Sean McDowell

Truth and the Emergent Church

Sean McDowell — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 11:27:15 -0800

A discussion between Sean McDowell and Tony Jones (National Coordinator for Emergent Village)

Tony says:

Sean, as you know, I have a great deal of respect for your ministry, and for that of your dad. In fact, I have a very distinct memory of being 16, and I was a camp counselor at our church’s camp for 3rd-5th graders (we called it Camp Pyro (that’s for the fire in your heart from the Holy Spirit!)). That year, I taught a class on apologetics every afternoon, and, guess what, I basically just went chapter-by-chapter through More than a Carpenter—one of your dad’s books!

But since then, I’ve become much more skeptical of modern apologetics methods, primarily because they overestimate the abilities of human reason. First, let me say this: I’m not all that confident in our rationality, and I say that not out of some existential philosophy, but because of my study of history. At the very moments that out forbears have been most convinced they were right about something, it turns out (from our perspective, at least) that they were wrong. I’d start with civil rights, then go to women’s suffrage, then slavery, and back from there.

In the modern era, we became convinced that science would get us out of this mess, because science “proves” things. But recently, we’ve all come to see that scientists, like any other humans, have their blind spots and biases.

And yet, most modern apologetics is bent on proving things, things like the divinity of Jesus or the historicity of the resurrection. Of course, these things cannot be conclusively proven, so we just attempt to muster as much evidence as we can for them, and hope that’s enough to convince people.

But students who are reared in this kind of faith are bound for disappointment when they get to college and find that the humanities and social sciences don’t rely on this type of reasoning, and even the hard sciences realize the limits of human reason.

Sean says:

I do know that you respect my ministry, Tony, which is why I enjoy these discussions. I hope you feel the same from me. Yet, it should come as no surprise that I see things a bit differently!

First, I find it a bit ironic that you are giving me reasons for why we should be less confident in our rationality. We can only come to the conclusion that our minds are not fully trustworthy by using our very own minds! You criticize apologetics and science for trying to “prove” things, but aren’t you trying to prove your point to me? If you lack confidence in human reasoning, then why are you confident that your reasoning has correctly led you to question human rationality?

It’s actually the Christian worldview that provides the best reasons for trusting the human faculty of rationality. Since God is reasonable (Isaiah 1:18), and we are made in His image (Genesis 1:27), we have sufficient reason to believe that our minds can accurately understand the world. It’s actually Darwinian evolution that undermines the trustworthiness of our mental faculties.

The main reason I do apologetics (besides the fact that I love it!) is to be faithful to Jesus. Jesus set the example of apologetics in his own ministry and the church has been following his lead ever since.

I actually agree with you that we can’t “conclusively” prove the resurrection or the divinity of Christ. If our standard of proof is absolute certainty, then we’re at a loss. But proof doesn’t require bomb-proof certainty. Lawyers, historians, and even scientists know that. When we look at proof in this light, the case for Christianity is compelling. Students will be disappointed if we train them with any less confidence.

A final question: Is it merely our “perspective” that our forbears were wrong about slavery, women’s suffrage, and civil rights? Or were they truly wrong?

Tony says:

Well, Sean, let me start out by saying that I completely disagree with you that Jesus was an apologist in any sort of philosophical sense. When you and I attempt to defend or justify the Christian story, we are beholden to a Hellenistic philosophical scheme which Jesus was not. Furthermore, that scheme has evolved dramatically over the centuries.

Next, I want to parse out a couple of the words you use. I am not trying to prove anything to you. I am trying to convince you of something. If you were a police officer, I could not prove to you that the car I hit ran the stop sign, but I’d try to convince you of it—I might even use evidence like skid marks and eyewitnesses, but I could not prove it to you.

Since space is short, let me jump directly to your final query. I believe that all I can say about the issues I’ve raised is that, from my perspective, my forbears were wrong. I can say that with confidence, but also with humility. I know, for example, that for thousands of years, whole economies were based on human slave labor, and I know that many cultures treated their slaves with a great deal more respect than did American slaveholders. That’s not to defend slavery as a practice, but to say that in different times and different contexts, different decisions make sense differently. (See the difference? ☺)

So, tell me this: What do you say of the student who remains unconvinced even after you’ve marshaled all of your apologetic evidence? Is it your fault? The student’s? The Holy Spirit’s?

Sean says:

My point is not that Jesus was a “philosophical” apologist, but that he set forth reasons to believe. In John 5, for example, Jesus points to five witnesses in support of his testimony (John, miracles, the Father, Scripture, and Moses). John 20:31 says, “But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.”

Jesus regularly gave rational reasons to move his audience to belief. Was it Jesus’ fault when people didn’t believe? Did he somehow fail to prove his position was true? Of course not! People can refuse to believe for multiple reasons (volitional, moral, practical).

We do apologetics not to convince people, but to be obedient (1 Peter 3:15). If I share the truth respectfully and live it out faithfully, then I am successful regardless of the results. God is responsible for changing hearts. My father has seen thousands of people convert to Christ through sharing the gospel with apologetics. Ironically, he’s seeing more come to Christ today, even in our so-called “postmodern” culture.

According to the dictionary convince means: “to move by argument or evidence to belief.” Prove means: “to establish the truth or genuineness of, as by evidence or argument.” Jesus wanted to convince people and prove his position. And I think you do too, Tony. If you didn’t think your position was true, then why would you try to convince me (i.e. prove your point)?

Finally, I’m baffled at your unwillingness to clearly identify racism, slavery, and sexism as truly wrong. Is child abuse wrong? What about rape? Or are those also relative to “different” contexts?

Tony says:

Sean, you might be baffled by my stance on the issues that you list, but I stand in accord with the vast majority of moral philosophers, now and in the past. I think this is a point that you and I have clarified many times in these discussions: You believe that there is some Archimedean point from which we can obtain a sense of objectivity; I believe there is no such point.

For me to stand with vehemence and certainty against things such as rape and child pornography – which I do – is one thing (and, by the way, I don’t quite know what you mean by “truly wrong”). For me to claim a God’s-eye-view perspective on such moral issues is something completely different – and, honestly, it has little to do with my actual opinions on these issues.

One of the straw men constructed against postmodernists is that we’re wishy-washy relativists who ultimately can’t take a stand for or against anything. Nothing could be further from the truth. Anyone who knows me will affirm that I hold strong opinions on everything from politics to theology to the designated hitter rule. The point isn’t that I don’t have opinions, or that I don’t hold them strongly, but that I arrive at them differently than you.

Sean says:

To say that people construct a straw-man of postmodernism means that a real “man” must first exist. But that is the very thing postmodernism denies! If there is no objective reality, then how can you claim that someone has distorted postmodernism? Or is it just your perspective? And if so, why should anyone else care?

My point is not that postmodernists can’t have strong opinions about moral actions. Rather, that postmodernism undermines any basis for those actions being intrinsically wrong. You can have your opinions about them (as strong as they may be). And I can have mine. But if we take postmodernism seriously, we must ultimately conclude that they are all equal, since there is no final arbiter beyond our perspectives. This is why postmodernism is incoherent, contradictory, and ultimately unlivable.

Actually, the vast majority of moral philosophers (past and present) are moral objectivists, not in the sense that they have some God’s-eye-view of morality, but in the sense that they believe that moral values really exist. Even the New Atheists believe this!

It’s curious to me that you’re “certain” about child abuse being wrong. I thought your whole point was that we should not “overestimate the abilities of human reason”?

I’m sure our next discussion on the exclusivity of Christ will be equally stimulating.

Can The New Testament Be Trusted?

Sean McDowell — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 10:36:58 -0800

I love talking with skeptics, atheists, and anyone else who will listen to my reasons for believing that Jesus is the resurrected Lord. In my opinion, the historical evidence is compelling. Yet the first step in demonstrating the unique claims and deeds of Jesus is to establish that the record of his claims is reliable. Obviously, if the Scriptures have been corrupted through history then our knowledge of the historical Jesus has been deeply undercut. Fortunately, for those who believe in Jesus, the historical evidence for the Bible is solid.

The point of demonstrating the reliability of the New Testament is not to prove your skeptical friends wrong, but to have a trustworthy roadmap for the journey of life. In order to have a right relationship with God, we need to have an accurate picture of Him. I believe the Bible can be trusted and that we can know God through its pages.

Manuscript Authority

The first question to ask is, Can we faithfully reconstruct the original text of the New Testament? Having multiple, early copies gives textual scholars the best chance of success in this endeavor.

The New Testament dwarfs other books of ancient history in this criterion. Most ancient books have fewer than ten existing manuscripts. But for the NT there are over 5,000 partial or whole Greek manuscripts. If other languages are included, the number jumps beyond 25,000!

Some recent critics, such as Bart Ehrman (Misquoting Jesus), have claimed that there are too many variants across these manuscripts to reconstruct the original with confidence. But this conclusion is far too hasty. For one thing, 80 percent of the variations are simply spelling errors that are easily accounted for. While there are a handful of minor texts upon which NT scholars disagree, there is no textual variation that threatens a central Christian doctrine.

Regarding the date between original composition and extant copies, most ancient works have a gap of more than 700 years, with some works, such as Plato and Aristotle, being twice that. In contrast, there are fragments of the Gospel of John dating within 40 years of composition (John Rylands Papyri) and a near complete copy of the NT within 100-150 years of original composition (Chester Beatty Papyri). From a textual point of view, the NT documents are exceptional, accurate, and reliable documents. And even if all the manuscripts were destroyed, we could reconstruct the entire NT (except for eleven verses) through the quotes of the early church fathers.

Early Dating

A promising means of dating the Gospels early comes from the work of noted Roman historian, Colin Hemer. He reasons backwards from the book of Acts to the three Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke). The book of Acts is about the origin of the church, with special focus on the ministries of Peter and Paul. The book includes the martyrdom of Stephen (7:54-60) and James (12:1-2), but it says nothing of the deaths of Peter and Paul (between A.D. 63-66). Acts also fails to include the accounts of the Jewish war with the Romans (A.D. 66) and the destruction of Jerusalem (A.D. 70). Acts abruptly ends with Paul’s arrest in Rome without any resolution to the situation.

These are significant events that radically altered the relationship between the Romans and Jews. Not including them would be like writing a history of the U.S. and not including 9/11! If we found such a book, we would rightly conclude that it was most likely written prior to September, 2001. Similarly, since the writer of Acts (Luke) left out such important events as listed above, it is reasonable to conclude that he wrote his Gospel before they took place, around A.D. 62. Since Luke was written before Acts, and Matthew and Mark likely before Luke, then the three Synoptic Gospels were written at least before the mid 60’s A.D. This dwarfs the first biography of Alexander the Great, written over four hundred years after his death.

Since the NT documents are written within 30 years of the events they record, they are unlikely to be legend. Eyewitnesses would still be around to correct errors, exaggerations, or outright mistakes.

Embarrassing Accounts

One criterion historians often use to judge the accuracy of a historical record is whether the writers include disparaging and embarrassing material. Given the human tendency to leave out information that makes one look bad, embarrassing material is likely true.
The NT fares well by this criterion. Consider a few examples of the embarrassing material recorded by the Gospel writers. Jesus calling Peter “Satan” (Mark 8:33); the disciples not understanding the parables of Jesus (Mark 4:10); the disciples falling asleep while Jesus prays in the Garden of Gethsemane (Matthew 26:40); and Jesus criticizing his disciples for having little faith (Matthew 8:18-27). The Gospel writers record embarrassing material because they were concerned with truth.

Eyewitness Testimony

Eyewitness testimony is often considered the best evidence. The ability for a witness to tell the truth rests in part upon the witness’ chronological and geographical nearness to the events. The apostles constantly stressed that they pass both tests:

•   2 Peter 1:16, “For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty.”
•   1 John 1:1: “What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life.”
•   Acts 2:32, “This Jesus God raised up again, to which we are all witnesses.”

Not only do the apostles claim to be eyewitnesses, there is also archaeological evidence to back their chronological and geographical nearness to the events. In painstaking detail, Colin Hemer combed through each verse of Acts to determine just how careful Luke was as a historian. In the final 16 chapters alone, Hemer identified 84 facts that have recently been substantiated through archaeological and historical research. Luke’s accuracy as a historian is truly remarkable.

There are many other lines of evidence that weigh in favor of the reliability of the New Testament, such as fulfilled prophecy and the testimony of secular sources.   But even the minimal evidence presented in this article is sufficient to demonstrate that the Bible can be trusted. And remember: our task is not merely to defend the Bible to others, but to absorb its truth so our own lives become the greatest witness to Christ.

Sex & The Soul

Sean McDowell — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 10:18:10 -0800

For those of you who care about young people today, Sex & The Soul is a must read (Donna Freitas, Oxford Press, 2008). Freitas is a professor at Boston University who became interested in how college students relate religion to sexuality. She interviewed hundreds of college students from public, private, and evangelical schools and amassed data from thousands more through online surveys. What she founds was eye-opening, alarming, and yet hopeful.

One of the most significant findings of the book is that dating, as is typically conceived, is virtually non-existent on college campuses (with the exception of evangelical schools). She says, “According to students…most relationships develop like this: one night after a party, two people hook up, then it happens again, then it becomes a regular thing, and eventually they find that they are in a relationship…If any coffees, dinners, or ‘just talking’ romantic encounters occurred with these students, these experiences typically happened after multiple hookups and the decision to become a couple…Students don’t see many avenues to committed relationships aside from hooking up” (139). Thus, most students go on dates only after they’ve been sexually intimate for quite some time. At most universities the hook up has replaced the first date. The old formula was dating first, and then sex. Now it’s sex first, and then dating.

One of the most popular (and growing) college activities is theme parties. They have become a campus tradition at many schools. They are often labeled, “naked parties,” “maids and millionaires,” “lingerie parties,” “professors and schoolgirls,” and “jock pros and sport ho’s.” At theme parties, male students dress up as CEOs, sports jocks, and millionaires, while girls dress suggestively as whores. At some parties, reports Freitas, many girls have to wear lingerie or “next to nothing” to get in. The explosion in the growth of these parties can be directly linked to the wide accessibility of porn. While there have been “wild” college parties going on for some time, theme parties drop the bar of sexual standards to a new low.

While the hook up culture is rampant on college campuses, it was surprising to read how many students, according to Freitas, are deeply unsatisfied with it. Many think hook ups hurt their ability to form lasting relationships and healthy friendships. In fact, 41% of students used words such as regretful, shameful, disgusted, miserable, used, dirty, awkward, empty, alone, and duped when describing their experience (152). If they are so unsatisfied, then why do many continue? One reason is that hook ups seem easier than steady relationships as students are simply so busy today with school, sports, work, friendships, and partying. It takes effort (and potential heartbreak) to begin a relationship. Second, students simply see no alternative to their behavior. Their professors, parents, and church leaders either avoid the subject entirely, or seem hopelessly out of date.

What role does religion play in the sex lives of college students? According to Freitas, the answer is none. Many students were shocked at the question itself, and others laughed that religions would have anything to contribute to sexuality. College campuses today (with the exclusion of some evangelical schools) are predominantly secular. Students compartmentalize any faith commitments they have during their college years. And the professors reinforce this view. “Regardless of its origin, students at nonreligious institutions experience a separation of church and college” says Freitas, “an expulsion of religion from the public square that is so extreme that many of them are rendered mute on the subject” (35). Freitas says, “The dominant but implicit attitude on campus, not just among students but also perceived among faculty and administrators, is that spirituality and religion are private—not matters for public consumption” (217). Religion simply does not inform the sexual decisions of the vast majority of college students today.

Implications for Christians

Sex & The Soul raises two important concerns for how we teach sex education to teens. First, there continues to be considerable confusion among teens over what constitutes sex. We often tell kids to wait until marriage to have sex, but do we define exactly what we mean by sex? When does a touch become sexual? A number of students who have had oral sex and anal sex still consider themselves to be virgins. And some even consider themselves sexually “pure.” Consider what one girl wrote to Freitas:

I want to clarify that the one time I had intercourse has been with my girlfriend who I am more than close with…. We are both devoted Christians who are devoted to virginity until marriage. We fell to temptation and for ten minutes lay together, me inside of her. We did not move or create physical pleasure for it hurt her too much to move. We stopped before we had sex but we did engage in intercourse, at least this is how we have come to see it. We are devoted to virginity now stronger than ever as a result (120).

Second, Freitas commends evangelical colleges for helping students set sexual standards and to wed their religious commitments with their sexual behavior. Yet, she says evangelical schools must do a better job of fostering open space for students to discuss their sexual desires and histories with honesty and acceptance. In fact, many kids crave such space. According to Freitas, many evangelical students face considerable pressure to live up to certain ideals, which can make them feel overwhelmed, stressed, and guilt-ridden if (and when) they fail. As important as they are, Promise rings and chastity talks are simply not enough to truly help young people come grips with their sexuality.

The Particle Collider Points to Design

Sean McDowell — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 15:47:08 -0800

If you’ve been following the progress of the big particle collider in Geneva, the title of this article may come as a surprise to you. After all, we learned this week that $21,000,000 more dollars is needed to get it up and running by next summer (at the earliest). So, if the collider is not up and running yet, then how can it point to design? Let me explain.

The particle collider is designed to simulate the earliest moments (one trillionth of a second) after the big bang, so scientists can learn more about the makeup of the smallest components of matter. So far, the collider has cost 10 billion dollars. Yes, that’s $10,000,000,000.

Why didn’t the collider succeed during its much hyped launch September 19th? The problem, according to the organization, is the failure of a single, badly soldered electrical connection. In other words, this multi-billion dollar machine, which was so carefully designed, failed to work because of one solitary poor connection. The lesson we learn is clear: the machine won’t work unless it is exquisitely fine-tuned.

The irony is enormous: The particle collider is meant to simulate the beginning of the universe (which many scientists think was an uncaused, chance occurrence), but it cannot even function without incredible intelligent tinkering! The slightest miscalculation, and the entire project fails. If it takes billions of dollars, and the smartest people on the face of the planet, to design a machine to simulate the beginning of the universe, then why should we think the real beginning of the universe could happen without design? If a machine requires such fine-tuning, then so does the universe itself.

This reminds me of the scientists who are trying to prove abiogenesis (life emerging from non-life) by creating life in a test tube. If scientists were ever able to create life from non-life it would only prove one thing: life cannot emerge by chance, but requires intelligent input. Currently scientists have no clue how life emerged on life. Yet even if they were able to simulate such an occurrence, it would actually point towards intelligent design, not chance. The same is true for the particle collider.

Debating God

Sean McDowell — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 09:48:16 -0800

Last weekend I had the opportunity of watching a debate between Dinesh D’Souza (author of What’s So Great about Christianity) and Michael Shermer (editor of Skeptic magazine). The debate was held at Southern Evangelical Seminary and the question was: “Does it make sense to believe in God?” The debate was lively, informative, and fun.

I’ve included the two opening statements (abbreviated) as well as their initial responses. I offer two quick critiques of each debater first:

First, Dinesh argues that we cannot know what happens after death, thus we should “leap” toward the Christian side since we have more to gain (ala, Pascal). He says neither Christians nor atheists have knowledge about life after death, which is why we have faith. Thus, he sees belief as taking over when we cannot know something. But this betrays the biblical perspective that we do in fact know what happens after death. 1 John 5:13 says, “These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life.” Evidence from the resurrection of Jesus, the existence of the soul, and near-death experiences provide solid reasons to believe that consciousness (and judgment) comes after death.

Second, Shermer argues against the fine-tuning argument by claiming that the world is really not that hospitable for life. The vast majority of the universe, he claims, is inhospitable for life. But this raises a difficult question for Shermer: “If the universe is so inhospitable, then how did life evolve in the first place?” He wants to take away evidence for fine-tuning by reducing the hospitability of the universe, but this raises a huge problem for biological evolution, which requires an inconceivable enormous amount of hospitable environments to get off the ground.

“Does it make sense to believe in God?”

Dinesh D’Souza opening:

There are three good arguments for believing in God. It makes sense to believe in God because the deep questions we ask as human beings are only comprehensible in light of God’s existence. Other responses lead to absurdities:
(1)   Why is there a universe?
a.   For many centuries it was believed the universe was eternal and, hence, needed no creator. But Jews and Christians believed the universe had a beginning and that God created time and space along with it. Also, why does the universe have certain numerical values that it does (light speed, gravitational force, strong nuclear force)? What if they were slightly different? Fine-tuning is immune to a Darwinian evolution since it refers to the entire universe.
(2)   Why do we have life vs. no life?
a.   No one knows what comes after death. We believe there is life after death, but we don’t know it. The difference between Shermer and me is that he thinks he knows. I recognize that we both have faith. Yet the possibility that life continues (i.e., Pascal) is a good reason to believe in God.
(3)   Why do we have morality?
a.   We all live in a world of right and wrong. We all at some deep level accept absolute standards of morality. Some people claim to be moral relativists but it turns out such people are really relativists about your values but absolutists about theirs. If we are merely Darwinian products, then morality is a technique to get our genes in the next generation. Darwinians respond by saying we act altruistically to get back in return later. But what about moral acts we do without any possible return that can actually harm us? Example: Why help someone drowning who I am not related to (i.e., we don’t share genes)? We have a moral compass that leads us to sacrifice ourselves because God has put morality on our hearts.

Dinesh Conclusion: Believe in God because the universe makes sense. If we believe in God our life makes sense. Belief in God makes sense because it provides cosmic accountability, which brings justice.

Michael Shermer opening: I grew up in a conservative Christian home. I understand the internal coherence and consistency of Christianity. Basically we arrive at our beliefs for a variety of reasons that have nothing to do with science (life experiences, relationships, psychology) and then we justify them afterwards with evidence. There are many things we don’t know which is why we have faith.

What about these questions? There is reason to believe in a universe from nothing without a top-down creator. The universe cannot not exist. Empty space is not filled with nothing. It appears that with string theory and GUT (Grand Unified Theory) that universes naturally pop into existence. When a star collapses we have a singularity that could explain the origin of the universe itself. The details are not important, but these are things scientists talk about and they are testable. Scientists offer hypotheses and fill gaps rather than simply posit God. Atheism is not a position. Atheists just don’t believe in God and that is the end of the story.

What about fine-tuning? On a coarse scale, the universe is not very fine-tuned. There are very few places we can live. 99% is inhospitable. Why would God make a world so large that is inhospitable? It’s good to be humble about deep mysteries rather than say, “This is the way it is,” b/c physics is a young discipline. Who designed the designer? Who created God? Why stop the causal chain at the point of your creator? Even if there is a designer, this does nothing to show it is any particular God.

Dinesh response (1): I begin with a point of agreement—science is not a threat to religion. It is a fable that as science advances God retreats. A few questions: Michael alluded to the God of the gaps (something cannot be explained, therefore God did it). There is also an “atheism of the gaps” fallacy (“don’t worry, science will eventually figure it out”). Michael has tremendous faith in a particular type of science. On the fine-tuning, people abolish one God for an infinite number of universes. This is absurd!

I ask Shermer: What is the cause for which the universe is the effect? Did the universe create itself? There could be a natural or supernatural cause. The natural cause is impossible because the universe is all of nature. So, unless one wants to say the universe generated itself, there must be a transcendent cause.

There are motives for belief, but there are also motives for unbelief. Shermer says atheists believe nothing, but he has all sorts of beliefs as well.

Shermer response (1): Belief in God is the result of exceptional events (i.e., 9/11). We are aggressive about all sorts of beliefs about politics but not religious beliefs. Now the debate has become a bit more in-your-face. Why can’t God do a miracle such as growing back limbs? Why are all miracles equivocal? If we want to posit that God exists but that all things happened naturally, then why believe in God? If the universe is indistinguishable, then what room is there for God?

Response to Pascal’s wager: What if we picked the wrong God? Wouldn’t God know that you were faking? Self-deception is a powerful thing.

Why believe? What is so important to how you believe? Wouldn’t God be more concerned with how you lived your life? Wouldn’t that matter more than simply believing? Any worthwhile God would place more emphasis on works.

Is There Any Evidence for the Soul?

Sean McDowell — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 15:49:13 -0700

In the past couple weeks two of my former students (now in college) have contacted me with the same question: Is there any evidence for the existence of the soul? Our secular culture believes that only physical things that can be investigated by the empirical senses are real. Thus, immaterial things such as the soul do not exist, or at least could never be proven. But this is at odds with the biblical perspective, which views the soul as being as real as the body. Jesus said, “Do not fear those who can kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell” (Matthew 10:28).

One of my students recently emailed me the following interaction she had with her professor:

The first day of class my English teacher read an article about how a science fiction writer believes computers and technology will someday produce “superhumans” that will eventually take over the world by 2030…he was hoping they would be environmentalists so that they would want to preserve our lesser-evolved selves. So I asked, “How can this be so? How can a purely material thing spawn consciousness?” He simply laughed and said, “Oh, so I suppose you believe in the soul too?” The whole class laughed at me.

While it might be easy for critics to laugh about the existence of the soul, there is actually compelling evidence to believe that it is real. Let’s briefly consider three lines of reasoning.

First, the physical atoms of the body are almost entirely replaced every seven years. Apart from a few aspects of our neurological system, the physical components of your body are continuously being regenerated. Thus, if you were solely your body, your identity would be constantly fluctuating. But practically and legally speaking, we know this is not true. In fact, our entire legal system is based upon sameness of identity over time. If you were just your body, then you couldn’t be held accountable for a crime you committed in the past. Can you imagine a defendant saying to the judge, “It wasn’t me! The person who committed that crime disappeared a long time ago.” No reasonable judge would accept such a defense. There must be something non-physical that accounts for sameness of identity over time. The soul is the best explanation.

Second, there could be no free will without a soul. Physical machines operate completely by their programming and external forces in nature. Thus, human choices are the results of genetic makeup and brain chemistry. There is no center of consciousness that can make reasoned decisions. This raises a few difficult questions for those who deny the reality of the soul: How can we hold people morally accountable for their actions if they were not freely chosen? How does love have any meaning if choices are fatalistically determined by physical processes? If we deny the existence of the soul, then free will is merely an illusion.

Third, near-death experiences provide evidence that human consciousness continues after the body ceases to function. Professor Gary Habermas has documented some of these instances in his book Beyond Immortality (co-written with J.P. Moreland). Some of the most interesting accounts are the claims that dying persons, during their turmoil, observe actual events that were later verified to be true. These events took place at considerable distances that could not have been observed by the individual. And on some occasions, no brain activity was reported at all. Such instances demonstrate that human consciousness (a component of the soul) can survive outside the body.

We might not be able to give empirical evidence for the soul, but this should not be surprising since the soul is not a physical thing. Besides, there are many things we can know that cannot be proven scientifically. I know I love my wife. I know that terrorists crashed planes into our Twin Towers on September 11, 2001. And I know I had a muffin and coffee for breakfast this morning. These cannot be demonstrated empirically, but I know them nonetheless. The same is true for the soul.

Why Darwin Matters

Sean McDowell — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 11:00:08 -0700

Is Darwin really that important? Why not just accept Darwinian evolution and move on? Since the release of my book Understanding Intelligent Design (co-written with William Dembski), this is one of the most common questions I have received. Many Christians have suggested that we should simply accept Darwinian evolution as the mechanism through which God created the world and then move beyond the controversy.

Part of the confusion may come from the barrage of recent books propagating this idea. Evangelical Christian Francis Collins makes this case in The Language of God, Eastern Nazarene college professor Karl Giberson writes Saving Darwin: How to Be a Christian and Believe in Evolution, and Denis Alexander, director of the Faraday Institute for Science and Religion, argues for this view in Creation or Evolution: Do We Have to Choose?

While I believe that Darwinian evolution is at odds with the scientific, philosophical, and biblical data, my primary concern is with Darwinism itself. In What’s So Great About Christianity, Dinesh D’Souza points out that “we have Darwinism but not Keplerism; we encounter Darwinists but no one describes himself as an Einsteinian. Darwinism has become an ideology.” Darwinism has become a worldview vying for the hearts and minds of a generation.

One of my former students, now in college at public university in San Francisco, recently emailed me and said, “I have been inundated with evolutionary theory…Oh my gosh, it’s EVERYWHERE!!! ☺ My psychology, my biology class (of course) and my biology teacher actually believes that we all evolved out of little bacterial creatures into water animals and then into land animals and then eventually into humans and that all life began in the water…”

In Darwin’s Dangerous Idea, Tufts University philosopher Daniel Dennett argues that Darwinism is like a “universal acid” that eats anything in its path. If Darwinism is true, he writes, EVERYTHING must be understood within that framework. Thus, there is an outpouring of books making this very case:

•    Why We Get Sick: The New Science of Darwinian Medicine by Randolph M. Nesse and George C. Williams
•    Economics as an Evolutionary Science by Arthur Gandolfi and Anna Gandolfi
•    Evolutionary Jurisprudence by John H. Beckstrom
•    Religion Explained: The Evolutionary Origins of Religious Thought by Pascal Boyer.
•    Literary Darwinism: Evolution, Human Nature, and Literature by Joseph Carroll.
•    Darwinizing Culture by Robert A. Unger (ed.)

This cultural awe for Darwinism has even reached the popular level. In a Friends episode Phoebe and Ross discuss the merits of Darwinian evolution. Shocked to find that Phoebe rejects it, Ross says, “Uh, excuse me. Evolution is not for you to buy, Phoebe. Evolution is scientific fact, like, like, like the air we breathe, like gravity.”

Every worldview has to answer the origin question, namely, how did we get here? Are we accidental by-products of blind forces in nature? Or are we the pinnacle of creation intended by a personal and loving God? The answer to this question has more implications for the purpose, meaning, and value of life than any other.

Intelligent is so powerful because it challenges the materialistic worldview that dominates the media, Hollywood, and our educational system. ID aims to undermine Darwinian ideology that is vying for the hearts and minds of young people.

How does ID aim to do it? By demonstrating a simple truth: the world bears the fingerprint of intelligent design. It’s amazing how many atheists recognize that the world appears to be designed. On the first page of his book The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a World without Design, Richard Dawkins wrote: “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” ID takes this pre-theoretical intuition we have about the world appearing designed and makes the case from diverse fields such as astronomy, biochemistry, cosmology, and even biology.

What can you do about it? Two things: (1) Check out the free podcast here of my recent speaking event with William Dembski. We both talk about ID and he answers questions at the end. You can also read the first chapter of our book for free.

Does Obama Support Intelligent Design?

Sean McDowell — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 14:08:03 -0700

The answer to this question is actually quite obvious—of course he doesn’t. Obama has gone out of his way, when asked, to emphasize that he believes in Darwin’s theory of evolution. Nevertheless, it’s worth considering the particulars of his response, because it typifies the liberal/secular view of the relationship between faith and science. In short, Obama accepts the secular view of epistemology (the study of knowledge) which claims that science is the prime purveyor of knowledge, whereas religion belongs in the realm of personal “faith.” Obama recently made this statement in the York Daily Record:

I’m a Christian, and I believe in parents being able to provide children with religious instruction without interference from the state. But I also believe our schools are there to teach worldly knowledge and science. I believe in evolution, and I believe there’s a difference between science and faith. That doesn’t make faith any less important than science. It just means they’re two different things. And I think it’s a mistake to try to cloud the teaching of science with theories that frankly don’t hold up to scientific inquiry.

Two points are worth commenting regarding this statement (although much more could be said). First, it’s telling that Obama begins his statement by saying, “I am a Christian.” This is almost exactly how John Kerry began his remarks in a 2004 presidential debate when asked about abortion. Kerry said, “I am a Catholic, raised a Catholic. I was an altar boy…” Joe Biden made a similar remark when recently asked about abortion on Meet the Press.

Why do they begin their comments this way? The answer is simple: to try and get sympathy from religious people, as if religion actually influences their worldview. But read a few more sentences, and it’s obvious that Obama’s religious views are compartmentalized from what he really believes about the world. He is merely throwing a bone to religious people. This is why Obama says, “There’s a difference between science and faith.” He means that science—naturalistic science—provides public knowledge, yet religion is a private matter. Francis Schaeffer warned about this “two-story” mentality decades ago. This view of the relationship between science and faith is one of the reasons young people are so willing to compartmentalize their faith from how they actually live.

Second, Obama directly contradicts himself. In one instance, Obama says that religion is merely an act of “faith.” Yet at the end of his statement he says that opposition to evolution does not hold up to scientific inquiry. Which is it? Is evolutionary-opposition merely a private matter of faith, or is it based upon empirical claims about the world? If such opposition is merely based upon faith, then Obama (and other secularists) cannot claim that such views have been disproved by science. Why not? Here’s why: something can only be described as not holding up to scientific inquiry if it is in principle testable by science. Yet this makes the very point that Obama is trying to deny, namely, that resistance to evolution is based on scientific claims rather than mere “faith.” Obama (and secularists) can’t have it both ways. Either opposition to evolution is scientific or not. If it is scientific, then it may have a claim on the scientific curriculum. If it’s not scientific, then they need to stop making the claim that it doesn’t “hold up to scientific inquiry.” This is kind of like the critic who says, “ID is not testable. Further, we have tested it and proven that it is false!”

Obama’s view of religion and science is similar to the late Harvard paleontologist, Stephen J. Gould. He claimed that science and religion exist in “Non-overlapping Magesterium” (NOMA, for short). In other words, science deals with questions of how whereas religion deals with questions of why. Science answers objective questions, whereas religion answers subjective questions. Science deals with facts; religion deals with values. Religion and science never overlap. The problem with such a view, however, is that religion and science do in fact overlap at certain points. For example, the Bible has always claimed that the universe itself had a beginning (see Genesis 1:1). Science has recently accepted this view. The Bible also claims that Jesus really rose from the dead in history (see 1 Corinthians 15:14, 17). In fact, Paul says that if the resurrection never happened, then Christianity is worthless. People may reject the resurrection, but it’s inarguable that the resurrection is a real historical question.

The problem with Obama’s view (and Gould’s) is that it waters down the claims of religion. This is the inevitable consequence of secular thinking. As long as people can claim that intelligent design is merely religion, then it will be relegated to the realm of “faith.” This is one of the reasons I recently wrote Understanding Intelligent Design (along with William Dembski), to shatter such myths and equip people to think critically about such important issues.

Same Sex Marriage in California

Sean McDowell — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 08:44:55 -0700

Wednesday night I was on a panel for a live simulcast at The Rock Church (San Diego) on proposition 8, which Californians will vote on next month. Prop 8 will overturn the recent ruling by California judges to allow same-sex marriage. While the economy and VP debates have been dominating the news headlines recently, this is one of the most important votes in the upcoming election. Let me respond briefly to the three questions I was asked.

Question 1: Same-sex marriage doesn't do anything to me. Why should I be against it?

SEAN: When confronted with an ethical dilemma, we naturally ask how it affects us. But as responsible citizens who make choices that deeply affect other people, we should first ask, “What is best for society as a whole.” I don’t just have a responsibility to myself, but to others as well. That’s the essence of the golden rule.

Regardless, whether you realize it or not legalizing same-sex marriage will affect you and everyone else in society. Consider the example of 9/11. I was not directly affected by the attacks. I didn’t lose any loved ones. It happened on the other side of the country. Yet, these attacks had far-reaching implications that have trickled down to affect me personally (and you).

The same is true with same-sex marriage. It’s like having a hole that leaks water into a ship—everyone is affected. The attempt to re-engineer marriage will have widespread implications for all of us. Why? Marriage is the backbone of a healthy society. Virtually every social problem can be traced back to the family (crime, welfare, child abuse, etc…).

Specifically, legalizing same-sex marriage will affect your pocketbook (higher medical and insurance premiums; crime and welfare will go up so there will be higher taxes) your free speech (It’s against the law in Canada to speak out against homosexual behavior, even if what you state is true), and how your kids are educated. There will be indoctrination into the homosexual lifestyle, as we are seeing in Massachusetts (a judge ruled in February, 2007 that all students in Massachusetts must be taught the homosexual lifestyle).

Question 2: Half of marriages end up in divorce, so why not allow same-sex marriages? Maybe they'll do better statistically.

SEAN: Do we have reason to believe that same-sex marriages will do better statistically? It’s important to realize that 96 percent of homosexuals do not get married when they are given the opportunity. And those that do get married break up at a much higher rate. The “divorce” rate for homosexual men in Norway and Sweden is 50% higher than heterosexual marriage and the lesbian divorce rate is more than 150% higher.
But the fact that heterosexuals have degraded marriage through divorce is not an argument for same-sex marriage. Why should anyone think that same-sex marriage will improve heterosexual marriage? In fact, the recent history of the law and divorce actually argues against same-sex marriage. How? The vast social problems we’re experiencing since the liberalization of divorce laws should help us realize just how important the law is to the health of the family and the country. When you pass laws that weaken the family, the entire nation gets sick. This should cause us to protect marriage not weaken it further. When a patient has a disease, giving him another disease is not a prescription for wellness. What we should learn from history is that the more we tamper with classical marriage, the more everybody suffers: couples, children, society as a whole.

Question #3: If you care about your gay friends, you want them to be happy, and that might mean being able to marry the person they love. So telling them they can't get married isn't very loving, is it? (Because I disagree with you doesn’t mean I don’t love you…talk about how kids feel and deal with truth, conflict, and still love)

SEAN: A close friend of mine, Frank, recently told me about his neighbor who was gay. First his parents were in shock, then denial, but soon they accepted his behavior and even supported it. Fifteen years later, they buried him at 36—dead from AIDS.

His parents loved him and really wanted to do the right thing. But was that truly love? Where did we get the idea that love means endorsing whatever lifestyle our friends want us to endorse? Sometimes love means speaking the truth, even when it is costly. Homosexual behavior hurts people physically, emotionally, relationally, and spiritually. This is why the real act of love is to stand in patient but firm opposition.
Does this mean we go around preaching at our friends, judging them, and telling them how to live? Of course not! We are each ultimately responsible for our own lives. But don’t we share some responsibility in our relationship with friends?

If I was involved in behavior that was harmful to me, say, becoming an alcohol or leaving my wife, I would expect my real friends to oppose such behavior. True friends want what is really best for us, which is often different than what we perceive to be the best.

One of my best friends in college He failed a bunch of his classes and didn’t graduate. He still hasn’t! I wanted to give him space and allow him to make his own choices, so I never said anything. He later told me that he wished I had challenged him and made him consider his actions. The loving thing to do when our friends are involved in harmful behavior is to stand in patient but firm opposition.

Intelligent Design and the Emergent Church:

Sean McDowell — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 09:31:04 -0700

A Discussion by Sean McDowell & Tony Jones

Sean says:

Tony, it’s hard to imagine a topic more important or hotly debated than the question of the origin and order of the universe. Are humans the result of a blind, purposeless process (as Darwinism suggests), or were we intentionally designed by a personal and loving creator?

The biblical writers take a clear and bold position: “The heavens proclaim the glory of God. The skies display his craftsmanship. Day after day they continue to speak; night after night they make him known” (Psalm 19:1-2). According to David, the natural world reveals knowledge about God. Thus, it should come as no surprise to Christians that remarkable scientific evidence is emerging for intelligent design (ID) in diverse fields such as neuroscience, biology, chemistry, physics, and cosmology.

You might be thinking, “Why do students today really need to know this stuff?” Three reasons come to mind.

First, Darwinism has shattered the faith of many unprepared students. It’s amazing how many prominent atheists and agnostics (e.g. Michael Shermer and E.O. Wilson) lost their faith because of Darwinism. In fact, according to the National Study of Youth and Religion many non-religious students left their faith because they believed there was no evidence - and in particular scientific evidence - for God.

Second, understanding the case for design helps young people to have a more holistic and confident faith. Rather than splitting their worldviews into secular and sacred, kids who understand the evidence for design are in a better position to realize that all of reality—not just “spiritual” things—support the biblical model.

Third, seeing the beautiful and intricate marks of design in the world often has a powerful effect on kids’ self-image. Rather than seeing themselves as the result of a blind, material process, intelligent design (ID) encourages students to see themselves as the pinnacle of creation by a loving and personal God.

Tony says:

Sean, I have to admit that this is one of the “hot topics” in contemporary Christianity that I find least interesting. I suppose that’s because, from an early age, I’ve accepted evolution and accepted that God is the author of all that is – including how this cosmos came to be.

Those of us who accept evolution think the process neither blind nor purposeless (and neither did Darwin, for that matter). Instead, we think that the process of evolution is driven by beautiful and messy forces and proclivities that directly reflect the sovereign beauty of the God whom we follow.

I suppose there are still teenagers who look for empirical evidence before they will commit to Christianity, but I also think that most youth workers understand how to explain that very many of the things we believe in are lacking in empirical evidence. I’m afraid that by spending time trying to point to evidences for design, you’re causing the very sacred/secular split that you dislike.

I don’t know exactly what you mean by “prominent atheists and agnostics.” Those scientists whom you mention are, indeed, outspoken, but the world is full of millions of men and women who have decided against or fallen away from Christianity for innumerable reasons. It might be their parents’ divorce or clergy pedophilia or a philosophy or science class in college. What I’m saying is that people can find just about any reason not to be Christian. Just because some scientists say the evidence is against God while other scientists say it’s for God doesn’t really worry me.

I think we agree that all creation declares God’s beauty and handiwork. Our difference is that I see those same attributes in evolution.

Sean says:
Sure, young people fall away from the church for a variety of reasons. Shouldn’t the church address as many of these reasons as possible? Are you implying that the church should ignore pedophilia and divorce? More importantly, if Darwinian evolution is one reason some kids fall away from the church—and evidence and personal testimony indicate it is—then it is incumbent on youth pastors to address it.

The real question is not if we find evolution aesthetically appealing (“beautiful,” as you put it) but if it’s true, especially since more and more leading scientists are calling it into question. Creation declares design, but it also reveals cruelty and corruption as a result of the fall. In River Out of Eden, Richard Dawkins said, “In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.”

Teaching kids that the scientific evidence is irrelevant to faith does encourage compartmentalization, especially since our culture deems scientific knowledge as the prime purveyor of truth and knowledge.

You may find this topic uninteresting, Tony, but many young people come alive when they realize not only that God is the Author of the universe, but that we can really see this and observe it in the natural world.

Tony says:
Sean, of course I’m not saying that we should ignore pedophilia or divorce (I assume you asked that as a rhetorical device). Honestly, I think that evangelical apologists should probably spend a lot more time on pressing issues like those than trying to defeat the theory of evolution.

At the risk of this becoming a he-said-she-said debate, I reject your proposal that “remarkable evidence is emerging for intelligent design.” The truth is that the scientific community is nearly unanimous in affirming evolution as the best answer we’ve got on how life came to be and how it has progressed on this planet.

So what I’m advocating is not a compartmentalization of theology and science, but neither do I think we should contort scientific evidence to fit our current theological theories. Sometimes these things (theology and science) live in disharmony for a while. Let’s not repeat the mistake of our theological forbears who excommunicated Copernicus and Galileo since their theory of a geocentric universe didn’t jibe with the conventional theological wisdom of the day.

Sean says:
Darwinism has nothing to do with “how life came to be,” but with how one species could morph naturally into another (hence the title, The Origin of Species). Furthermore, ID does not begin with “theological theories” but with an empirical investigation of the natural world, which is why many non-Christians embrace ID. Of course we need special revelation to get us to the Biblical God, but that doesn’t discount the fact that the natural world bears the marks of design.

I find it remarkable that many Christians denounce ID when Antony Flew—the most influential atheistic philosopher of the last fifty years—was recently persuaded by the design of DNA.

There are many confusions about ID, Tony, which is why I recently wrote Understanding Intelligent Design with William Dembski.

So, I agree, let’s not make the mistake about Galileo who saw new scientific evidence but was shut out by those in power because they believed the case for their view was conclusive.

Tony says:

Congrats on the new book, Sean. But try as I might, I just can’t get worked up about evolution, for, as I said, I find it a beautifully messy process that fully jibes with my understanding of the biblical God.