I have noticed over the years that the only Christians who tend to oppose theological training, the importance of learning Greek/Hebrew, or studying philosophy/apologetics are those who have not had formal theological training, have not studied Greek/Hebrew, and have not studied philosophy/apologetics. I have never met someone who has theological training, learned Greek/Hebrew, or studied philosophy/apologetics who will tell you that such training is not helpful and important for the advancement of Christianity. I find this quite interesting. How can one evaluate the worth of endeavors for which they have not participated in? Could the devaluing of these fields be little more than justification for one’s own ignorance? Hmm.
Apologetics
Archived Posts from this Category
September 30, 2009
September 29, 2009
“Never argue against a viewpoint until you understand it well enough to argue for it.”—Anonymous
I think we could all learn from this one!
September 21, 2009
Is Christian Orthodoxy a Historical Fiction?
Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Historical Jesus[5] Comments
It has been popular for 100 years for liberal scholars to claim there was no Christian orthodoxy from the beginning of the church. Rather, they claim, there existed a bunch of disparate community-based theological movements loosely centered on a historical—but mythologized Jesus—each vying with the other to become the orthodox version of the Christian religion.
According to these theorists, the Jesus tradition spread rapidly to different geographical regions. Each local community would re-tell the Jesus story, but the re-telling of the tradition was wild and uncontrolled, so that the Jesus of history quickly became swallowed up by the various and competing Jesuses constructed by each community. With no way of knowing (and perhaps little concern for) which version of Jesus was accurate—if any—the battle for orthodoxy in the first 300 years of the church became more of a political battle than a theological and historical quest. Recent and popular proponents of this view include Bart Ehrman, Marvin Meyer, and Elaine Pagels.
In the way of critique, this thesis has an extremely weak historical and logical foundation. It is based largely on the (more…)
September 21, 2009
Christianity is a faith-based interpretation of revelational history
Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Historical Jesus, ReligionsLeave a Comment
Christianity is unique in that its veracity depends on the reality of particular historical events. Christianity is not a philosophical religion. Christian faith is not faith for the sake of faith, but a particular understanding about the significance of particular historical events—events that were either supernatural in character, or pregnant with supernatural significance. If these purported historical events are actually fictional or mythical in nature, the very foundation of Christianity crumbles.
While our faith depends on the veracity of particular historical events through which God revealed Himself and His purposes, there is no question that we believe much more than can be demonstrated historically. Historical and archaeological investigation can only verify and bolster some of the Bible’s historical claims. While it can cover a lot of ground, the remaining gaps still must be transposed by faith. That faith is not a blind and absurd leap as Kierkegaard suggested, but a reasoned judgment in reality based on the evidence available to us.
September 17, 2009
Double Standard on Abortion Violence in the Media
Posted by Jason Dulle under Abortion, Apologetics[2] Comments
Elizabeth at the Life Training Institute blog writes of the double standard in the media regarding abortion. When later-term abortion doctor George Tiller was murdered by a pro-life man a few months ago, it was a media frenzy. Everybody was talking about it, and speculating that this may be an intimation of where the pro-life movement is heading.
Last Friday, when a 63 year old pro-life activist, Jim Pouillon, was killed by a pro-choicer in Michigan because he didn’t like the man’s pro-life sign (which had a baby on it with the words “life”), crickets could be heard chirping in the major media. No one was suggesting that this is an intimation of the future of the pro-choice movement.
I don’t doubt for a moment that the major media published the daylights out of the George Tiller murder because they knew it would tarnish the pro-life cause, but are mum on the pro-lifer’s murder because that would tarnish their own cause. I guess news is whatever they say it is!
September 17, 2009
Every denomination or religious tradition has its doctrinal peculiarities. Not only may these be unique to the religious tradition in question, but they are often thought of as strange to outsiders. Usually these doctrinal peculiarities are based on some Biblical text, but they either distort that text, fail to read it in light of other texts, or overemphasize it to the point that it becomes a distortion. And yet, people who were raised in that tradition not only accept it as true, but will work up all the intellectual muster they can in defense of it. While they manage to convince themselves with their reasons, they often fail to convince most others.
We need to be on guard that we do not become so intent on protecting all the teachings/traditions of our own particular religious tradition, that we will come up with, and actually settle for subpar arguments in their favor. Are there things we believe and argue for simply because they are part of our religious tradition – things we would not believe if we were raised in a different tradition, and would not be persuaded of if presented with the same evidence that we use to justify the teaching/tradition?
September 11, 2009
Aren’t Christians Arrogant?
Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Odds & Ends, Theology[16] Comments
Christians think their religion is true, and everybody else’s religion is false. They think you have to believe in Jesus to be saved. How arrogant, right? Actually, no. While there may be some Christians who are truly arrogant, thinking Christianity is the only true religion is not arrogant in itself. When you think about it, everyone one of us thinks we are right in the things we believe. If we didn’t think what we believed was true, we wouldn’t believe it. After all, nobody believes things they think are false! Of course, we could be mistaken in our beliefs. What we think is true may actually be false, but everybody who believes something believes it because they think it is true. And by force of logic, if what we believe is true, all contrary views must be false. So if arrogance is defined as thinking one’s own view to be right and contrary views to be wrong, then everyone is arrogant – not just Christians.
September 9, 2009
Limited Apologetic Value of “Fulfilled” Messianic Prophecies
Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Bible Difficulties, Hermeneutics, Theology[5] Comments
The NT authors often quote an OT passage, and say it was fulfilled in Christ. Many Christians use these fulfillments as evidence for the veracity of the Christian faith. For example, I’ve heard it claimed that the probability of just one man fulfilling 48 different prophecies is something like 1:10157. It is reasoned that no man could match those odds unless the Biblical prophecies were divine in origin, and thus Jesus must be who He claimed to be. The problem with this apologetic is that the vast majority of these “messianic prophecies” are neither prophetic, nor messianic in their original context.
Consider, for example, Hosea 11:1 – “When Israel was a young man, I loved him like a son, and I summoned my son out of Egypt.” Matthew quotes this passage in reference to Jesus’ return to Nazareth, saying, “In this way what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet was fulfilled ‘I called my Son out of Egypt.’” (Matthew 2:14-15) When one examines the original context of Hosea 11:1, however, they will quickly recognize that this passage is neither prophetic nor messianic. It is a mere historical recounting of the Hebrews’ exodus from Egypt.
September 3, 2009
The definition of the definition of marriage
Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Same-sex Marriage[9] Comments
During the ongoing debate over same-sex marriage, it’s common to hear conservatives speak of the “definition of marriage,” but what exactly do we mean by the “definition” of marriage. Are we talking about the purpose of marriage, its form, or both? Most Americans (including conservatives) seem to be referring to marriage’s form: one man and one woman (for life). I submit to you that this is the wrong place to begin the debate. If we allow the discussion to center on marriage’s form, we are sure to lose.
I am persuaded that one of the main reasons we are facing the social and moral predicament we are is because we have reduced the “definition of marriage” to its form, losing sight of its purpose. Without understanding the particular purpose of civil marriage in society, its traditional form is not necessary. When we understand the purpose of civil marriage, however, the traditional form logically follows.
September 3, 2009
Same-sex marriage: using the moral law against itself
Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Same-sex Marriage[2] Comments
J. Budziszewski noted that sometimes we deny what we know to be morally true by improperly pitting two moral principles against one another. Consider marriage and fairness. We recognize both to be moral goods. Those who advocate for same-sex marriage, however, pit them against one another, arguing that if we are going to be fair we must permit same-sex couples to participate in the institution of marriage.
The problem is in their understanding of fairness. They understand fairness to mean everyone must be treated exactly the same. This definition is flawed, however. Fairness requires that we do not arbitrarily treat people differently, or arbitrarily treat them the same. In the case of same-sex marriage, we are not arbitrarily treating same-sex couples differently than heterosexual couples. There is a principled reason for our discrimination: as a rule, heterosexual couples procreate while same-sex couples do not (and the principal reason government is involved in regulating marriage in the first place is because they are interested in the production and socialization of children). To say it is unfair to preclude same-sex couples from marrying is like saying it’s unfair to allow one baseball team to beat another. The purpose of baseball is competition, so it is fair to allow them to compete. Likewise, the purpose of marriage is procreation, and it would be unfair to treat relationships that cannot procreate as equal to those that can.
September 1, 2009
Quote of the Day: I’m not a modernist because I believe in reason
Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Epistemology, Logic, Quote of the Day, ThinkingLeave a Comment
Sorry for not posting much as of late. I’ve been involved with so many projects, I have had computer issues, and I took an excursion to Lake Tahoe. As I get caught up over the next few days, I’ll begin posting again. Here’s a short post in the interim:
Back in May of this year, Greg Koukl had some insightful comments about being labeled a “modernist” for believing in truth and logic that I’d like to share with you. Greg wrote,
Yes, I believe in the legitimacy of reason, but this doesn’t make me a modern simply because the Enlightenment period exalted reason to idol statues. Pre-moderns of all stripes…trusted reason not because it was a pop idol, but because it as an undeniable feature of reality.
Exactly.
August 24, 2009
Craig on God’s goodness and the existence of hell
Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Bible Difficulties, Hell, Theology[13] Comments
The following information comes from a lecture I attended of William Lane Craig:
Religious pluralists often argue that there is a contradiction between the premise that “God is all-loving/powerful” and “some do not hear the Gospel and will be lost.”
To see them as contradictory there must be one of two hidden assumptions:
- If God is all powerful He can create a world in which everybody hears the Gospel and is freely saved.
- If God is all-loving, He prefers a world in which everybody hears the Gospel and is freely saved.
I will show that such is not the case, and argue that they are logically compatible.
August 24, 2009
Moral Relativists Should Have No Problem with Evil
Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Moral Argument, Relativism[6] Comments
Moral relativists who complain about the problem of evil are complaining about something, that on their own ontology, does not exist. This makes as much sense as a man without a car complaining that it won’t start: It doesn’t exist, and yet it’s claimed to be broken.
August 19, 2009
Michael Ruse on the New Atheists
Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Atheism, Evolution, Intelligent Design, Politics[3] Comments
Philosopher of science, Michael Ruse, recently had a few choice words to say about the New Atheists:
Let me say that I believe the new atheists do the side of science a grave disservice. I will defend to the death the right of them to say what they do – as one who is English-born one of the things I admire most about the USA is the First Amendment. But I think first that these people do a disservice to scholarship. Their treatment of the religious viewpoint is pathetic to the point of non-being. Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion would fail any introductory philosophy or religion course. Proudly he criticizes that whereof he knows nothing. As I have said elsewhere, for the first time in my life, I felt sorry for the ontological argument. If we criticized gene theory with as little knowledge as Dawkins has of religion and philosophy, he would be rightly indignant. (He was just this when, thirty years ago, Mary Midgeley went after the selfish gene concept without the slightest knowledge of genetics.) Conversely, I am indignant at the poor quality of the argumentation in Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, and all of the others in that group. … I have written elsewhere that The God Delusion makes me ashamed to be an atheist. Let me say that again. Let me say also that I am proud to be the focus of the invective of the new atheists. They are a bloody disaster and I want to be on the front line of those who say so.
August 18, 2009
PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) people typically oppose the idea of human exceptionalism: that humans are qualitatively different from, and qualitatively superior to animals. Such thinking explains their ad campaigns like “Holocaust on a Plate,” in which they compare eating chicken to the extermination of Jews by Hitler. While PETA people may deny human exceptionalism with their lips—and often with their deeds—I would venture to say that most of them do not truly believe humans and animals are morally equivalent.
I came up with a question you can ask a PETA person that will either help them see that they don’t really believe humans and animals are moral equals, or help you expose their moral confusion for what it is. Ask him/her, “Do you believe it is ok to sell a dog?” If they say no, then they really do believe in the moral equivalence of humans and animals. My guess, however, is that most will say yes. If they do, proceed to ask them, “Do you believe it is ok to sell people?” If they say no, then they haven’t completely abandoned the idea of human exclusivism. In some sense they understand that humans are more valuable than animals. Of course, they might respond with a second yes, in which case their moral sense is in worse shape than we thought!
August 18, 2009
Many who claim that homosexuality is morally benign claim that same-sex attraction is “in their genes.” Does this appeal to biological determinism help their case? No. No moral truth follows from biological truth. Even if it were true that same-sex attraction was biologically determined (something for which there is no solid evidence), it would no more follow that homosexuality is, therefore, morally benign, than it would follow that pedophilia is morally benign if a genetic link to pedophilia was discovered.
Furthermore, if biologically predisposed/determined behaviors are excused from moral condemnation, then on what basis could bigotry against homosexuals be condemned if the desire to discriminate against homosexuals is caused by one’s genes? If hatred of homosexuality is biologically determined, and thus it is morally benign. After all, such a person would be born that way! Surely no one would buy this argument, and yet it is logically equivalent to the argument that homosexuality is morally benign because it is biologically determined. If we have reason to reject one form of the argument, we have reason to reject the other. The fact of the matter is that biology tells us nothing about morality.
August 12, 2009
Greg Ten Elshof just released an interesting book titled I Told Me So: Self-Deception and the Christian Life. Greg is a professor of philosophy at Biola University, and did his doctoral research in the area of self-knowledge and self-deception. During an interview with the Evangelical Philosophical Society, Greg offered a great definition and explanation of self-deception:
To be self-deceived is to intentionally manage one’s own beliefs for some purpose other than the pursuit of truth. It’s worth noting that, given this characterization, one can be self-deceived in believing what is true. One can even be self-deceived in believing something that is true and for which one has evidence. Self-deception occurs most often when there is an emotional attachment to believing in a particular direction. It often involves the management of attention away from evidence that would disrupt the desired belief. And it seems to be capable of achieving greater distances from truth and rationality in groups than in the individual. It was Nietzsche, I believe, who said that insanity is rare in the individual but the rule in groups.
How true this is! That is why I am a strong proponent of the virtues of intellectual honesty, openness, and integrity. We cannot get so emotionally attached to any doctrine that we are unwilling to consider the possibility that it may be mistaken, and unwilling to examine evidence against it.
July 24, 2009
Why is it that when someone challenges a traditional teaching/practice, he is often labeled as “divisive” or a “troublemaker,” and is summarily dismissed? It may be true that the individual has a divisive attitude or is acting in a troublesome manner, but the attitude in which he dissents or questions a particular doctrine/practice is separate from the arguments he presents against it. Someone may be the biggest jerk on the planet, but their attitude has nothing to do with whether their arguments are valid, and their beliefs correct. Simply pointing out their bad attitude does not answer the question of what is true, nor does it excuse us from interacting with their arguments. Labeling and dismissing those who question the mainstream view is often just a power play, usually employed by those without a rebutting argument. It’s a way of avoiding discussion, and having to defend their own point of view.
July 20, 2009
God’s existence is necessary
Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Cosmological Argument, Theistic Arguments[5] Comments
J. Budziszewski made a great summary of the cosmological argument for God’s existence. He wrote, “Anything which might not have been requires a cause. Philosophers call such things ‘contingent beings.’ But the universe…is itself a contingent being, so the universe must have a cause. Now if we say that the cause of the universe is another contingent being, we merely invite an infinite regress. For the regress to have an end, we must eventually reach a being which is not contingent but necessary—not something which might not have been, but something which can’t not be. Furthermore this necessary being must be sufficient to cause its effects, and so it must have all of the qualities traditionally ascribed to God: Eternity, power, and all the rest.”
July 19, 2009
The candid admission of an honest atheist
Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Atheism[3] Comments
In his book The Last Word, Thomas Nagel, an atheist professor of philosophy and law at New York University School of Law, defended philosophical rationalism against subjectivism. At one point he admits that rationalism has theistic implications—implications he does not like. He suggests that subjectivism is due in part to a fear of religion, citing his own fear as a case in point:
I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself: I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that. … My guess is that this cosmic authority problem is not a rare condition and that it is responsible for much of the scientism and reductionism of our time. One of the tendencies it supports is the ludicrous overuse of evolutionary biology to explain everything about life, including everything about the human mind. Darwin enabled modern secular culture to heave a great collective sigh of relief, by apparently providing a way to eliminate purpose, meaning, and design as fundamental features of the world.”
Nagel’s admission is consistent with the Christian claim that those who reject the existence of God do not do so wholly for intellectual reasons—the will plays a vital role as well.
Thinking to Believe 