Responding to Pro-Abortion Objections

PleaseConvinceMe Podcast 245

In this podcast, Jim reads listener email and responds to a set of pro-abortion objections to the SLED pro-life argument. Jim also reads a summary of a recent paper submitted to the Journal of Medical Ethics that argues for "after-birth abortion" (Infanticide) using the typical pro-abortion arguments as a basis. Finally, Jim comments on Alan Shlemon's article related to the imposition of Christian moral standards on society.

Check out the podcast homepage for subscription information and archives.

Responding to Pro-Abortion Objections

Finding Purpose In Faith

Many skeptics maintain unquestioned faith that science will solve the world’s problems. Seeing the evidence of chaos throughout the world, often the product of religiously-inspired violence, they conclude that religion is somehow the problem. Authors like Christopher Hitchens capitalize on such assumptions, writing best-selling books that explain how “God is not great” or how religion has “poisoned” everything. By contrast, science has provided “progress,” the sense that things are definitely getting better from a technological sense, as we continue to harness more and more power to make our lives increasingly prosperous and comfortable.

While this faith in science is certainly understandable, it does not survive close scrutiny. This is so because the problems that ail us, the questions we need answered, are questions that science simply cannot answer. After all, science is not philosophy. It does not provide meaning, however much it advances knowledge or power. Modern Americans, of all people, should recognize this limitation. We live in a culture that is deteriorating in many ways. Pleasure seems to be the principal pursuit of a large segment of the population, and despite intense efforts to find nirvana, and despite access to the best “toys” ever made, people seem to be increasingly stressed… and distressed. We seem to be experiencing a huge increase in depression and destructive behavior patterns; addictions to drugs and alcohol, gluttony leading to obesity, gambling, and pornography, to name a few. These pursuits may lessen the emotional pain for a while, but they leave the afflicted even more broken in their wake. What people lack, in increasing numbers, is a sense of belonging; some purpose or meaning to which they can devote their lives and that can make sense of the world.

Science cannot address what is lacking any more than a mechanic can tell me why I no longer enjoy driving my car. He can take measurements and tell me things about functionality and performance. He can modify the car with the latest gadgets to make it run faster, smoother, louder – to make it anything I want it to be. But these measurements and modifications, however important, cannot provide meaning. Because in the end, what I like, what I feel about certain things, persons, places, events – these are a reflection of me, and what is inside me, and not of the things around me.

Human life is exceedingly complex. From mitochondria powering the cells, to the mind that emerges from the gray matter in our skulls, the human body is a marvelously complex product of advanced engineering. But until we understand the purpose for which we are created, until we understand what we are meant to do with these wondrous “machines” that we inhabit, we are like cars driving straight off a cliff. Everything is functioning perfectly, but without a driver behind the wheel, it soon comes to a crashing, and painful, end.

Philosophy is needed to answer these most pressing questions. And a philosophy that has stood the test of time and that provides a robust explanation for life is a good place to start. In the pages of the Bible, the questions that matter most are addressed by the source of all that is. When its lessons are followed, life tends to flourish, not in the sense of a great wealth or fame - not in the sense of the "prosperity gospel" - but in the sense of a lasting joy. Joy in the knowledge of who you are and what you were created for; joy in the sense of homecoming when the our days wind down, as they inevitably will. Joy in the prospect of reuniting with our true “soul-mate,” the one we have been seeking, the one for whom we were created and who is even now beckoning us home.

Finding Purpose In Faith

Some Reflections on the Importance of Truth

Talk to a “one dollar apologist” about their efforts to engage the culture and you’ll quickly hear that apathy is the number one response they encounter. People simply don’t care, and until they do, they’re not likely to give you much of a chance to make your case. That means that ways must be found to make the message of Christianity relevant to a culture that is largely disinterested.

To find common ground, we must stay focused on the concept of truth. Knowing the truth is something upon which every rational person places a premium. Apart from needing truth to stay alive (eg. is it true that poison can kill me? Is it true that looking into the sun will blind me?), it is apparent that no one wants to be deceived. No matter how accomplished a liar someone might be, they never want to be on the receiving end of the lie. This shared interest in truth can be the starting point of a productive conversation.

I would begin with an observation. If the atheist is correct, doesn't the centrality of truth seem rather odd? If what we see around us is the random product of chance, then whatever feels good or whatever works should prevail, regardless of the underlying truth of the matter. But that isn't how people actually behave; though they desire good feeling, they also care, intrinsically, about knowing the truth. I would also note that not all truth claims are of equal importance. Is it true that my favorite sports team lost last weekend is not as important a question as whether it is true that John Smith, and not his twin Joe, was the shooter in a homicide case. Or that the syringe contains insulin and not arsenic.

If, then, there is such a thing as truth that we intrinsically seek, and if some truth claims are more important than others, then it follows there must be an ultimate truth claim, an issue beyond which no greater issue can be imagined.

That ultimate truth claim, I would submit, is what happens after you die. Is God really there? Does he have a plan, not for his whole creation, but for you particularly? In other words, is this present existence all there is, or is something more in store for you? And if there is, what is expected of you?

The skeptic may respond that some people actually do not want to know the truth, that the truth really isn’t as important as I am suggesting. Isn't it the case that many people run or hide from the truth? Perhaps a person refuses to go to the doctor because he is afraid of what the diagnosis might be. Or a spouse refuses to acknowledge evidence of infidelity. This, of course, does happen, but it bears noting that even in these situations, the truth actually matters to the person; they are simply afraid to confront or acknowledge it. It also bears noting that running from the truth doesn't help in the long run. It may forestall the day of reckoning, but even in these examples of people hiding from the truth, it is apparent that one cannot hide forever. The underlying truth does not change because they refuse to acknowledge it.

The skeptic will also say that these are but “scare tactics” - the believer is trying to scare atheists with the specter of the God of wrath, and being enlightened people, they won’t believe in such a God. But the threat of punishment - of separation from God - is merely the flip side of the coin; it cannot be separated from the notion that what really matters is not whether God is harsh for punishing us, but rather whether he has something wonderful in store for those who follow him. This is no different than parents who urge their children to study hard and be productive so that they can have interesting careers and fulfilling lives. They concentrate on the positives that come from right behavior, even though they are intrinsically aware that there is always another side to that coin, the possibility of hardship and poverty for those who refuse to prepare and plan for tomorrow. It’s not a scare tactic to let people know the truth; an appreciation of both the pros and cons of our choices is a matter of great importance. It is no different when the discussion is about ultimate things.

Many skeptics think there might be a God, but they don't want to be afraid of him. On the other hand, they don't want to spend any time thinking carefully about whether Christian truth claims are in fact true. But if they are true claims, they don't go away simply because someone does not want to acknowledge them. And the issue isn't really what punishment will be meted out. In the end, the issue is what you might miss out on, in terms of ultimate fulfillment, and ultimate happiness, if you wait too long to consider the question.

The bottom is line is truth. I believe in Jesus because I believe it is true that he is who he said he is and that he died and rose again as he said he would do. This makes him quite unique in the history of the world, and worth learning about it. And because these things are true, we can place our trust - and our destiny - in him.

Some Reflections on the Importance of Truth

A Simple Way to Defend the Pro-Life Position

PleaseConvinceMe Podcast 244

In this podcast, Jim reviews strategies and arguments that are used to defend the pro-life position and talks about the YouTube video, “She Just Might Change Your Mind”, a four-minute case against abortion. Can the pro-life position be defended rationally without using the Bible? In addition, Jim answers listener email about the early dating of the Gospels.

Check out the podcast homepage for subscription information and archives.

A Simple Way to Defend the Pro-Life Position

Science and Faith Are Not In Conflict

Christians and skeptics often talk past each other. It’s almost as if they are speaking different languages or, at the very least, speaking from a very different frame of reference. Recently, I observed this first-hand as I corresponded with an atheist about the role of science in developing useful knowledge.

He agreed with me that science does not have an “explanation” for everything and that for some things, it may never have. “On the other hand,” he said, “‘God did it’ has never impressed me as much of an explanation. I would prefer simply to admit ‘I don't know.’” What he meant, I think, was that resorting to a supreme being who set things in motion, and whose laws guide the workings of the universe, is not helpful. No, more precisely, that resorting to such explanations is actually a step backward, a movement away from the acquisition of the knowledge that science promises.

In this, the skeptic is mistaken. Science can answer many questions, but all of these questions fall into the category of “how” things work, and not “why” or "for what ultimate purpose." Things work a certain way, and the workings that we witness can be observed, studied and eventually understood. This yields great predictive power regarding future events, and allows for those events to be shaped through the use of modern technology. But science does not answer the question, “Who set all this into motion” and “What does that Creator want from us?”

Take for example the study of the Big Bang. Science and Christianity agree: the universe was created from nothing a very long time ago. Genesis (“In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth) and the Gospel of John (“In the beginning was the Word…”) both assert what astronomy and physics have, relatively recently, discovered. The Bible doesn’t attempt to speak to the question of how God went about performing this amazing feat, and science does not tell us for what purpose the universe was created.

This is an important distinction, and one that seems to be increasingly lost on the many secularists who, seeing a conflict between science and faith, try to force all manifestations of religion from the public square. Perhaps an example from a much less esoteric source will help to illuminate the distinction I am attempting to draw. When police respond to the scene of a possible murder, they collect the evidence for a very specific purpose: to determine the “source” behind the killing, the answer to the question "for what purpose?" The coroner who does the examination can shed light on this determination, though the use of scientific knowledge, but their role is largely to determine how the person died. For example, if the investigators found the victim lying on the floor with a bullet wound to the head and a pistol lying nearby, science would tell us that the victim died as the result of exsanguination and damage to vital tissue caused by the entry of the bullet. But determining the manner of death would not answer the question the police are called upon to determine: was it an accident, suicide or murder? For that, other considerations must come into play, including other types of evidence left behind during the commission of the act. This may include further physical evidence, but it might also include a writing – perhaps a suicide note or other writings reflecting what the victim was planning to do. However informative and accurate the scientific evidence might be regarding the cause of death, it will never answer the most important questions: who did it, and why? For that, different questions must be asked. More to point, if these questions are not asked - if the mere asking of such questions is deemed inappropriate - the most important aspect of the inquiry will never be accomplished.

Similarly, as it applies to accounts of the creation events, science has come a long way in explaining the mechanisms by which the universe began to unfold and life to appear and flourish. But it has not the means to determine why any of this has occurred. Other disciplines, such as theology and philosophy, are better suited to weigh in on those types of questions. However fascinating the answers to the "how" questions might be, they pale in comparison to the importance of the "for what purpose" questions, especially if one considers how long "eternity" will be.

The two realms – science and theology – need not be in conflict. The conflict arises when some, enthralled by the potential of scientific discovery, push science into inquiries it cannot address.

Science and Faith Are Not In Conflict

How God Balances Mercy and Justice

In a recent post, I addressed the issue of whether Christ’s death constituted a sacrifice. For many skeptics, Christ’s death, resurrection and atonement for our sins constitute a major stumbling block. In response to that post, one challenger commented that he could not understand

“why the death of Jesus was that big a deal. He had 6 hours of agony. A terrible way to go, but how many people have similar experiences? And the atheist supposedly bound for hell will experience this kind of agony continually.”

To understand why this challenge lacks substance, one must take a moment to unpack the assumptions embedded within it. The challenger assumes that the process of physical death – more specifically, the manner, length and painfulness of that process – is what “caused” salvation. Noting, correctly, that many human beings have experienced far greater suffering, the skeptic concludes that this sacrifice is not, as he put it, a “big deal.” His conclusion flows from his premise, lending the challenge an appearance of legitimacy, but his premise is in need of more careful examination. Perhaps he has not taken the time to consider actual Christian beliefs, or perhaps he is simply engaging in the straw man fallacy, in which a person intentionally misstates his opponent’s position in order to more easily “defeat” it. Either way, to a careful thinker, the challenge falls flat.

This conclusion should not really come as a surprise. Countless intellectuals have considered the claims of Christianity and have embraced them as true. Many, such as the writer CS Lewis, became believers after many years of committed atheism. That none of these thinkers would find merit in this rather obvious challenge speaks to the fact that he is simply missing the point. None of these believers – nor for that matter the very first followers of Christ – concluded that Jesus won some kind of perverted contest for the “greatest suffering before being murdered,” somehow entitling him to the prize of being "the Savior."

No, something much different is at play, something that challenges the limits of our philosophy, and of our intellects, to fully grasp. Jesus took the form of man and, during his life on Earth, he emptied himself of key aspects of his divinity. In that form, he experienced temptation – the kind of temptation that demonstrates the existence of free will; the kind of free will that makes expressions of love real and not the product of coercion or control. He did not need to suffer death at all, certainly not death on a cross. He had the means to escape the trap that was being laid for him. But, as he said, no one took his life; he lay it down for his people. By so doing, he stood before the Father to accept that wrath that justice demanded, for the intentional rebellion in which man was engaged. He had no price to pay for himself; his slate was clean before the Father. And because he too was God, he could absorb that wrath not just for one other man, or for a group of men, but for all who ever lived, or would live - infinite power absorbing for all time the infinite wrath of a perfect being.

The challenger to my post concluded:

“No—I disagree that God has balanced perfect justice and perfect mercy. Justice is getting what you deserve. Mercy is getting LESS than what you deserve. Take your pick. And you imagine that God has an infinite wrath? Wow—the dude needs some therapy!”

But this actually proves my point. The challenger is correct: in human terms, it appears contradictory for one to be perfectly just while being perfectly merciful; indeed, how can God give those in rebellion what they deserve while also giving them what they don’t deserve? (Ironically, this challenge actually speaks to the divine origin of these early Christian beliefs: who could have – who would have – come up with a system like this if it weren’t true, when adhering to it only promised persecution?) To answer this challenge, one must move from abstract considerations to more specific, factual ones.

• What do humans “deserve?” They deserve punishment for their rebellion;
  
• What is a just punishment for rebellion? Separation from God;
  
• How long should that separation endure? For the life of the beings in question (i.e. an eternity in that place of separation, i.e. hell);
• How can humans beings be given something less than they deserve? By having someone else pay the price for their rebellion;
• Who can pay that price? Only a man who himself does not owe the same price.

Yes, Christ pays the price. We don’t deserve what he does for us; it is an act of mercy. Justice is satisfied because punishment has been meted out – directly to those who refuse Christ’s gift and remain in their rebellion; indirectly – through Jesus – for those who accept his gift. Jesus has the power and the willingness to absorb God's just wrath, and having lived as a man, he also has the standing before God to enter the transaction. We need only accept his gift, at which point he will begin the process of refining us – perfecting us – so that we can rejoin with Him and with the Father.

This solution to man's predicament, available freely for all, elegantly gives us the means to attain what we do not deserve - mercy - while not sacrificing God's perfect justice.

How God Balances Mercy and Justice

The “Chainsaw” Analogy As An Argument for Atheism

PleaseConvinceMe Podcast 243

In this podcast, Jim addresses an objection to Christianity that compares God to a bad parent who places an unguarded chainsaw in a room with little children. Is this a fair analogy? Jim also addresses listener email related to Christian hypocrisy, the evidential nature of the Christian faith, and how to become an effective apologist.

Check out the podcast homepage for subscription information and archives.

The “Chainsaw” Analogy As An Argument for Atheism

Can Reason Lead Us To Relationship With God?

Most atheists feel confident that they have “reason” on their side. As a result, many are surprised when a Christian apologist takes an evidentialist, or reason-based, approach to matters of “faith.” Not long ago, the issue arose in a conversation I was having with a skeptic. I had been laying out the basic philosophical arguments for the existence of a supreme, uncaused being.

Accepting the logic of these arguments, she shifted her challenge, saying: “You want me to use "reason" to get me to agree that God exists, but then stop using it as soon as I get to that point.” In other words, despite hearing rational arguments about the existence of "God" in general, she could not fathom that a belief in God in particular – the God of the Bible, for instance – could be based on anything other than wishful thinking. Faith, after all, was simply not rational.

My response went something like this: “Hopefully by now, you see that I am not asking you to abandon reason. The types of argument may vary, and the level of certainty about particular conclusions might also differ, but for everything that historic Christianity affirms, there are good reasons to believe what we believe.” She shook her head in, well, disbelief.

“As it applies to Christianity,” I persisted, “some of what we know about God can be inferred from observations. This is referred to as ‘general revelation.’ Consider what we see of the universe: it is spatially and temporally immense, beyond our ability to understand and grasp; it is well-ordered and predictable, with set laws such as logic and math, physics and chemistry, all operating flawlessly, consistently and seamlessly. It contains examples of breath-taking beauty, such as the inherent beauty of music and nature, and heart-pounding emotion, such as the joy of first love or the miracle of birth. But it is also quite deadly, or at the very least quite inhospitable to humans. Despite its immense size, it appears that we can live only in a sliver of air on a remote planet, and even there, most of the planet is exceedingly dangerous to us. You see, my ability to reason can lead me to some generalities: God must be immensely powerful and intelligent; he must be artistic and love order. He must be capable of great love. But is he ... harsh? Uncaring? Why is this creation so dangerous? And, most importantly, what comes next? Reason cannot lead us to any answers here. We see a glimpse of God, but not the full picture.”

She wasn’t sure where I was going, and in a way, neither was I. The next step, to a rationale reliance on the words of the Bible, is a big step; in fact, for many, it has been, and remains, too big a step for them to take.

I resumed. “To move to a personal relationship with God – in the specific, not general sense - requires more; it cannot be based completely and exclusively on reason. It does in fact depend also on faith, but it is a faith that stems from, and finds support in, reason.”

“You want it both ways,” she countered. “You want to call it reason when it is simply wishful thinking.”

I knew what she meant, and I acknowledged that I was struggling with putting these thoughts into words. “No, there is a difference that you’re not seeing. Believing in unicorns is a function of faith; there is no evidence for them, and no good reason to believe they exist. But if you had actual evidence – from trusted sources – that such animals existed, your “faith” in them might eventually become reasonable. The problem isn't that believing in exotic animals is irrational; the problem is that believing in such animals when there is no evidence - no reason - to support that belief is irrational.”

I shifted gears a bit, wanting to get on to the point while there was time.

"Now, put yourself for a moment in the position of the creator-God. You want to give people true free will, so that they are not mere automatons, and you want them to choose a relationship with you without forcing them to do so. Your problem is twofold: if you make your presence too intrusive, they will believe because they have no real choice, but if you reveal nothing of yourself, they will have no basis to know you. So, what you do is reveal enough of yourself so that they will see your presence. Then you choose a messenger who will convey your intentions. It must be fined tuned this way so that those who respond do so freely and not under coercion. Those who do respond freely will eventually be made perfect; he will work on them to free them from their fallen nature and to remove some of what separates them from him. Those who reject him get what they are seeking – separation from him.”

“Christianity affirms that God choose a particular people to convey this message. He used prophets to speak for him, then sent his son. Much of what I trust in about God comes from the words of that son, Jesus. If Jesus is a reliable source (i.e. that he has a basis to know what he claims to know and that he is honest), then I am justified in trusting what he says. If so, then he is a good source of information about God. If he says that God has offered us salvation and prepared a place for us to spend eternity, I can trust that information if I can trust Jesus. I acknowledge that my confidence that there is a heaven is pure faith – I believe it because Jesus says it. But my trust in Jesus is not based on faith. That would be mere wishful thinking. I believe that Jesus rose from the dead not because the Bible says it, but because the evidence of it is very strong, and the evidence against it is not. I don’t believe Jesus rose from the dead because I have faith, or because the Bible said it; I have faith that what Jesus said was true, and that the Bible is trustworthy, because I first had proof that Jesus did what he claimed he would do. He fulfilled the prophecies of centuries before, died for us and then rose from the dead.”

“But,” she began, again shaking her head ….

Enough for one day, I concluded. The next step would be to show why what we know about Jesus is reliable. But I had places to go, and she needed more time to think about what we had covered so far.

Can Reason Lead Us To Relationship With God?

The Growing Appeal of Atheism

“There are no atheists in foxholes.” Or so the saying goes. Today, that probably has more to do with the scarcity of foxholes than it does with the scarcity of atheists. Indeed, the growing ranks of atheists include some who would like the military to allow them to designate “humanist” on their dog tags and official records. Just as a Catholic would wish to be specifically labeled and not bunched with other “Christians,” they argue, so too the “humanist” wants his “positive philosophy” to properly reflect what he believes.

Considering the times, I suspect that the humanists will soon have their way. And perhaps this isn’t all bad; perhaps it will provide a springboard for the believer to engage those who have allowed the pluralism of a free society to lead them to some strikingly false conclusions about the true nature of things.

Consider: we spend our lives growing, mentally and spiritually as well as physically. As the years progress, we gain knowledge, of things and places and people, and we build relationships. For some, but not all, wisdom also increases. This growth is valuable to us, and we seek - intuitively and innately - to make it last. Built into our natures is a desire for life generally, and for relationships specifically, to continue. Even when relationships fail, we don’t decide to live like hermits; we continue to seek to be heard and understood. We seek a place where we can belong. This hunger is fueled in part by the desire – the need – to make sense of the world and our place in it. Despite the hustle and bustle of the daily grind, in quiet moments we each at some point have to ask: why am I here? What, or who, put me here? What is expected of me? What is my ultimate end? What meaning, if any, is there to all of this? These are important questions that we can push aside for awhile but not forever.

Atheism posits that we are accidents of evolution, with no transcendent or lasting purpose. The universe just happens to exist and we just happen to be the unintended byproduct of a string of events which were set in motion randomly untold billions of years ago. We pass our brief moments in the sun, and in the end, we simply return to dust. The quality of the lives we lived, and our desire to continue thinking and growing and… being…count for nothing. There is no ultimate arbiter of right and wrong, neither punishment for evil deeds nor rewards for the good that was done.

It's hard to view this worldview as anything but futile and barren. And yet it seems to be taking hold in the modern mind. Why bother to punch anything at all into dog tags? Why should the humanist claim have any persuasive force, when it cannot explain any of what we find around us? When it runs so wildly counter to the intuition that we all have that this cannot be all that there is?

Because man is fallen – indeed, because he is in active rebellion against God – it is in fact predictable that man’s denial will persist. But there is a better way, one that is consonant with truth, which can answer the questions that bubble up from deep within us. A way that can ultimately satisfy our curiosity, and our desire, and set us back on the path toward home.

Scroll through the pages of this website to find out more about the truth claims of this time-tested worldview, which even now, despite all the challenges of the past two thousand years, remains alive and vibrant in every corner of the globe.

The Growing Appeal of Atheism

The "Whatever" Objection and the Problem of Passivity

Armed with a master’s degree in apologetics I felt like I could conquer the world. Bring on the most ardent atheist and I'd be ready. My training prepared me to launch informed arguments and counter the toughest objections. To my surprise, the biggest challenger however wasn't the outspoken critic but the one who spoke the least - the passive skeptic who just didn't care. I quickly learned that the word no passionate apologist wants to hear is "Whatever."

Hearing my friend utter that word, I thought, "How could you not care?!" Salvation from sin, eternal life, reunited with saints, and reigning with God as kings is too good to pass up. I kept noticing other friends and colleagues voicing much of the same though not always using the "W" word verbatim. I realized my God-given fascination for apologetics and passion to share what I've learned wasn't something I had in common with people around me. I've come to see that listening to a debate on my iPod while running the Manhattan Beach 10-K wasn't normal.

The goal of this post is not to teach the reader how to convince someone that spiritual decisions matter. That task I leave with other writers and ultimately in the working of the Holy Spirit on the hearts of men. My goal is a more humble one; to explain this passivity towards religious ideas and what drives it. It's my hope that a greater understanding of this will better prepare apologists for encountering passive skeptics.

Perhaps passivity's greatest appeal is its simplicity and apparently neutral stance. It's easy to be passive and comes quite naturally to us. Since Adam sat idle while Eve took the forbidden fruit in Eden, many have followed suit by failing to act appropriately when our very lives depend on how we respond. It takes effort to investigate and decide on religious questions. It's easier to dismiss religious truth altogether than to live consistently with a position and defend it. The appeal of taking a passive stance towards religion is amplified by at least three other aspects of modern culture :

1) Church/State Separation
The establishment clause and litmus test of the constitution prohibits the government from endorsing a particular religion through legislation or public employment. Children raised in public schools are taught that religious ideas are not appropriate topics in classroom discussions. Apart from parental and church influences, there's nothing stopping this religious silence from continuing into adulthood. Confusion of the law leads teachers to err on the side of eliminating all religious ideas from the classroom (except for the view that religious ideas aren't to be discussed). It also has been misconstrued to mean all religion is to be relegated to the personal realm as irrelevant to important world issues. If religious ideas are important, why are children unable to ask, share or inquire about them in public schools? The implication taught to kids is that religion isn't important. Kids are taught religion is personal and not for public discussion. While the intent may have been to prevent government from limiting religious expression, interpretation by the courts and the media have made the opposite effect of teaching generations of school kids to keep religion to themselves.

2) View of Knowledge
The two most common alternative worldviews to theism today are postmodernism and naturalism. While the impact of these minority views is sometimes overstated, the prevalence of scholarship from both views has influenced how popular culture constitutes knowledge. Theists have traditionally maintained that the supernatural can be investigated and counted as knowledge. Proponents of scientism or empiricism insist knowledge is only that which can be tested methodologically. Postmodernists remain skeptical about both and suggest we can't know anything for sure. The mix of epistemological choices inevitably fosters doubt when it comes to religious knowledge. Accordingly, religious ideas are relegated to the subjective realm where truth doesn't matter.

3) Human Flourishing
As our culture gradually devalues the influence of theism, our view of human flourishing continues to change. When the spiritual component of a worldview erodes, the focus naturally shifts to the earthly life. From an eternal view, a purpose greater than mankind and individual achievement is in view. However, those focusing only on an 80 year lifetime will inevitably look to maximizing survival and self-satisfaction as the highest priorities. If human flourishing doesn't include life beyond the grave, there's no reason to spend much time focusing on anything else.

So a passive approach to religion is easy and socially acceptable, but I've often heard it said that the real reason for ignoring religious claims is insufficient evidence. To that claim I'm a skeptic. People ignore serious consequences all the time even when the evidence is undeniable. Take for instance the following example.

Having arrested and interviewed many federal felons in my career as a government agent, I've observed things about human nature that I may never have seen otherwise. We have much to learn about our own humanness by looking into the actions of others, even felons. The pattern I see repeat itself is this: 1) crime happens, 2) suspect is arrested, 3) suspect is "sorry," 4) suspect is punished, 5) suspect returns to crime.

Surely this is a generalization from my own anecdotal observations and there are exceptions. On the other hand, it's not just a jaded view I learned in law enforcement either. When presenting search warrant affidavits to prosecutors, they ask if the suspect has a criminal history. Why? Because they know the practical reality of the truism that there is no better indicator of future behavior than past behavior. The point is that people commit crimes even knowing how bad the consequence are.

This phenomenon so permeates humanity that it's seen in many other ways as well. Ironically, crime victims themselves are known to continue behavior despite knowing the loss they will encounter. Victims of financial fraud or physical abuse are among the most common. Children who watch their parents die painful deaths grow up taking on the same unhealthy lifestyle of smoking, overeating, or drinking. They do this even while the evidence of the consequences are very real and painfully ever present to them.

Even the blessed people written in Scripture had this problem. The Old Testament is replete with examples of Israel rebelling even after seeing miraculous acts of God in front of them. In the New Testament, Judas, the Pharisees and Sadducees, and other skeptics witnessed Jesus' miracles yet still rejected him. So it's not all about the evidence. Some may honestly be unaware of the result of their actions but many people know the reality of where their actions lead while continuing the course anyway.

While these examples show that people frequently disregard the costs of their decisions, they differ from religious matters in two respects: First, religious decisions are more serious. They have eternal ramifications as opposed to temporary suffering in this world only. Second, the effects of religious missteps are less visible. Sometimes we can see a payoff by living a Christ-centered life but other times the life is filled with just as much pain and suffering or more. The effects of our response to spiritual claims are sometimes not fully realized until after our death. The first reason makes our mission more important but the second makes it more difficult.

Despite this challenge, evangelism is a core part of Christianity and we must proceed cautiously. However well-intentioned and educated a passionate believer may be, misunderstanding or ignoring the perspective of the skeptic can lead to unfortunate mistakes. Like speaking English to rural Chinese farmers, we won't even get started unless we first appreciate what they understand.

In a religiously illiterate culture where spiritual conversation is taboo, many assume the world is limited to this life only. A life aimed at selfish ambition, material wealth, and entertainment-on-demand leaves no time to follow Christ's lead to love the lost. Scripture says the gospel is foolishness to those who don't believe but also reminds us that we too once were lost. In other words, there's hope for passive skeptics just like there was hope for us. As we pray for our friends we must be mindful that they're watching us. So when the topic comes up, never miss an opportunity to give them a reason to care and never shrug and say "Whatever."

The "Whatever" Objection and the Problem of Passivity

Please Welcome Our Newest Blogger, Dan.

Nothing makes Dan happier watching someone change their mind about Jesus. The hope and honor to be part of that process is what drives him. In 2008 Dan earned a Masters of Arts with honors in Christian Apologetics from Biola University. Graduate school provided a well-rounded education in defending the Christian worldview with tools to supplement Dan's inquisitive nature. He enjoys reading and writing on a variety of apologetics issues but specializes on the historical case for the resurrection of Jesus. While there are many worthy Christian doctrines, Dan considers the bodily resurrection of Christ to be the "game-changer." It was for him anyway. Though Dan comes from a lineage of believers, his faith grew nominal in his teen years to the point of serious doubt in college. This led him to investigate Christianity for himself by reading scholarly arguments on all sides. Ultimately, Dan found the skeptic's arguments untenable and was overwhelmed by the case for Christ. Emboldened by the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus in validation of his divine claims, Dan recommitted his life to the task of sharing this with others. This changed Dan's life in what he says can only be real supernatural agency at work. In 2010 Dan moved from Orange County to Arizona where he accepted a transfer in his position as a Federal Criminal Investigator. Dan has participated in and organized debates between Christians and a variety of challengers. He volunteers as an alumni adviser to undergrads at his college fraternity, enjoys a good workout, time with his family, reading, and teaching at his home church in Tucson. Dan loves surfing but has shifted his interest to trail running in desert canyons.

I know that Dan will be a great addition to the PleaseConvinceMe Blog and I'm excited to see what he will bring to the discussion.

Please Welcome Our Newest Blogger, Dan.

Eric Metaxas and “Dead” Religion

PleaseConvinceMe Podcast 242

In this podcast, Jim celebrates Eric Metaxas’ speech at the National Prayer Breakfast and asks if Eric went far enough when discussing the nature of “dead” religion. Is this really the problem we have as Christians in America or is it something more troubling? Why is the proper diagnosis so critical if we ever hope to solve the problem?

Check out the podcast homepage for subscription information and archives.

Eric Metaxas and “Dead” Religion

Was Christ's Death a Sacrifice?

The blood-curdling scream signaled that she had not yet given up. Hours of pushing, and the baby had still not descended. The OB was weighing her options, while dad wiped the mother’s forehead and encouraged her on. She screamed again, pushing and puffing and praying that this agony might soon draw to a close. The pain was so… intense, so utterly mind-numbing that she wondered, for the thousandth time, why she had wanted to have another child...

This is a scene that plays out day after day in hospitals all over the world - women experiencing extreme pain as they do their part to bring new life to – and into – the world. But what does this have to do with Christian apologetics?

Recently, I corresponded with a skeptic who posed some interesting questions about the Christian faith. She began by arguing that if indeed Christ rose from the dead, this would have been no sacrifice on his part, but a bargain, as he traded a normal body for a perfect one.

This, I responded, misses the point of what Jesus did: because his body was human, he experienced the pain and suffering that the crucifixion brought with it, in the way that any flesh and blood human would. There are many things that may result in eventual gain that are exceedingly painful. You wouldn’t tell a mother who is about to deliver that her “sacrifice” and pain are any less real because she will be getting a healthy child “in return.” The mother’s suffering doesn’t “cause” the child to be born; it simply accompanies it, a feature as it were of the nature of things. But willingly enduring pain or suffering, in the service of others, is worthy of recognition and praise. What she endures still constitutes a sacrifice for her, even if she too gains in the process.

So too for Christ: though something better was in store, it nonetheless was a sacrifice for him to go through the steps necessary to complete his “substitutionary atonement.” And it wasn’t the pain that brought salvation; like the child birth referred to above, pain isn’t the point of the process; it is simply, and sadly, a byproduct of it.

Christianity does not teach that Christ’s suffering “caused” our salvation, as if he needed to satisfy the whims of some sadist. The mistake implicit in the challenge is that God is some kind of monster, who measured the pain Jesus suffered until it reached some point where he was finally satisfied. No, it was not Jesus’ experience of agony that God was measuring. It was, instead, Jesus’ perfect life, while a man, that put him in a position to accept in our stead what we in fact deserved. Many people have suffered similar, or even worse deaths, but they could not take on for others what they themselves deserved based on their own conduct. Since sin is something that we all do, and since sin results in separation from God, then a sinless man would be the only kind of man who could take, on our behalf, the consequences that we merited. This is why Jesus made a point of saying that no one took his life; he did what he did voluntarily, which is the only way it would, or could, have been accepted.

Had he been a sinner himself, this “sacrifice” would have been of no avail, as he would have had his own debt to pay. Had he been simply another man, chosen at random to be the scapegoat for God’s wrath, a colossal act of unfairness would have resulted. But God took the punishment upon himself. Since God the Father and God the Son are “consubstantial” – of the same essence – God’s infinite wrath is absorbed and balance by an infinite and all powerful being.

Skeptics often claim that perfect justice and perfect mercy cannot coexist; one or the other most give way. But hasn’t God done just that? Has he not balanced perfect justice and perfect mercy through his perfect love – satisfied for eternity within the persons of the Godhead? Those who accept God’s gift receive forgiveness through Christ, while those who die in rebellion receive the just consequence of their choice.

In dying for our sins, Jesus did more than “sacrifice.” He demonstrated the sublime elegance that can solve even apparently insoluble problems, and open for us a path back to the Father.

Was Christ's Death a Sacrifice?

Why Christians Venerate the Cross

For many people, an obstacle to faith in Jesus is the seemingly gory nature of the core tenets of Christian history. Jesus suffered a horribly violent end, yet Christians revere the cross that was the instrument of that torturous death. And they celebrate His victory over death by partaking of His “body” – honoring His last injunction to “take and eat” and “take and drink” of His body and blood.

One challenger asked why Christians venerate the cross. If a friend were gunned down, he asked, would it make sense for those left behind to wear miniature guns as pendants around their necks? Or to worship the gun used to kill him?

This is an interesting challenge. Framed that way, it does seem a bit odd to incorporate into our holy images the means by which Jesus was put to death. But we are not worshiping the cross. We are worshiping God, in the person of his Son, through whose perfect life we find our hope for the future. More specifically, we are remembering, as He asked us to, what He was willing to do for us.

So, to answer the specific question, Christians would not venerate the gun that was used to murder a friend. But here is the difference. Jesus' death on the cross is the most amazing gift that anyone has ever given. Consider: despite the accuracy of the label "murder" as applied to what occurred to Him that day 2000 years ago, Jesus told us that no one takes his life.

In John 10: 17-18, Jesus said:

For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life so that I may take it again. No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This commandment I received from My Father.”

Jesus lay down his life voluntarily so as to fulfill the Scriptures. He paid the price for our sins to make right the broken relationship with God that sin had introduced into the world. Through His perfect life, he restored the damage that the first humans had caused, and which all of us born since then have inherited. He literally gave – and is continuing to give - eternal life through Him, by balancing the scales of justice and mercy. Death did not defeat Him, nor did the cross. Through His perfect life and the sacrifice of the cross, He defeated death for us, atoning for our sins before a perfect God and providing a means to be re-united with God.

However barbaric it seems today, the cross remains the symbol for the immense love of God, as well as for the victory of Jesus over sin and death. So, while no one should revel in the gory details, the cross remains today, and for all time, a powerful symbol of that love.

Why Christians Venerate the Cross