This coming spring our apologetics group will be going through a short but extremely thoughtful book called Faith Is Not Wishing by Greg Koukl. I wanted to highlight some of his chapters here.

The first chapter deals with the concept of faith. Atheists see an inverse relationship between knowledge and faith. They believe the more knowledge of this world that is gained, the less spiritual faith people will have. They see faith as a leap in the dark, a desperate clinging to something when no information is available. It is often seen as wishful thinking. But Koukl points out that biblical faith is very different – it actually comes out of knowledge. It means active trust. He gives an example in the book of Exodus where Moses through the power of God brings forth miracles. In Exodus 14:31, we see the result: “And when Israel saw the great power which the Lord had used against the Egyptians, the people feared the Lord, and they believed in the Lord and in his servant Moses.” There’s a definite pattern we see in this story–giving the people knowledge of God, in whom they then place their active trust. The key point is that knowledge went before belief. God didn’t ask the Hebrews or Moses for mindless faith, blind leaps, or wishful thinking.

The same is true in the New Testament. In Mark 2 Jesus says to a paralytic that his sins were forgiven. Scribes grumbled about such an audacious claim. So Jesus said, “But in order that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins, I say to you, rise, take up your pallet and go home.” Jesus gave the same lesson that we saw in Exodus. He provided something that can’t be seen (the forgiveness of sins) with evidence that can be seen, in this case a dramatic supernatural healing. Again, the concrete evidence allowed the doubters to know the truth so they could then trust in the forgiveness Jesus could give.

Other places in the New Testament follow the same pattern. Peter’s sermon on Pentecost ends with this statement: “Therefore, let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him [Jesus] both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.” In 1 John the author ends his letter by saying, “These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, in order that you may know that you have eternal life.”

Biblical faith isn’t wishing; it’s confidence. It’s not denying reality, but discovering reality. It’s a sense of certainty grounded in evidence that Christianity is true – not just “true for me,” but actually, fully, and completely true. So knowledge comes first, and confidence follows. So we need to gather evidence, which will increase our knowledge and deepen our faith. Today, thanks to the Internet and other sources, it’s easy to gather evidence for the reliability of the Christian faith. Let me know if you’d like some ideas of places to go for further evidence.

I Don’t Have Enough Faith To Be an Atheist by Norm Geisler and Frank Turek has an important chapter dealing with the possibility of miracles. Since I will be speaking on this in a week, I wanted to write about miracles to make sure I understood their main points.

I think I’ll start my presentation with a question: have you or someone you know experienced a miracle? It might be a healing or an answer to prayer. J. P. Moreland, a noted Christian philosopher, says he is always surprised when he asks this question of groups he is speaking to. A large number of people always raise their hands. We in the West are cold, rational people that really don’t believe in miracles. But they seem to be happening around us.

Can we justify belief in miracles? That’s what the authors of the book tackle. They start with a definition. A miracle is a special act of God that interrupts normal events. It’s done to authenticate some message from God.

They use a simple illustration to explain how miracles add to our worldview. They tell of one speaker who brought in two boxes for his audience – one was closed, and one was open at one end. The speaker held up the closed box and said atheists believe the physical universe is closed, like the box. But he said he believed there was a God outside the box capable of reaching into it and performing what we call miracles.

The authors indicate there is a key element here. If we admit there is a God, then miracles are possible. It’s always been funny to me that people do believe in God, but they have difficulty with miraculous events associated with Jesus, such as walking on water or changing water to wine. Once you have settled the idea that there is a God, then all possibilities are open since he created the entire universe out of nothing. He can certainly do other, more minor miracles.

Geisler and Turek tackle two well-known objections to miracles. The first one was by Spinoza, who said natural laws are immutable. But the authors point out the creation of the universe seems to throw that objection out the window. They say laws describe, not prescribe what will happen.

The second objection was by David Hume. He argued that natural law is a description of a regular occurrence, while a miracle is a rare occurrence. He then says the evidence for the regular is always greater than that for the rare. Next, he says, a wise man always bases his belief on the greater evidence, and, therefore, a wise man should never believe in miracles. That may sound like a good argument, but they point out the problem with “the evidence for the regular is always greater than that for the rare.” Think of all the things that have happened which are rare but we have better reasons to believe in them – the origin of the universe, the origin of life, the start of new life forms, the entire history of the world. These are all rare events, yet we believe in them. The issue is not the rarity of an event; it’s whether we have good evidence for it. They accuse Hume of circular reasoning – he says only believable events are regular, and since a miracle is not regular, it fails to meet this criteria.

The authors end the chapter by discussing why there are no biblical miracles happening today. They mention that most miracles in the Bible actually occurred only during three periods of history – in the time of Moses, Elijah, and Jesus. They believe that since there is no new revelation coming from God today that needs confirmation, there are fewer miracles. But I suggest that there are miracles, at least on the smaller scale involving individuals. We’ll see what reaction I get when I ask the class next week whether they have experienced miracles.

The next section of I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist is important but not necessarily easy to grasp. The authors Norm Geisler and Frank Turek deal with the argument for God from morality. It can be summed up this way: every law has a lawgiver; there is a moral law; therefore, there is a moral lawgiver.

Of course, the key portion of that argument is the existence of a moral law. The authors start out by saying our Founding Fathers thought there was such a law. Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that “nature’s law” is “self-evident.” They claim Jefferson meant you don’t use reason to discover it; you just know it. All people are impressed with the fundamental sense of right and wrong. For example, everyone knows that love is superior to hate and courage is better than cowardice.

They point out that this does not mean that every moral issue has easily recognizable answers or that some people don’t deny that absolute morality exists. There are difficult problems in morality. In addition, they understand that people suppress and deny the moral law every day. But they say there are basic principles of right and wrong that everyone knows, whether they will admit them or not.

The authors claim there are eight reasons why the moral law exists. First, the moral law is undeniable logically. A person may say “there are no absolute values,” but this person who denies all values actually values his right to deny them. In addition, he wants everyone to value him as a person, even while he denies that there are values for all persons. So, even those who deny all values nevertheless value their right to make that denial. That’s inconsistent.

Secondly, we know there is a moral law by our reactions. The authors included a great story to prove their point. A professor at a major university in Indiana gave one of his relativistic students who did not believe in absolute moral values a lesson in this point. The professor, who was teaching a class in ethics, assigned a term paper to the students. One student, an atheist, wrote eloquently on the topic of moral relativism, arguing that all morals are relative and there is no absolute standard of justice or rightness. It was actually a good paper with good documentation. The professor read the paper and wrote on the front cover, “This is a good paper, but I’m going to give it an F because you put it in a blue folder.” The student, of course, was enraged and said that it wasn’t fair to give him a bad grade because of the folder. The professor acted puzzled, saying the student didn’t believe in moral values, so why was he talking about something being fair. The light bulb went on the student’s head. He realized that he really did believe in moral absolutes. The authors say that a good way to get moral relativists to admit that there are absolute morals is to treat them unfairly. Their reactions will reveal the moral law written on their hearts and minds.

There are more arguments for the existence of moral laws, but I will save those for future blog.

The next section of I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist deals with the design of life. It focuses particularly on the most difficult problem of all for Darwinists – where did the first life come from?

The authors point out that the first problem when talking about evolution is in its definition. Darwinists make no distinction between microevolution and macroevolution, and thus use the evidence for micro to prove macro. Microevolution has been observed (changes within species), but it can’t be used as evidence for macroevolution, which has never been observed (the evolving of one organism into another kind of organism). Natural selection, the device Darwinists say that powers evolution, has never been observed to create new types.

There are five reasons the authors list to explain why natural selection can’t create new life. For one thing, there seems to be genetic limits built into basic types of animals. For example, dog breeders create different kinds of dogs, but the dogs always remain dogs. Secondly, the change that occurs within types of animals appears to be cyclical rather than directed toward the development of new life forms. The two authors use an example of Darwin’s finches, which were noted as having varying beak sizes depending on the weather. No new life forms came into existence; only the beak sizes changed in these birds. The third reason involves something called irreducible complexity. Living things are filled with molecular machines that are irreducibly complex, meaning that all the parts of each machine have to be completely formed and in the right places and in the right size in the correct operating order at the same time for the machine to function. The authors use as an example a car engine, which needs so many systems to operate together for success. These complex biological systems could not have developed in a gradual Darwinian fashion because intermediate forms would be nonfunctional. All the right parts must be in place in the right size at the same time for there to be any function at all. A fourth problem with natural selection is the non-viability of transitional forms. The authors use as an example the Darwinian assertion that birds evolved gradually from reptiles. Such a change would necessitate a transition from scales to feathers, but how could a creature survive that no longer has scales but does not quite have feathers? A creature with the structure of half a feather has no ability to fly. Finally, the authors discuss molecular isolation. If all species share a common ancestor, the authors indicate we should expect to find proteins sequences that are transitional from fish to amphibian, for example. That’s not what is found. Scientists have discovered that the basic types are molecularly isolated from one another, which seems to preclude any type of ancestral relationship.

But Darwinists say the fossil record supports their position – does it? It actually lines of better with supernatural creation. There aren’t missing links – there’s a missing chain. Nearly all the major groups of animals known to exist appear in the fossil record abruptly and fully formed in strata from the Cambrian time period. This is been called the Cambrian explosion or biology’s Big Bang. This, of course, is completely inconsistent with Darwinism. There’s no evidence of gradual evolution but of instantaneous creation instead.

Again, I’m going to quit at this point even though I have not finished the chapter in the book. There’s plenty here to think about.

This blog is a continuation of a summary of a powerful book, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist by Geisler and Turek.. The last time I discussed the book I was working my way through a chapter about the complexity of life. This time I would like to finish that particular chapter, which talks about the philosophy behind Darwinism and materialism.

The authors say Darwinists have been successful in convincing the public that Darwinism represents science while those who oppose Darwinism represent bad science. However, Geisler and Turek say just the opposite. It’s the Darwinists who are practicing the bad science because their science is built on a false philosophy.

Where does Darwinism go wrong? Many Darwinists start with the idea that God is not necessary because science can explain everything. But there are all sorts of rational beliefs that cannot be proven by science: mathematics and logic (science can’t prove them because science presupposes them), metaphysical truths (for example, there are minds that exist other than my own), ethical judgments (you can’t prove by science that Mother Teresa was good because morality is not part of the scientific method), aesthetic judgments (no one can scientifically prove something is beautiful), and science itself (the belief that the scientific method discovers truth ironically can’t be proven by the scientific method itself).

The key point the authors wish to get across is that science itself is built on philosophy. So, if you have bad philosophy, you get bad science. How is it that science is built on philosophy? First, scientists use philosophical assumptions and the search for causes. For example, scientists assume by faith that reason and the scientific method allow us to accurately understand our world. You can’t prove the tools of science by some sort of experiment – the laws of logic, the law of causality, the principle of uniformity. Secondly, philosophical assumptions can dramatically impact scientific conclusions. I think right now about the debate on climate change. Many scientists are getting a conclusion that they wish to get to keep the scientific funding going.

The authors say the bad science of Darwinists essentially comes from their false philosophy of naturalism/materialism. Geisler and Turek have five reasons why materialism is not reasonable. First, there is specified complexity in life that cannot be explained materially. Think about the DNA message. Secondly, human thoughts and theories are not comprised only of materials. How much does love weigh? Third, if life was simply material, then we could take these materials and make a living being. But we cannot do that. Fourth, if materialism is true, then all people of human history who had spiritual experiences have been completely mistaken. That’s hard to believe considering the list of those who have had such experiences – think of Abraham, Moses, Kepler, Newton, Pascal, Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and Jesus Christ. Fifth, if materialism is true then reason itself is impossible. Why? If mental processes are nothing but chemical reactions in our brains, why should we believe that anything is true? Chemicals don’t reason, they react. We would be doomed to conclusions based on chemical reactions rather than reason.

Well, that’s a lot of heady material to consider, and it deserves further thought. But I think it’s pretty powerful.

I have been blogging on a book that our class at church will be reading together–I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist by Geisler and Turek. For this entry I want to cover what is probably my favorite section of the whole book. It involves the argument from design, also called the teleological argument. It looks like this: every design had a designer; the universe has highly complex design; therefore, the universe had a designer. In the last few years science has uncovered so much evidence of complexity in the universe that argues powerfully for the existence of God.

For one thing, the universe is specifically organized to enable life to exist on earth. Think about just the solar system–no other place is able to sustain life. We live, like Goldilocks, in a just-right position, neither too hot (Venus) or too cold (Mars).We have around us scores of improbable and interdependent life-supporting conditions that make earth a perfect home in a hostile universe. These highly precise environmental conditions go by the term “anthropic principle.” The universe looks fine-tuned to support human life here on earth.

What are some of these conditions that are exactly right? I’ll just list some, skipping the details, but the book explains each more fully: the percent of oxygen in the atmosphere, the transparency of our atmosphere, the moon-Earth gravitational interaction, the amount of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere, the gravitational force in the universe, the expansion rate of the universe, the velocity of light, the level of water vapor in the atmosphere, the precise location of Jupiter in the solar system, the thickness of the Earth’s crust, the rotation of the earth, the tilt of the Earth’s axis, the rate of lightning in the atmosphere, seismic activity on the earth. There are something like 122 of these conditions both on earth and throughout the universe that have to be precisely right for us to exist.

The authors quote a Nobel Laureate, Arno Penzias, who has this to say after examining the conditions like the ones in the previous paragraph: “Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing and delicately balanced to provide exactly the conditions required to support life. In the absence of an absurdly-improbable accident, the observations of modern science seem to suggest an underlying, one might say, supernatural plan.”

The skeptic’s response comes in several flavors. One popular one today is called the Multiple Universe Theory. This theory says there actually is an infinite number of universes in existence, so it’s no wonder that at least one looks like the one that we are in. There are significant problems with this explanation. First, there is no evidence for it. Secondly, an infinite number of finite things like universes is an actual impossibility. Third, even if there were other universes, they would need fine-tuning to get started just as ours did.

This chapter in Geisler and Turek’s book discusses design of the universe, but there is much more to this design argument. The other area of design that is so powerful today has to do with the microscopic level. Design that went unnoticed in Darwin’s day is being revealed in exiting ways. I’ll cover those in the next blog.

I want to return to an important book called I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist by Geisler and Turek. The first couple of chapters dealt with arguments for the existence of truth. The authors move to a new chapter in which they attempt to prove that God exists. Their first argument is called the Cosmological Argument.

t\They start with a story of Albert Einstein. It was in 1916 when Einstein’s calculations revealed the universe had a definite beginning. This upset Einstein as well as other physicists who wanted the universe to be static and eternal. Why should they care about the beginning of the universe? Because it allowed for God as creator.

Einstein’s work hinted at the possibility of God for a simple reason. His theory of General Relativity supported one of the oldest formal arguments for the existence of a theistic God — the Cosmological Argument. It sounds complicated but it’s very simple. In logical form, the argument looks like this: everything that had a beginning had a cause; the universe had a beginning; therefore, the universe had a cause. This cause came to be called the Big Bang.

The authors give five reasons to prove the universe had a beginning with this Big Bang. First, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, also called the Law of Entropy, says that nature tends to bring things to disorder. We see that the universe still has some order left with some usable energy, so the universe cannot be eternal. Secondly, we have found over the last 75 years that the universe is expanding; if we could watch a video recording of the history of the universe in reverse, we would see everything in the universe collapsing back to point. Another piece of scientific evidence is the cosmic background radiation, which is actually light and heat left over from the initial explosion of the Big Bang. A fourth clue was the discovery of slight variations in the temperature of the cosmic background radiation. These temperature ripples enabled matter to congregate by gravitational attraction into galaxies. A fifth supporting fact is Einstein’s theory of General Relativity, which shows that time, space, and matter are interdependent; you can’t have one without the others. This theory demands an absolute beginning for all three.

The book contains an interesting quotation from Robert Jastrow, the director of Mount Wilson and founder of NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies. He is an agnostic when it comes to religious matters, so this is not someone in the camp of Christianity. He writes, “Now we see how the astronomical evidence leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world. The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy.” In other words, Genesis seems to give a good picture of the Big Bang.

Why does God have to be dragged into this? Couldn’t natural forces have produced the universe? Here’s the key point — natural forces, in fact all of nature, were created at the Big Bang. There was no natural world or natural law prior to the Big Bang. Something outside of nature had to do the job, and that’s where the term “supernatural” comes into the picture.

At this point, when God is suggested as the Beginner, atheists come up with an age-old question: “Then who made God? If everything needs a cause, that God needs a cause too.” But the Law of Causality does not say that everything needs a cause. It says that everything that comes into being needs a cause. God did not come into being. No one made God. He is unmade. As an eternal being, God did not have a beginning, so he didn’t need a cause.

What characteristics of God can be seen from the evidence discussed in this chapter? He must be self existent, timeless, non-spatial, and immaterial. He must be unimaginably powerful. He must be supremely intelligent. He must be personal in order to choose to convert a state of nothingness into the time-space-material universe.

The authors end the chapter with a key question: “If there is no God, why is there something rather than nothing?” Good point.

So here’s the last of several blogs in reaction to Jimmy Carter’s pronouncement that Islam and Christianity are the same in their treatment of women. That’s simply not true. I’ve gone through the New Testament’s comments on women to show how much females were raised in relation to the culture around them. For this last blog, I’d like to acknowledge some problems within the church but end on the positive things that have come about due to the high status of women the gospels and letters of the New Testament proclaim.

Yes, Jimmy Carter was on to something—there have been church leaders in the past who have denigrated women. Some people mistakenly believe these contemptuous beliefs of the church fathers are rooted in an anti-female Bible, but that couldn’t be farther from the truth. People held these wrong beliefs in spite of, not because of, the biblical teachings. Those individuals allowed themselves to be shaped by the beliefs of the surrounding pagan, anti-female culture. It’s unfortunate that some of them didn’t allow the woman-honoring principles found in Scripture to change their unbiblical beliefs. But that’s the failing of imperfect followers of Jesus, not a failure of God or the New Testament.

Let’s consider the years since then. Over and over we see the positive results of a faith that emphasizes the value of women. As Christianity spread throughout the world, its redemptive effects elevated women and set them free in many ways. The Christian ethic declared equal worth and value for both men and women. Husbands were commanded to love their wives and not exasperate their children. These principles were in direct conflict with the Roman culture, which gave a husband absolute power of life and death over his family, including the wife.

The biblical view of husbands and wives as equal partners caused a huge change in marriage as well. Christian women started marrying later, and they married men of their own choosing. This eroded the ancient practice of men marrying child brides against their will, often as young as eleven or twelve years old. The greater marital freedom that Christianity gave women eventually gained wide appeal. Today, a Western woman is not compelled to marry someone she does not want, nor can she legally be married as a child bride. But the practice continues in parts of the world where Christianity has little or no presence. Consider Islam—Mohammed married a six-year old and had sex with her within three years. How’s that for a contrast with Christian values?

Another effect of the salt and light of Christianity was its impact on the common practice of polygamy, which demeans women. Many men, including biblical heroes, had multiple wives, but Jesus made clear this was never God’s intention. Whenever he spoke about marriage, it was always in the context of monogamy. He said, “The two [not three or four] will become one flesh.” As Christianity spread, God’s intention of monogamous marriages became the norm.

Two more cruel practices were abolished as Christianity gained influence. In some cultures, such as India, widows were burned alive on their husbands’ funeral pyres. It ended when the British intervened, thanks to their Christian faith. In China, the crippling practice of foot binding was intended to make women totter on their pointed, slender feet in a seductive manner. It was finally outlawed only about a hundred years ago.

As a result of Jesus Christ and His teachings, women in much of the world today, especially in the West, enjoy more privileges and rights than at any other time in history. It takes only a cursory trip to an Arab nation or to a Third World country to see how little freedom women have in countries where Christianity has had little or no presence. It’s the best thing that ever happened to women, despite the pronouncements of Jimmy Carter.

I’d like to do a further blog on Christianity and the role of women, thanks to alarming comments by Jimmy Carter, who suggested Islam and Christianity have a similar outlook on women—seeing them as second class. That’s far from the truth. Let’s take a look at Paul’s comments in the New Testament, which, unfortunately, many have seen as insulting to women.

One passage by Paul which has stirred controversy is found in 1 Timothy 2:11-14 where the author seems to tell Timothy that women should be in submission to men and should keep quiet in church. But is that what he really said? His remarks may have been for that culture, not ours because in other places Paul talks about greeting each other with a holy kiss and the necessity for head coverings, practices which are now nonexistent. So that’s one possibility. Then you have to see another passage (Titus 2) where Paul encourages older women to teach younger women—so apparently it was OK for women to talk and teach others. In addition, the verb in the original is different from what we usually see –“I do not permit” actually is “I am not permitting at this time.” That’s a big difference. There may have been a particular issue of confusion and noise that Paul was dealing with in one particular church.

Then there’s 1 Timothy 3:1-4 where Paul gives requirements for overseers in the church. It seems like he’s excluding women here because he uses the male pronoun. But again, if you look at the original Greek, it says “If a man or woman desire” to indicate either sex could qualify.

Take a look at 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, in which Paul seems to tell women to keep quiet in church. However, go back a couple of chapters in the same letter and see 11:5 where Paul tells women how to go about praying or prophesying. So it looks like it was OK for women to talk in church. Paul probably is speaking here about disorderly talking rather than any talking.

Keep in mind several things here. These passages were all from pastoral letters rather than general theological letters. Paul was addressing particular needs in particular churches in a particular culture. Secondly, our translations may not reflect clearly the original Greek. Finally, we have to balance these statements with others that definitely support equality—see Galatians 3:27-28 and Ephesians 5:21.

So Paul may be getting hit unfairly with charges of hostility to women. It strikes me as ironic how some very conservative church leaders can use these verses in an attempt to shut out women yet rely on these same women to teach Sunday school, lead music, and head up many programs at church. You can’t have it both ways—either keep the women from any role in the church or allow them to speak and teach.

Did Jimmy Carter get it right? Does Christianity share Islam’s disregard for women? I don’t think so.

In my last blog, I reacted to Jimmy Carter, who was quoted recently as saying all religions have treated women badly. I wanted to set the record straight—Christianity has done much to elevate the significance of women. I covered the way Jesus dealt with women. This time I’d like to turn to Peter and Paul to see how they viewed women.

Peter encouraged women to consider themselves as valuable because God saw them as valuable. His call to aspire to the inner beauty of a trusting and tranquil spirit is staggeringly counter-cultural, especially in today’s world where women are seen as objects. He writes, “Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as braided hair and the wearing of gold jewelry and fine clothes. Instead, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God’s sight. For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to make themselves beautiful.”

Equally staggering is Peter’s call to men to elevate their wives with respect and understanding: “Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers.” Consideration, respect, fellow heirs—these were concepts totally alien to men of Peter’s generation.

The biggest criticism of Christianity and its view of women is due to statements by Paul. He is often accused of being a misogynist, one who hates and fears women. But Paul’s teachings on women reflect the creation order and high value God places on women as creatures made in his image. Take a look at what he had to say in Ephesians 5–he challenges men to love their wives in the self-sacrificing way Christ loves the church. In a culture where a wife was nothing but property, Paul elevates women to a position of honor previously unknown in the world.

Paul also provided highly countercultural direction for the New Testament church. Consider the Jewish synagogue–women had no place and no voice in worship. In the pagan temples, the place of women was to serve as prostitutes. The church, on the other hand, was a place for women to pray and prophecy out loud (1 Cor. 11:5). Spiritual gifts used to build up the church are given to women as well as men. Older women are commanded to teach younger ones. The invitation to women to participate in worship of Jesus was unique in that day.

Maybe next time I can look closely at a couple of passages that critics especially love to point out as representative of Paul’s distrust of women.