Getting back to relativism

September 15, 2015Uncategorizedabsolute morality, all roads lead to God, blind men and the elephant, relativism, subjective moralityGary Zacharias

Last Friday at our church we had a great presentation by Mark Strauss on the reliability of the gospels. You can watch it here: http://www.efcc.org/grow/sermons/sermon-messages/series/13/. For this blog post I’d like to get back to my discussion of relativism. Let’s look at challenges of relativists and good responses to them.

They may say there are no absolute truths because people disagree about morals, art, philosophy, and politics. But just because it’s hard, it doesn’t mean truth cannot be found. We may need to look for more evidence. C. S. Lewis says that, in fact, there are no real differences in societies. All cultures, for example, say the unjust killing of people is bad. What has changed is the concept of justification.

As part of this challenge against the existence of absolute morality, critics may give you the story of the blind men and the elephant. In this account several blind men encounter an elephant for the first time with one feeling the tusk, another touching the leg, a third running his hand along the elephant’s side, and a fourth tugging on the elephant’s tail. Each of them argues that he has figured out the elephant, but obviously they only have a piece of the truth. A nobleman comes by and tells them to stop arguing, that they have in fact a piece of the truth but not the entire truth. The message here is that we who disagree about absolute truth are blind to the big picture. But notice where that places the narrator of the story – he becomes the nobleman with the truth. How is it that he has sight but the rest of us do not? That’s a pretty egotistical thing to suggest.

We get the same situation when we are offered a different illustration. In this one there is a mountain with God at the top and many roads leading up to the top of the mountain. These roads represent different religions with their own truths. But if they could only see from an helicopter, they would notice that they are all heading toward the same destination. Again notice where this places the narrator of the story – in the helicopter with a birds-eye view of all religions. How did this person get such a lofty position above the rest of us? How is it that this individual has a privileged position compared to all of us?

Next time I’ll explore more objections to absolute morality and ways we can begin to find truths in morality and religion. This is a crucial issue to discuss in today’s society since so many people have bought into the view that all morality and religion is a matter of subjective views.

Mark Strauss at our church

September 11, 2015Uncategorizedeyewitnesses, Jesus, Luke, Mark Strauss, New Testament, reliability of the gospelsGary Zacharias

This is not going to be another apologetics blog post. Instead, I want to talk about someone who is coming to Emmanuel Faith Community Church in Escondido tonight at 7 to speak on the reliability of the New Testament gospels.

He is Mark Strauss, son of the former pastor at EFCC. Mark’s resume is solid. He is University Professor of New Testament at Bethel Seminary San Diego. That would be enough, but he has done so much more–author or co-author of twelve books, member of the New International Version of the Bible translation board, and weekly teacher at a church in Rancho Bernardo. Whew! Plus, he’s a family man. Certain people just get more done, despite a limited amount of time. Mark is one of those.

Plus, he’s a great communicator. I’ve heard him speak several times and love his clarity. As an English instructor, I appreciate his organization of material, his ability to keep an audience alert, and his focus on what’s important.

Tonight he will be back at his father’s church to talk about the reliability of the gospels. Skeptics are challenging the idea that the gospels were written by eyewitnesses, so Mark’s presentation will do much to bolster confidence in the documents we use to understand the life and mission of Jesus. I’m looking forward to his message.

Problems for Those Who Believe Truth is Relative

August 20, 2015UncategorizedGod, relativism, self-refuting arguments, skepticism, truthGary Zacharias

In the last blog post, I started discussing what’s happened to truth today in our society. Absolute/objective truth (a correspondence to reality) has been overshadowed by a new type of truth – relative/subjective truth in which each person or group of people has individual truths. Let’s take a look now at the problems with this relativism, which is so prevalent in our society today.

First of all, an easy criticism has to do with the fact that it is self-refuting. Think about somebody who tells you he or she can’t speak a word of English but uses English to tell you that. You can see the confusion with that claim. Or somebody else says that each sentence in English must be shorter than two words. Again, there’s a problem here because the person took more than two words to give you that sentence. In each case you notice that what he or she says defeats the point the person was trying to make. This is what I mean by saying some statements are self-refuting.

So now let’s look at self-defeating comments made by somebody who is a relativist when it comes to truth. “All truth is relative.” But this statement claims to be true for all people, which is an absolute statement. Here’s another one – “There are no absolutes.” But again, this is an absolute statement. Someone may say, “That’s true for you, but not for me.” That individual has made a claim that is true for both people. Then there’s this one – “There’s no such thing as truth.” See the problem? That’s a true statement. One more – “We can’t know anything about God.” However, that is a statement about what we can know about God.

Watch for these self-refuting statements from modern-day truth skeptics. They will make such skeptical statements, but their claims are blanket statements which they believe apply to everyone in the world. Probably the most blatant example of self-refutation has to do with individuals who write books supporting their belief in relativism. Why in the world would they write books for everybody if they think there’s no such thing as truth for everybody?

Okay, more to come with problems for relativists in a future blog post.

What Is Truth?

August 10, 2015UncategorizedAllan Bloom, existence of God, morality, multiculturalism, political correctness, relativism, secularismGary Zacharias

In our Apologetics 101 class we first covered a general introduction to apologetics and tactics. We then discussed the issue of truth, and that’s what I’d like to take a look at today.

We started with a quote by Allan Bloom: “There is one thing a professor can be absolutely certain of: almost every student entering university believes, or says he believes, that truth is relative.” That’s how far we’ve come as a society. We used to be able to argue various beliefs, assuming that somebody had the truth and somebody was wrong. But not anymore. We hear things like “That’s just your truth.”

We then took a look at two definitions of truth. First is absolute/objective truth, whatever corresponds to reality. It is discovered, transcultural, unchanging, unaffected by emotions or beliefs, and knowable. For example, the shape of the earth was always around, no matter what people believed over the centuries. Secondly, there is something called relative/subjective truth in which each person or group of people has his/her own truths. It is created, specific to cultures, ever-changing, affected by emotions, not knowable. The second definition is the type that has swept through our society today. Think of preferences for ice cream flavos–nobody is wrong in having different likes.

We traced back this increase in relativism to a lack of belief in the existence of God. As people have become increasingly secular, relativism has flourished with several unpleasant side effects. First, people say there are no standards anymore outside of the individual, which leads to a disintegration in arts, morals, and philosophy. People are far more self-centered as well. In addition, people are unwilling to criticize with the result of dangerous ideas on the rise. There is an emphasis on pleasure – if it feels good, it must be right. Relativism also creates less confidence since people believe there is no meaning to life. If each person decides on his or her own morality, there must be a powerful institution like government to force people to behave a certain way. In addition, relativism rejects reason and argument in favor of emotional tirades. Political correctness raises its ugly head in this time of relativism. Then there’s multiculturalism, the idea that every culture is as valid as every other one.

I want to continue this discussion about truth in a future blog.

Specific Tactics in Engaging the Non-Christian

July 29, 2015UncategorizedChristianity, intolerant, self-refuting arguments, tactics in apologetics, the Bible, toleranceGary Zacharias

For the last couple of blogs I have been going over an introduction to apologetics and tactics to use when talking about your Christian beliefs. This time I’d like to discuss specific tactics that can be effective.

For one thing, we can ask questions of the person who has made a claim about Christianity. This takes pressure off of us to defend our position, it allows the other person to see you as someone interested in him/her, it gives you time to think, and it will help the other person clarify his/her thoughts. Two key questions are these: What do you mean by that? How did you come to that conclusion?

The first question (What do you mean by that?) Is asking the person to clarify the comments. The second question (How did you come to that conclusion?) asks the person to justify the comment by giving good support. So, for example, someone tells you there is no God. The first question seems pointless since we all know what we mean by God. The second question would work better in that case, to ask a person for proof of that statement. If somebody tells you the Bible has been changed over the years, the first question might be a good place to start. What they mean by the term “change”? You can then move to the second question. Someone says that Christians are narrow-minded, and our response would be to ask for clarification as well as how that person came to that conclusion.

The second tactic is to look for self-refuting arguments. These are statements that somebody makes that is contradictory to itself. For example, someone says, “I can’t speak a word of English.” That statement self-destructs since it is contradictory to itself. So, when someone says, “You shouldn’t judge people,” we might point out that that statement is one of judgment itself. Somebody may claim Christians are intolerant, which suggests that person is intolerant of the Christian position. Or, another person says we can can’t know anything about God, yet the statement suggests there is something we can know about God, mainly that he is unknowable.

These two simple tactics (asking questions, looking for self-refuting arguments) will help us immensely as we interact with people who disagree with our Christian viewpoint. Of course, we need to have good reasons for our beliefs, but these tactics will give us a chance to discuss the issues on a more equitable footing.

Tactics We Can Use in Defending Our Beliefs

July 25, 2015Uncategorizedapologetics, apologetics for life, Christianity, Richard dawkins, skeptics, the BibleGary Zacharias

In the last blog I began a series that’s going to reflect what we are covering in a four-week class I call Apologetics 101. I discussed what apologetics is, its value, and misconceptions people have about it. In this blog I want to discuss general tactics that can be useful when interacting with someone who disagrees with our religious convictions.

There are several good general tactics to observe. For one thing, we need to keep it simple. There’s a temptation to do a data dump on people because we have learned some material that we want to share. Sometimes, however, people don’t need all the data we throw at them. Secondly we should be talking to them without referencing the Bible, which sounds counterintuitive. Certainly if the person has a question about the Bible, we need to start there. But this is a society that has become biblically illiterate and, in some cases, downright hostile to the Bible. Instead, we can use philosophy, history, and science to illustrate our points because Christianity is true and is reflected in the real world. Eventually we will get to the Bible, but we hope to have cleared some misconceptions first.

Thirdly, we need to have some resources to enlarge our understanding and to go to when tough questions arise. Probably the best single book on apologetics is I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist by Geisler and Turek. Of course, there are plenty of other good books, DVDs, websites, and magazines which are extremely helpful. If you’d like a list, please e-mail me at gary@apologeticsforlife.org. Another key general tactic is to admit it if we don’t know an answer to a question. Too many times we’re tempted to blow some smoke in hopes of answering the question, but there’s always that chance we will get caught with the result that we ruin our attempt to communicate the gospel. It’s far better to say we don’t know but we will research the issue and get back to the person. People appreciate honesty and humility that are demonstrated in such a response. One final general tactic has to do with questioning authorities used by skeptics. So many people with advanced degrees speak out on issues which they really know nothing about. For example, Richard Dawkins at one time claimed that Jesus never lived. Well, here’s a person who has a doctorate, so he must know what he’s talking about, right? Hmmm . . . Here’s the problem. Dawkins has no background in biblical or historical studies. No recognized scholar agrees with him about the existence of Jesus. He has since backed off of that statement.

In the next blog I will focus on specific tactics we can use as we are talking about Christianity with those who do not agree with us.

An Intro to Apologetics

July 21, 2015Uncategorizedapologetics, apologetics 101, Christianity, Jesus, truthGary Zacharias

Last Thursday our first Apologetics 101 class met. We spent quite a bit of time on the basics of apologetics – what it is, where it’s discussed in the New Testament, its value, misconceptions about it, and tactics to use when engaged in it with those who do not share our beliefs.

I defined apologetics as an attempt to answer seekers, equip Christians, and demonstrate the truth of Christianity. The key verse about apologetics is found in 1 Peter 3:15, where the writer says that everyone should be able to answer questions about Christianity but do it in a kind and gentle manner. Peter makes it sound as if everyone needs to be an apologist, not just intellectuals. And we must be able to answer anybody who asks questions about Christianity, from the young to the old, from a coworker to a relative sitting at a Thanksgiving meal. But he emphasizes we must do this with a good spirit. We’re not arguing to win points or to make the other person look bad. Humans are made in the image of God; we must treat this individual we are talking to with respect. There are other verses that also have to do with apologetics – Colossians 2:8 and 4:5-6, 2 Corinthians 5:20 and 10:5, Titus 2:8, and places in Acts where Paul reasons with people (14:15-17/17:2, 4, 17-31/18:4/19:8-10).

We also talked about the value of apologetics. We want to change the culture, show the value of truth, demonstrate that Christians can think, and draw people to Jesus. Of course, this last one is the most important of all.

Unfortunately, there are many misconceptions about apologetics. Some people think it means to argue in an angry fashion, but this is not true as we have seen in Peter’s letter. It’s also seen in that same letter that everyone should be involved, not just intellectuals. Apologetics can’t save people, but it can knock down barriers. One other misconception is that we must have all the answers. Not true – we should just be honest and admit that we don’t know, but that we will find answers. Finally, we often have the misconception that we’re going up against intellectual powerhouses when people challenge us on our beliefs. But honestly many people know very little about what they’re talking about when it comes to spiritual matters.

I will stop at this point and save a discussion of the tactics and apologetics for the next blog.

A New Class Tonight

July 16, 2015UncategorizedGary Zacharias

I’m excited to be starting a new apologetics class this evening at Emmanuel Faith Community Church. In the past seven years I have led spring and fall classes lasting twelve weeks each. They have been a lot of fun, and the people have shown a tremendous amount of discipline to keep coming out for that period of time, considering all the unexpected things life can dish out.

But I wanted to offer something for others who can’t commit to a lengthy period of time. Plus, I wanted something for those who felt intimidated by the whole idea of apologetics and might be afraid that the class would be too advanced (which is never true).

So, I set up something I call Apologetics 101, a four-week course that covers the basics of a defense for Christianity. The first night (tonight!) we will cover what apologetics is, some basic tactics to use in conversations with those who don’t share our beliefs, and the nature of truth. The second night we will cover well-known and lesser-known arguments for the existence of God. The third class will be on the reliability of the gospels and the life/death/resurrection of Jesus. The last class will cover key challenges to Christianity. I’m going to let the class decide which of several challenges they want to explore–the problem of evil, the existence of hell, science and evolution, the existence of miracles, the rise of relativism, or terrible deeds in church history.

There is both good and bad news right now when it comes to defending Christianity. For the past one hundred years the church has retreated from being intellectually alive. A huge number of youth have walked away from Christianity because they believe the church has no answers to their questions. Now here’s the good news–apologetics has exploded in popularity over the past ten-twenty years. Never before have there been so many good books, websites, articles, DVDs, or magazines devoted to defending our beliefs.

So I’m looking forward to this evening. It’s good to know people are interested in coming out to hear support for Christianity. Our belief is not based on a blind leap–there are many good reasons to believe there is a God and that He revealed Himself through Jesus.

If you can’t make the class, I will be posting audio and video of it on this website. I hope you accept the challenge of Peter (1 Peter 3:15) to be ready to have answers for all who ask you about the hope you have in Jesus.

Last look at Signature in the Cell

July 11, 2015UncategorizedGary Zacharias

Here is the last part of my summary of Dr. Stephen Meyer’s important book, Signature in the Cell. It’s a bit daunting, but he has so much good info on recent discoveries that indicate a designer behind all life. The other three parts are available here in case you want to catch up.

Another complaint about intelligent design is that it does not qualify as a scientific theory by definition. Scientific theories, according to this complaint, must explain events or phenomena by reference to natural laws alone. Science must not assume there are any seen or unseen powers that interfere with the normal working of material objects.

Meyer rejects this by saying the activity of a designing intelligence does not necessarily break or violate the laws of nature. He says it is the same style of explanation as other historical scientific theories in which events are explained primarily by reference to prior events. Those who say ID does not qualify as a scientific theory generally argue that it invokes an unobservable entity, it is not testable, it does not explain by reference to natural law, it makes no predictions, it is not falsifiable, it cites no mechanisms, and it is not tentative.

But Meyer indicates that many scientific theories infer unobservable entities, causes, and events. For example, there are theories of chemical evolution and the existence of many transitional intermediate forms of life. Both of these are unobservable. Historical sciences commonly use indirect methods of testing as they weigh competing unobservable events to determine which one has the greatest explanatory power. The theory of intelligent design is subject to empirical testing and refutation. Many times scientists say that a theory must explain all phenomena by reference to purely material causes, but Meyer wonders why science should be defined that way. Scientists in the past have not always restricted themselves to naturalistic hypotheses. Today many scientific fields currently suggest intelligent causes as scientific explanations – consider archeology, anthropology, forensics, astrobiology.

Meyer spends time refuting the idea that intelligent design is religion. Religions usually involve various formal structures, practices and ritualistic observances, but these are all missing in ID. In addition, it does not offer a comprehensive system of belief about the intelligence behind the design of the universe. The theory of intelligent design does not affirm any sectarian doctrines. Of course this theory has religious and metaphysical implications, but these are not grounds for dismissing it.

Intelligent design is not the only idea that has metaphysical or religious implications. Consider Darwinism – it has significant metaphysical and religious implications as well. Scientific theories should be evaluated on the evidence rather than the implications they may have. Antony Flew, a well-known atheistic philosopher who has now become a proponent of intelligent design, insists that we should “follow the evidence wherever it leads.” Meyer argues that the motivations of the people behind the theories should not invalidate them either because it is not the motivation that determines the merits of the idea; it’s the quality of the arguments and the relevance of the evidence marshaled in support of that theory.

Meyer ends his book by explaining why this issue matters. The scientific case for intelligent design poses a serious challenge to the materialistic worldview so dominant today in the West. Materialism may seem liberating, but it has proven “profoundly and literally dispiriting.” It suggests we have no purpose in life, we are all accidents, nothing lasts beyond the grave, everything will be gone as the universe spins down to heat death. On the other hand, intelligent design says that the ultimate cause of life is personal, suggesting there is something beyond this life.

I spent a long time going through Signature in the Cell because I like wrestling with interesting concepts. I was only able to scratch the surface of the book’s content in this summary, but my goal was to pass along the main points I got and to arouse your curiosity to know more about this fascinating field of study. Meyer has now written Darwin’s Doubt, which takes on the Cambrian explosion and how it creates huge problems for evolutionary thought. But that can wait for a future blog.

Apologetics For Life