J. Budziszewski wrote about an exchange that took place between him and one of his students. The student claimed to be an agnostic, but Budziszewski helped him see that while he may not have an intellectual commitment for or against God’s existence, he cannot avoid a practical commitment to one or the other.
Every agnostic tilts one way or the other in practice: towards theism, or towards atheism. How can you tell where they tilt? Look at how they live their lives. Every agnostic lives his life in one of two ways: (1) as though God does exist; (2) as though God does not exist. To quote Budziszewski, “Commitments are reflected in movements of the will.” If they do not pray and/or are unconcerned about the moral quality of their actions, then they are betting that God does not exist—a “practical atheism” of sorts. If, however, they do pray and/or demonstrate concern for the moral quality of their actions, they are betting that God does exist.
Check out the exchange here. It’s an informative and enjoyable five minute read.
On February 25, 2009, Hugh Ross and Fuzale Rana from Reasons to Believe debated Michael Shermer (of Skeptic magazine fame) on the question of the scientific testability of divine creation. Gary Whittenberger wrote an article on the debate for eSkeptic, a weekly email report produced by Skeptic magazine. According to Whittenberger, “Ross asserted that God caused the beginning of time at the moment of the Big Bang. As other Creationists often do, Ross seems to ignore the fact that an act of a person causing something is itself an event in time, and so he backs himself into the corner of contradiction by implying there was time before the beginning of time. Of course this makes no sense, but Ross is unfazed; he simply imagines that there is a supernatural time and a natural time and supposes that this solves everything.”
Why does somebody need to believe in Jesus to be saved? Our stock answer is so that they will go to heaven, not hell. While true in itself, it obscures the real message of the Gospel because it doesn’t explain why Jesus is necessary, only what the consequences are. It makes God sound petty, and unbelievers are quick to point this out.
The Founders created a “context in which religion and politics mixed but church and state did not. The Founders’ insight was that one might as well try to build a wall between economics and politics as between religion and politics, since both are about what people feel and how they see the world. Let the religious take their stand in the arena of politics and ideas on their own, and fight for their views on equal footing with all other interests. American public life is neither wholly secular nor wholly religious but an ever-fluid mix of the two. History suggest that trouble tends to come when one of these forces grows too powerful in proportion to the other.” 
Nancy Pearcey described a worldview as a mental map that helps us effectively navigate our world. The better our worldview, the more effectively we ought to be able to navigate reality with it. Faulty worldviews are easy to spot because they always run contrary to our pre-theoretical experience of reality at one point or another. For example, scientific naturalists claim the material world—working according to natural processes—is all there is to reality. There is no God, there are no angels, and there are no souls. All that exists is what we can put in a test-tube. This creates a problem for the concept of free-will, which in turn creates a problem for the concept of moral responsibility.
Some have argued that a God whose essence is good is not worthy of our praise for doing good, since He cannot do otherwise. Being praiseworthy entails merit, but there is no merit in doing what one must do of necessity; therefore, God, is not deserving of praise for doing good.
Does anyone remember the promises from the legislators, scientists, and bioethicists that they would not pay women for their eggs for use in cloning research? As with most bioethical promises, they are handed out like candy in order to obtain the desired political result, only to be taken back once that result has been realized. Apparently, New York has decided it will 
It’s common in Christian circles to limit our preaching and teaching to Christ’s ability to take care of our sin problem and fix our broken lives. That is the Gospel message, but that’s not all Christianity has to say about the world in which we live. Christianity is total truth. It’s not just truth about salvation, it’s also truth about science, morality, and insofar as morality should affect society, politics as well. The Christian worldview affects every area of life, both private and public.
William Saletan of Slate once proposed some new rhetoric for abortion-choice politicians to use when they are debating pro-lifers. His proposal was as follows: “My opponent and I both want to avoid as many abortions as possible. The difference is, I trust women to work with me toward that objective, and he doesn’t.” 
“Why do the people of the church continue to affirm things like, ‘I’m against abortion, but I think it should be legal’ and ‘I think everyone should decide for themselves’? Because no teaching on abortion is teaching on abortion: it communicates the implicit message that abortion is not the sort of serious wrong about which we can have knowledge. In other words, we learn from a pastor’s silence that abortion is not a sin. When a practice as pervasive as abortion is not treated as a serious matter of faith and practice from the platform of a church, church members never reconsider the pro-choice beliefs they’ve assimilated from their culture. In short, when the leadership of the church acts pro-choice by not speaking on abortion, the church follows suit and adopts the pro-choice view, both in word and deed.” – 
Les Français sont fous! 
Generally speaking, lying is when we present something as being true that is not actually true. And generally speaking, lying is a sin. But not every lie is a sin. Sometimes lying can be our moral obligation. Consider the scenario in which your moral obligation to protect life is pitted against your moral obligation to tell the truth. Protecting life is the weightier moral imperative of the two, and thus lying to protect that life would be the right thing to do. This happened frequently in Nazi Germany when those who harbored Jews lied to Nazi officers to protect the Jews’ lives.
Abortion-choice advocates often argue that they have a right to an abortion because it is their body, and thus their choice. Their mantra is “I can do what I want with my own body.” This is what is properly called the bodily-autonomy argument. The argument is flawed because it rests on the faulty assumption that the unborn “thing” in the womb is the woman’s body. It is not. It is separate living being, and we know so because it has its own unique genetic fingerprint.
If you haven’t heard by now, the famous late-term abortionist from Wichita, Kansas, George Tiller, was murdered on Sunday while attending a religious service at his local Lutheran church. It is very likely that he was murdered because of his profession. Indeed, this was no accidental murder. He was sought out specifically. Given how infamous he is for killing late-term babies, it is almost certain that his killer was motivated by his own pro-life ideology. Given the fact that I am pro-life, and regularly discuss abortion on this blog, I feel it necessary to weigh in on this issue.
Thinking to Believe 