EMAIL THIS PAGE
PRINT
RSS
As many of you know, this year I helped my dad update his classic, "More Than a Carpenter." We added a chapter on the New Atheists as well as included responses to common objections to the Christian faith (such as the Da Vinci Code and the so-called Gospel of Judas) that have arisen since "More Than a Carpenter" was first released in 1977. One of the fun things in updating the book was learning that it played a key role in Mark Driscoll's decision to become a Christian. Well, since Driscoll is a Calvinist, I guess it wasn't really his decision, but you get the point! This spring my dad's ministry, Josh McDowell Ministry, is launching a huge campaign entitled, "Reclaiming Easter," to help get the word out about the evidence for the historical Jesus. For the past few months my dad has been working on developing free PowerPoint slides and sermons to go along with the updated "More Than a Carpenter." There are 2,027 free slides for anyone to download as well as free sermon outlines. Please pass the word to apologists, pastors, youth pastors, teachings, and anyone else looking for quality FREE downloads. |
Comments
Sean,
This stuff is helpful. It is great to see these resources being given away. I pray that God would vindicate His Servant Jesus through the church proclaiming His death and Resurrection in these last days!
The DaVinci code is a fiction suspense, action/adventure novel. It is complete with scary villans, unexpected twists and turns, and takes liberies with church history and other historical events, which is typical of fiction novel of that sort.
Amazingly, people who write books bebunking this fiction novel are found in the non-fiction isle at the local bookstore. Go figure!
Similarly, I know a lot of atheists, but do not know any who call themselves "New Atheists." Anybody can poke holes in the beliefs of a group that doesn't exist. After all, you can characterize them any way you want. Why don't you let real live atheists speak for themselves, rather than setting up some sort of pathetic cartoon version of a group of atheists to ridicule?
Billy Wheaton
Hi, Billy -
Thanks for visiting my blog! I totally agree that the Da Vinci Code is a fictional book. I actually found it quite suspenseful and engaging. But it's amazing how many people took the claims seriously. It did (and still does) need refutation on a popular level. I continue to hear objections to the historical Jesus that are clearly taken from it.
I'm actually not saying that most atheists today call themselves the "New Atheists." And I, too, have many atheist friends (and family members). This is a term for a few outspoken atheists such as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett and Christopher Hitchens who do in fact refer to themselves as the "New Atheists." They have had a considerable influence on the popular culture and have some characteristics that set them apart from earlier public atheists. I do quote them fairly and then respond to them directly. I actually just had a public debate this past week against an atheist (well, at least an agnostic), and regularly interact with their beliefs. So, I am more than willing to allow them to speak for themselves. And I don't ridicule their beliefs. Anyone who watched my debate agreed that I treated my opponent with respect. Why don't you extend the same courtesy to me?
Sean, I was given the new version of "More Than a Carpenter" recently and have finished reading it. Could you clarify something for me - Do you think that evolution is false? This is the only conclusion I could come to given the chapter you wrote. Also, have you any encounters with objectivists regarding your extremely simplistic argument from "objective" morality. As someone who is studying the subject I found that argument outrageous. I don't understand how you go from "if objective morality exists, then god exists" (paraphrase).
I agree with you that some "new" athiests fall all over themselves to defend a Christian morality of self-sacrifice and altruism, but it does not follow that you cannot objectively derive a set of moral standards without god. It just happens that the moral standard you end up with is quite different.
I also found other statements in your chapter to be (put mildly) logically questionable. I'd be happy to post my thoughts for discussion if anything would come of it.
... After looking at some of your other material I can see that you do in fact think that evolution did not happen. I find it interesting that historical evidence for evolution is ignored, but historical evidence (mostly second hand witness accounts) for the new testament is accepted. Your arguments about the origins of life in chapter 5, amount to nothing more than "you can't prove how life began, therefore god did it!". A lack of evidence for something is not evidence for something else. You must prove your theory just as multi-verse theorists must prove theirs. You made not such attempt, I found your line of reasoning insulting.
I was especially appalled when you said that if our rational faculty is a result of Darwinian natural selection, then we cannot trust it at all, since it was a "random, irrational" process. -- In making this argument you have swept the legs on which the rest of the book stands out from underneath you. By destroying the validity of our rational faculty and our senses you invalidate my ability to make any conclusion regarding the rest of the book's "rational" arguments. This is the classic stance of modern philosophy and religion: destroy the mind, then you can make it believe anything.
That our rational faculty comes from an evolutionary background is a direct result of the fact that the world in which we evolved is rational! Natural selection leads to a selection of the properties best suited for survival in your given environment. We have (and need) a rational faculty for survival precisely because our environment is rational one. Evolution does not invalidate our mind, in fact it affirms it!
Now as to your argument form objective morality. I will direct you toward Ayn Rand's "The Virtue of Selfishness" for an account of how an objective moral law can be derived with it's only standard as life, and a love of it. I listened to your debate on this subject and found your opponent's reasoning inept. His mistake was that his standard with the survival of the species, to which you rightly pointed out that rape and other horrors could be considered moral. What he failed to realize is that there is no single entity "the human species" the human species is only a collection of individuals. The species has no right to exist, only individuals do. The species is not an entity, but a concept. Therefore the moral standard must be individual existence, and the tasks required to sustain individual life in our environment. The moral standard derived from the primacy of existence and the facts required to sustain individual life is an entirely objective one, and it needs no god.
The addition of your chapter, and your father's endorsement of it, greatly decreases my respect for the rest of this book. Which I would otherwise be inclined to investigate further -- maybe I still will.
Hello "guest" -
I do in fact consider the historical evidence for evolution, which is quite weak. See my chapters 3 and 4 in UNDERSTANDING INTELLIGENT DESIGN. Also, my argument for the origin of life is not based upon an argument from ignorance. Rather, it's based upon the very scientific reasoning Darwin himself used--inference to the best explanation. We have no evidence that material causes can generate specified complexity (information) but we do know that intelligence can. Thus, the origin of life has no naturalistic explanation but it does makes sense from the perspective of design. To say that science will someday solve this problem is a "Science of the gaps" argument.
I think you are confusing survival with truth. Yes, if Darwinian evolution was true, it would select organisms most suited to survive in an environment. But truth and survival are very different things. As philosopher Alvin Plantinga has regularly pointed out, Darwinian evolution undermines any basis for trusting our rational faculties since they were not designed to discover truth. In fact, organisms can survive with false beliefs if they get the organism in the right place at the right time. So, again, how do we know we can even trust our rational faculties?
You say, "That our rational faculty comes from an evolutionary background is a direct result of the fact that the world in which we evolved is rational!" This is a great example of begging the question. If the question we are exploring is how an unguided irrational purposeless material process can generate rationality, you can't simply assert that the world is rational. The question is WHY? Rationality makes sense if a rational God exists (mind before matter) but it makes no sense if the basis of reality is matter (matter before mind).
Please explain to me HOW rationality evolved?
"Thus, the origin of life has no naturalistic explanation but it does makes sense from the perspective of design. " -- you have successfully theorized the existence of a designer. Now all you have to do is prove he exists. I'll say it again a lack of evidence for something is not evidence for something else.
"Darwinian evolution undermines any basis for trusting our rational faculties since they were not designed to discover truth. " -- This is outrageous. Do you mean to suggest that our senses are not meant to correctly interpret the natural world? If this were the case we would have an incredibly hard time surviving in it.
" In fact, organisms can survive with false beliefs if they get the organism in the right place at the right time. " -- I'm not entirely sure what you mean here, but lets make it simple. Yes, an organism can survive with false beliefs if those beliefs are segregated from their interpretation of reality. However, try surviving believing that you don't need water. Survival demands truth!
"The question is WHY? Rationality makes sense if a rational God exists (mind before matter) but it makes no sense if the basis of reality is matter (matter before mind)." -- Why does "matter before mind" not make sense? Consciousness requires existence, existence does not require consciousness. Only the recognition of existence requires consciousness. Descartes says "I think, therefore I am", Rand says "I am, therefore I'll think". I'm much more inclined to accept the primacy of existence.
"Please explain to me HOW rationality evolved?" -- I'm no evolutionary biologist, I won't attempt to answer this. It is not central to my argument. My point was to say that your claim that evolution invalidates rationality is outrageous (see above). I can ask hard questions too -- Can you prove to me that rationality was designed by god? Just because you think that the existence of a god makes it easier to explain these things does not mean that that god actually exists.
You're the one making a positive claim here (god's existence). I don't wish to argue the validity of evolution with you, that is obviously a lost cause. My points about chapter 5 in "More Than a Carpenter" were to point out your misunderstanding of it's ramifications, regardless of the fact that you dismiss it altogether.
Have you nothing to say regarding your argument from moral objectivity?
I'd like to expand. You said "If the question we are exploring is how an unguided irrational purposeless material process can generate rationality, you can't simply assert that the world is rational."
If your point is to say that the only way I can come to these conclusions is via a rational faculty that is a byproduct of this process, and therefore I cannot assert one without the other -- False. My mind is not the sum of the evolutionary pieces that led up to it. In this context those pieces are now irrelevant. What's left is my single mind with the capacity to think, reason, plan and take action. I can test the world around me and verify it's consistency. I can prove it's rationality now. I know that I exist and I know that my survival depends on my ability to act in accordance with my environment -- that is how I know the world is rational. I have no evidence to the contrary.
The questions of how and why this is true are secondary questions. The primary fact is that of existence. Once established, this is a valid basis for deriving theories of how and why. But they must be based on the primary. I believe you have it backwards.
Your strategy is the same as I said previously and I find it grotesque: destroy the mind and you can make it believe anything.
In response to "Please explain to me HOW rationality evolved?", I'd ask you to read this article. It's a damn good start. If you're really interested in the answer to that question you could read some of the books this is derived from.
http://nirmukta.com/2010/03/19/complexity-explained-16-evolution-of-inte...
...so much for "mind before matter". But again, you don't need to accept the evolutionary explanation to take my point that you've grossly misrepresented the ramifications of the theory.
I am a little confused by your feeling that why the world is a rational world is a secondary issue. To me, that is the most important issue as to whether there is a God or not. The fact that the world could have been designed doesn't in and of itself prove there is a God. Everything could have been created by aliens for example. Or perhaps the universe is an experiment being held be beings in a universe that resides outside of ours. In my opinion, the why is the key issue because that is the area that has a hard time being proved.
I think the idea that being able to see what is going on around us, to test and find laws and theories that all interact in a rational way has been proven over and again. I don't think many modern Christians would claim that water boils at a certain temperature every time because of Angels. I think most people with access to studies on water or who have performed the 'boiling water experiment' themselves can see that water boils at 100 deg C or 212 deg F. The difference in my mind, is that some people say "That is just the way it is because that is the way the world works." and some will say "That is just the way it is because that is the way the world was designed.". it seems like a subtle difference but it is the heart of the argument to me.
Even offering the differences between Descartes and Rand is just saying I believe X versus Y. It has nothing to do with "Scientists just completed a study that proves Ayn Rand was right and Rene Descartes was wrong!" Science doesn't always prove why. Sometimes it just proves what and we fill in the blanks with why. Some do it with Jesus and some with acceptance that the world just works that way.
Also, and I am not a scientist so don't quote me on this, but isn't being a species more than just community? Isn't the definition of a species the ability to procreate? I would think that using procreation as a guideline there is a scientific basis for delineating between us and, say, dogs. Otherwise we would probably have dog people running around.
I am not expert on any of these ideas, and maybe you have information that I don't that would enlighten me, but to be honest, I have not read anything that gave me an epiphany that there is no designer or God. These are a few of the items that always block me when it comes to evolution. I just don't think it answers the question I am asking. For what it is worth, I am a Christian that believes the earth is as old as most scientists say (4.55 billion years) and that the Genesis story refers to an era or the completion of a task and not an actual day when it uses words like "yowm" to describe the 'first day'. So I could just be a little goofy anyway. I am also a Christian that believes God has no interest in fooling us with misleading science, that He wants us to know whatever we can about His creation, and that should I find empirical evidence that there is no God, then God as I understand Him would want me to stop following Him because He is very interested in the Truth.