to sell books. When seen in this way, it is apparent that at some point eliminating choices renders "free will" a fiction. If only choices pleasing to God were allowed by God, then we should dispense with the idea that free will has any meaning. Although difficult at times, I trust that an infinitely perfect God has set the balance where it belongs.

In the end, we can’t have it both ways. Perhaps many, like Bugliosi, think they would be happier in a world in which all their behavior was controlled. But in such a world, they would only be happy if they were directed to be; they could not choose happiness. In any case, such a world is not our world, and while this may be difficult to accept, it does not logically prove anything about God's existence.

It does, however, tell us something about His nature, and what it says certainly grabs my attention.

Should God Have Given Us Free Will?

Intelligent Design Makes Perfect Sense

In recent years, the Intelligent Design (ID) movement has cogently presented the argument that the incredible order in the universe must have an adequate cause. Just as any fine-tuned device was designed and manufactured for a purpose, so too does the evidence of fine-tuning in the universe point to a creator God.

But not everyone accepts this argument. Famed prosecutor and author Vincent Bugliosi contends that agnosticism is the only sensible conclusion that rational people can reach. In his recent book, he claims to apply rigorous logic and common sense to his position, but does he adequately defend this view?

"The Divinity of Doubt" aims frequent belittling remarks at believers and on this topic, we get more of the same. Bugliosi comes out swinging, claiming that the way to defeat the notion of God’s existence in this area of intelligent design is to accept for the sake of argument that he is all intelligent and all powerful and then show that he never would have done what theist’s claim he did. (p. 55) He promises that he will show that ID is self-defeating on its face. (p. 83) His proofs? A series of questions for which he can find no answer.

• Why, he asks, would God create this incredibly complex system of 122 constants to allow for life on earth? Here he is referring to the various constants that scientists have measured, ranging from the tilt of the planet, to the electromagnetic forces to the concentration and content of the atmosphere. With each of these variables, scientists have noted that even very tiny changes in their values would have made life impossible. Why couldn’t God create an earth that relied on none of these things? Was that beyond his power?

• The Earth is infinitesimally small compared to the universe, with its trillions of stars. Why would 99.99999 percent of the universe have nothing to do with life on Earth? What conceivable reason would God have for doing this?

These questions lead him to conclude that an intelligent being would not create something that served no purpose. Therefore, it seems to him, there can’t be such a God.

But let’s take a closer look at the logic he employs. How valid are his premises? The syllogism he employs would break down something like this:

- If there is a God, nature would be simple and consist only of necessary things.

- The universe is vast and complex and contains many seemingly unnecessary things.

- Therefore, there is no God.

Stating it this way shows that Bugliosi’s issue is not his logic; it is the utter lack of persuasive force of his first premise. Since he frames most of his “argument” as a series of mocking questions, he never attempts to establish the validity of this premise. If his premise is false – as a moment's reflection will establish – then his conclusion finds no adequate support. Using the courtroom language of which he is so fond, he is “assuming facts not in evidence.”

There are many reasons why God could have chosen to create in the way He did, any one of which provides a valid alternative to his premise. For one, as limited beings, we have no idea what other use this universe may have. How could Bugliosi have sufficient knowledge to know which things are necessary and which are not? How could he know whether simple things are to be preferred over complex things? To conclude that only purposes that are plain to us can be valid is rather, well, arrogant. How could he possibly know?

Second, another implied premise in Bugliosi’s argument is that God creating that way – with far more stuff and complexity than Bugliosi thinks is necessary – is somehow wasteful, as if God were some kind of lunatic who built an Egyptian pyramid in order to house a closet. But God is infinite in his power and his creative ability. For such a being, creating more is no more difficult than creating less. It would be like marveling at a computer programmer that filled his simulation with thousands of simulated players rather than one or two. It just isn’t that difficult a task.

Finally, has Bugliosi considered that God might have an artistic side to Him? Is it possible that, with infinite power, He chose to paint a canvas through which we can glimpse both His power and His majesty? Scientists tell us that we are located at a time and place in the universe from which we can gaze back to the beginning. This tapestry of the stars, taken in conjunction with the exquisite order that functions so seamlessly and so smoothly throughout the universe, may simply be a work of art that He wishes us to behold, and to enjoy. It may simply stand as a testament to His awesome creative power and glory. And perhaps as warning, that He is not to be trifled with.

The ancient psalmist had more wisdom than today’s skeptics.

“When I look at your heavens, the work of your fingers,
the moon and the stars, which you have set in place,
what is man that you are mindful of him,
and the son of man that you care for him? “

Perhaps that is the message writ large on the night sky.

Intelligent Design Makes Perfect Sense

Irresistible Grace, Free Will and the Problem of Hell

PleaseConvinceMe Podcast 207

In this podcast, Jim examines the Calvinist TULIP paradigm and focuses on the notion of irresistible Grace. Does this theological concept eliminate human free will? If irresistible grace is true, how can God justly allow humans to suffer in Hell when it is within his power to change their nature and, therefore, their choices?

Check out the podcast homepage for subscription information and archives.

Irresistible Grace, Free Will and the Problem of Hell

Answering Bugliosi's Unanswerable Questions

Former prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi has a new book, in which he argues that agnosticism is the only sensible position to hold. But the book never gets to the heart of the Christian message. Instead, Bugliosi trots out the usual challenges to faith, mocking believers along the way with taunts about how his questions have never been, and can’t be, answered. Here’s a sampling of his “can’t be answered” questions:

At the very beginning of the book, Bugliosi claims that theists have not a single fact to support their position. “By fact I mean a truth known by actual experience or observation. And something that cannot be logically explained in any other way.” (p. 4). Later, he says that the only way to be able to accept evil in the world is if God appeared in the sky and told us that although what has happened doesn’t make sense, its part of a grand scheme for life. (p. 8). Verification about God, he says, is not possible, and most of what is written on the subject is nothing more than "sophisticated ignorance." He says that what he doesn’t know is "just more of the nonsense I already do know."(p. 13)

He’s off to a pretty bad start. For someone who no doubt understands proof beyond a reasonable doubt, consider what he has done here: his standard is proof beyond any possible doubt, and his available evidence is those things that can be known by “actual experience or observation.” Actually, it's even higher - he's asking for a direct and personal revelation in a way that cannot be denied, such as God appearing to him in the sky. What he's done in his first chapter is to reveal the depth of his bias, and the impossibility of anyone overcoming it through reason or evidence. There is simply nothing that will satisfy him.

Given his approach, all of history is off the table. He can have no knowledge of Washington crossing the Delaware, because he wasn’t there to experience or observe it. And of course just about everything can be “explained away,” especially if done in a piecemeal fashion. The real question is whether the alternative explanation is a “reasonable” one. After all, in the OJ case, explaining the evidence away as the product of a frame-up could be made to follow the rules of logic; the problem is that doing so, given the totality of the evidence, was not “reasonable.”

Another of his questions is: How God would put people on earth that he already knew were going to end up in hell. "No one in Christianity, to my knowledge, can answer that question," he says. (p.5). But Christians have answered that question. God has perfect knowledge, because for Him there is no time; there is no before, during or after. For Him, all things exist in His eternal present. But God has given us free will, such that though He can foreknow how things end up, He does not cause us to act the way we do. When I watch the movie Titanic, I know the ship will sink even though I had nothing to do with that result. What the existence of Hell says about the nature of God is a fair question. Wondering why God would set it up this way is too. But concluding that God must not exist - that is simply not a logical conclusion to draw.

Another “deal breaker” for Bugliosi is the Christian concept of prayer. Why would we have to beg God to be what he supposedly already is? If God is good, He will already be willing to give us the good that we are praying for. The question is not the profound contradiction he thinks it to be; it simply betrays his misunderstanding of the purpose of prayer. Prayer is not simply a way of asking God for stuff, like some magical list for Santa. While we can bring our requests to God, prayer is much more. At minimum, it includes giving thanks and giving praise. Doing these things allows us to incline ourselves toward God; to orient ourselves properly with respect to a perfect being, who created us for a purpose. He is, consequently, worthy of our love, praise and respect. Prayer – whether answered immediately, eventually or never – is something that benefits us in our relationship to God. Anyone who thinks it is a way of making wishes come true doesn't understand much about the Christian view of prayer.

Having made clear that no evidence other than a personal visitation would satisfy him, Bulgiosi moves on in Chapter 2 to explain that Christian writings would be inadmissible “in court” because they all constitute hearsay and are not properly authenticated. Since a jury would not be allowed to consider such documents, these historic texts must also be denied admission in the courtroom of the mind of the seeker. Readers should see this trick for what it is: an attempt to compare apples and oranges. The rules of evidence that apply in court are an excellent way of ensuring a fair trial of an accused. When a crime occurs, presenting evidence that is reliable and properly tested so that the accused is not falsely convicted is reflective of a civilized and fair society; indeed, our system of justice recognizes that many guilty people will go free so that the chances of an innocent person being convicted is minimized.

But this approach to arriving at sound conclusions is not the exclusive way to acquiring valid and reliable knowledge. Nor is it a particularly effective method when the question is not guilt as to a recent crime, but understanding of historical events which occurred long ago. Bugliosi paints with too broad a brush; by his standard, we would be unable to conclude anything about the past, as all surviving documents would be hearsay and subject to some dispute. That is why historians take great pains to collect all the available documents and other evidence and test them for reliability, by comparing and contrasting with other information from the period in question. By so doing, by studying the contest and seeing how each piece of evidence fits into the scheme, they reach a consensus as to what occurred and why. None of this would be "admissible" in the way Bugliosi is contemplating. But then, no one expects it to be when they spend a lifetime studying or learning from history.

On the question of “intelligent design,” one of the principle arguments for God’s existence, Bugliosi answers that “physical laws of nature may be responsible for it.” ( p. 23) But this is no answer. The physical laws that are doing this must themselves have a source. This is especially true if those laws didn’t begin to operate until the Big Bang occurred, since scientists acknowledge that these laws came into being at that moment. Bugliosi concludes that we have no framework of reference that tells us that God is responsible for the predictability and harmony of the universe. (p.23) But this is not accurate. Our framework is our common human experience. When we see a thing proceed in a harmonious and ordered way, we recognize that a mind is behind the process. Watches don’t assemble themselves and start ticking. So too with the universe; if there is fine-tuning and order, we should also conclude – absent some more reasonable alternative – that a mind is responsible for what we see.

Bugliosi's reputation rests on his experience in the courtroom. But if he wants to portray himself as a reasonable presenter of the facts - what every prosecutor must do if he or she is to win the jury - he should take greater pains in proceeding with a fair and open mind. He tips his hand at the beginning of the book. He isn't going for fair and balanced here - he ends up with the conclusion he started off with, and spends the rest of the book trying to support it.

Answering Bugliosi's Unanswerable Questions