Can We Have Too Much Science?

Though you probably wouldn’t know it if you listened to some of today’s most vocal critics of Christianity, it turns out that many of history’s greatest scientists were devout Christians. Copernicus, Bacon, Galileo and Newton are just a few examples of great Christian minds whose love for God motivated their scientific pursuits. 

Even so, a growing number of people today believe science is in conflict with Christianity, or with faith in general. So, what do we make of this? Is it true that science and Christianity are in conflict? To answer this question, we need to unpack one of the underlying assumptions of those who think so.

Finish reading this entry at Influence Magazine. ->

Jesus' Strategy for Dealing with Disagreement

When talking with nonbelievers about the truth of Christianity, it’s important to help them see how the Christian worldview makes the most sense of the things they already believe are true. Essentially, this is employing the same strategy Jesus used when dealing with disagreement.

.....

We can apply the same strategy in our own conversations with nonbelievers. When people confront us with objections to our belief in God, we should do what we can to answer those objections. But, we should also look for ways to demonstrate to them that the Christian worldview makes the most sense of other things they accept as true.

Finish reading this entry at Influence Magazine. ->

The Early Belief in Jesus’ Bodily Resurrection

When talking with nonbelievers about your Christian faith (or even when talking with current believers who are experiencing doubts about their faith), one of the most important chapters in all of Scripture to keep at the forefront of your mind is 1 Corinthians 15. In this one chapter, you can find two powerful reasons to believe that Christianity is true.

First, we see Paul’s emphasis on the importance of the Resurrection. He writes, “If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain” (1 Corinthians 15:14, ESV). Not only that, but if Christ hasn’t been raised, we Christians are “misrepresenting God” (verse 15) and we “are still in [our] sins” (verse 17). If the Resurrection did not occur, “we are of all people most to be pitied” (verse 19).

Paul is making an important point here that many overlook. According to Paul, the entirety of the Christian worldview hangs on the reality of Jesus’ resurrection. If Christ did not rise in the real world, we’ve all been wasting our time and deserve pity.

According to Paul, we can have all the faith in Christ we want, but if Jesus didn’t actually rise from the dead, that faith is in vain. So, if we don’t have good reasons to believe that Christ rose, we don’t have good reasons to be Christians. Fortunately, we do have such good reasons — very good reasons, in fact.

Finish reading this entry at Influence Magazine. ->

Is Apologetics Biblical?

Given that many in our society are growing increasingly hostile to Christian beliefs, we must be thoughtful about how we go about responding to this trend.

In a previous article, I advocated for the claim that apologetics should play a vital role in helping push back against this hostility. Apologetic thinking may not be all that’s needed, but it should be one of the tools in our shed — and it needs to be a sharp one.

Jesus tells us to make disciples; that will, at minimum, involve making converts. If those far from Christ today are ever going to investigate the truth of the Christian worldview, apologetics can help show them why it is indeed worthy of serious consideration.

Finish reading this entry at Influence Magazine. ->

What Is Apologetics, and Why Do We Need It?

Many in the Church today spend immense amounts of time and energy ensuring that our churches and ministries are “relevant” to today’s culture. In general, this is good, and we should encourage efforts to make connections and become more relatable.

However, there is one area that does not get enough attention, and if it doesn’t change, people will never take the truth and reality of the gospel seriously — no matter how relevant we may think we are.

Simply put, we need more emphasis on (1) demonstrating that the truth of Christianity is grounded in reality — and not simply our beliefs — and (2) providing compelling responses to those who raise objections to the Christian worldview.

Continue reading at Influence Magazine ->

What Makes Something 'Christian'?

in , ,

In a previous post I argued that it’s not always “lame” (to quote Gregory Thornbury, President of The Kings College) to use 'Christian' as an adjective. While I did provide an example of at least one case where it could be helpful (e.g., “Christian philosophy”), I didn’t say much about what makes something Christian. To fix that shortcoming it might be helpful to consider a comment attributed to the President of my own school, Gary Nelson. During a forum this past January, President Nelson spoke about what makes, and what doesn’t make, for a “Christian Seminary.”1 The Tyndale Seminary Student Association relayed part of his talk at the forum in the tweet below.

Read More

Comparing Donald Trump to Hitler Isn't Helpful

in

Let me state this right from the start: I think Donald Trump is a racist, a sexist, and is firmly committed to a misguided nationalism. I think it's a mistake for Christians to go out of their way to vote for a person like Donald Trump. But, given the alternative, I also understand why some feel forced to do just that. However, I think it's wrong — and not just a mistake — for Christians to publicly support a morally abhorrent person like Donald Trump (and to encourage others to do the same).

As soon as it became clear that Trump was not just a side-show, but a real contender for the nomination, I have been firmly committed to the Never Trump cause. Today I am only more firmly committed to it.

With all of that said, trying to sway people away from Trump by comparing his rise to Hitler's is not at all helpful. Donald Trump is not Hitler and could not govern as Hitler did. He cannot wreck America like Hitler wrecked Germany.

Finish reading this entry at the Christian Post ->

Wayne Grudem’s Deplorable Argument for Trump

in

Wayne Grudem is a very well known and highly respected theologian who has been at the center of attention for his support of Trump (July 28), then for his rejection of Trump (Oct. 9), and now for again supporting “Trump’s policies”(Oct. 19). Now, to begin, this is not a good look for Grudem. Did the tapes that led to his rejection of Trump really reveal anything new about Trump? Of course not. They simply confirmed what we already knew about him—his moral character is, let’s just say, not what we would hope for in a President. What new information came out about Trump between when the tapes were released and now? As far as I can tell, not much. So maybe writing this post is a waste of time since Grudem may very well write another post next week again retracting his support for “Trump’s policies.”Flip-flopping aside, what do we make of Grudem’s new stance that if we don’t like either candidate then we should simply vote for Trump’s policies? Well, unfortunately for the American voter, Grudem’s case is a complete failure for anyone who doesn’t accept consequentialist-based reasoning. Grudem considers twelve reasons one might refrain from voting for Trump, but I’m only going to focus on the two that are most closely connected to my decision to not vote for Trump.

Read More

A Few Thoughts on 'Kitchener: Hero and Anti-Hero'

in

A few weeks ago Tyndale University College held a book launch for three of my colleagues: Elizabeth Davey (A Persevering Witness), Natasha Duquette (Veiled Intent), and Brad Faught (Kitchener: Hero and Anti-Hero). I was asked by Professor Faught to say a few words about his new book at the launch and since I so thoroughly enjoyed reading it, I thought I’d share my (lightly edited) comments from the book launch here.

Read More

Eric Metaxas on Donald Trump, Some Problems

Eric Metaxas was recently interviewed by the National Review’s Kathryn Jean Lopez, about his new book If You Can Keep It: The Forgotten Promise of American Liberty. In the interview Metaxas argues for something that many Christians believe—that faith, freedom, and virtue are all connected. Given this, it was surprising to hear Metaxas go on to argue that those who agree with him, must vote for Donald Trump. In sum, Metaxas is opposed to Hillary Clinton. And when I say “opposed”, I mean something along the lines of, “would rather see just about anything else happen.” So, the obvious question is whether seeing Donald Trump elected President is included in that “just about anything else” preference. For Metaxas, the answer to that question is even more obvious, of course a Trump presidency would be better than another Clinton presidency. Since Trump would be better than Clinton, vote Trump!

Read More

Geisler, Howe, and the Importance of Formal Logic

This past summer I read through Norman Geisler’s book, <em>If God, Why Evil?</em> and noticed that in it he appears to commit the formal fallacy of denying the antecedent. I won’t bother with rehashing the details of that now; you can read that short post here. Some time after that post appeared Richard Howe (Professor Emeritus of Philosophy and Apologetics at Southern Evangelical Seminary) took the time to comment on my post and we were able to briefly chat about it at the national conference of Evangelical Philosophical Society in Atlanta last November. In his post Professor Howe notes “The critic [that’s me!] pointed out (I think correctly, taken in one way) that Geisler’s argument, when cast into predicate or quantificational logic this way, commits the fallacy of denying the antecedent.” I was glad to read this since I highly respect Geisler’s work and didn’t expect to see such a basic fallacy in one of his books. After publishing the post I half-expected to be informed that it was me that made such a basic mistake. But, it turns out, I was right. Well, kind of.

Read More

Christian Philosophy and "Lame" Adjectives

in

Is that true? Is ‘Christian’ a lame adjective? Well, according to Gregory Thornbury, President of The Kings College, it is. Is that right? Is it always a “lame” adjective?

President Thornbury is almost certainly right that ‘Christian’ can be a lame adjective. For example, labeling an artist “Christian” can sometimes serve as code for “it’s not very good, but cut him some slack because he’s one of us.” Here there are some striking parallels to how many in Canada use ‘Canadian’ to label their fellow actors, musicians, comedians, etc.

Nearly every day I listen to the Toronto broadcast of CBC Radio on the drive home and they regularly feature an “Artist of the Week.” Though this isn’t always the case, more often than not these artists are quite bad. The lyrics tend to be corny and the performances uninspired. Why put up with this mediocrity? Because, well, they’re Canadian performers. They're not very good, but they're Canadian. The same goes with Canadian shows you find on TV. They’re almost always really bad (which is why the federal government has to mandate that each channel broadcast a certain percentage of Canadian shows— If they were good, the broadcasters would want to show them and not have to be forced to do so). Why would anyone ever watch them? Because, well, they're Canadian shows.

Read More

Doing Well in University

Today is the start of the Fall term at Tyndale University College and I wanted to share some of the tips about doing well in university that I'll discuss with my students during our first few days of the term. One of the first things I tell my students at the beginning of every semester is that there is a difference between doing well in a course and getting a good grade in a course. Most professors try their hardest to make sure that the two correspond with one another, but for various reasons that's not always the case. For example, if a student only occasionaly comes to class, or comes often but is rarely attentive, then it's unlikely that such a student will do well in the course. But that doesn't mean this person won't get a good grade on his transcript at the end of the term. Some students are good at tricking their professors into thinking they've learned the material when in reality all they've done is memorize it the night for the exam, regurgitate it on exam day, and then promptly forget everything they "studied." These students will have received the high grade, but will not have done well.

On the other hand, some students will do their best to truly understand the material (and not simply memorize it), seek clarification from their professor when needed, and even incorporate it into their other studies. These students will likely remember the material long after their exams, even though there is no guarantee that their hard work will translate into a high grade. Maybe a student had a rough morning the same day as the final exam and didn't perform as well as he would've otherwise, or perhaps the demands for some other course were so high he couldn't put all his energy into completing the essay. Regardless of what the grade is on the transcript, if this student has truly learned the material, then he'll have done well in the course.

Read More

The Mystery Men Christian Tweet Generator

Some of the most forwarded tweets today come from evangelical leaders. Since I have a large number of Christians in my Twitter feed I’ve seen a lot of these tweets, along with even more tweets from less well known Christian leaders. Surprisingly, I soon started to find these tweets a bit depressing. It was never the message itself that depressed me, but two related issues instead. First, the actual content in the tweets is rarely profound. In fact, most express such a basic understanding of the Christian life that I’m starting to think evangelicals today are among the most forgetful people alive. The second thing that I find depressing is that people don’t seem to recognize the basic formula for many of these tweets. The basic structure (though there are variations) is this:

“State some problem” + (optional) contrasting conjunction + God phrase + reversal of the problem’s terms.”

Here are some examples that I just made up (I’m not out to make any one Christian leader look bad, but I’m confident you’ll recognize these sorts of tweets).</p>

Read More

Geisler's Gap

in ,

In the last twenty to thirty years there has been an enormous increase in the number of people engaged in various apologetics-focused ministries. Though it would be hard to trace this increase to any one single person, if you were to make a list of the four or five most influential apologists during that time, Norman Geisler would certainly have to be included on it. For me personally, his co-authored (with Paul Feinberg) book Introduction to Philosophy: A Christian Perspective was the first book in philosophy I ever read and I found it quite helpful. In general, I think today’s aspiring apologists would be well served to model their careers after Geisler.

Overall, I think this rise in apologetics is a good thing. The Christian worldview is being attacked from all sides and the Church needs people who are equipped and able to respond to these attacks. Unfortunately, the quality of some of the arguments by Christian apologists simply doesn’t pass muster. This puts us in an interesting position because we now need to not only respond to those attacking the Christian worldview, but we also need to carefully evaluate the specific arguments of our fellow apologists. Because we agree with their conclusions it’s tempting to ignore fellow Christians’ bad arguments for the existence of God or bad responses to non-believers’ arguments against the existence of God. However, it’s important that we evaluate these arguments too so as to not bring reproach on those arguments that are actually pretty good.Norman Geisler is not typically one whose arguments stand in need of critique. However, even the best of philosophers can make mistakes from time to time and so, in the spirit of trying to ensure all our defenses of Christianity are the very best, I offer a small critique of an argument Geisler presents in his book If God, Why Evil?

Read More

Why the Best ‘Teaching’ Universities Have Faculty Who Research

in

At some point during graduate school one comes to discover that within academia there’s a distinction between a “research job” and a “teaching job.” Most research jobs will come with an expectation for their faculty to teach just a few courses per year, and half of those courses could very well be graduate seminars with only a handful of students. Typically, tenure and promotion decisions for these faculty members will be heavily dependent on the amount and quality of their research. Teaching isn’t entirely ignored, but faculty at research jobs certainly wouldn’t earn tenure on the back of their teaching alone.At the other end is the teaching job where most of the emphasis is on just that, time spent teaching students. Instead of teaching just a few courses a year, faculty at teaching schools are expected to teach significantly more and this is reflected in how they’re evaluated on a yearly basis. Some schools require so much teaching that it’s unrealistic to expect any research from them at all.

Now, this distinction is somewhat helpful in that it’s simply true that many universities place a greater emphasis on research while others place it on teaching. Unfortunately, this distinction also makes it easier for one to believe that the choice is to do one or the other. Not only is it possible to do both, but not doing both can actually be quite problematic.

Read More

A More Serious Approach to Integration

in

At any Christian university you’ll hear a lot about the “integration of faith and learning” (and if you don’t, transfer elsewhere as quickly as possible), but unfortunately there may not be much said about what that actually looks like. Because I’m a graduate of two Christian universities, have taught at one since 2008, and have met scores of Christian academics at various conferences over the years, I’ve had the opportunity to both talk about integration and see the various ways people practice it. In my experience, it seems that many people are operating with a deficient view of integration. What they’re doing is good and right, but it’s not all they could be doing.

Read More

Always Be Careful When Arguing with Idealists

in

I just finished reading Thomas Bartlett's Memoirs of the Life, Character, and Writings of Joseph Butler (published in 1830 and, so, available for free via Google Books) and ran into an interesting account of Malebranche and Berkeley.

According to Bartlett, sometime during the fall of 1715 Bishop Berkeley went to meet Malebranche in Paris and that "Malebranche had the pleasure of beholding the idea of Berkeley in the Divinity, and Berkeley was presented by the Divinity with the idea of Malebranche" (original emphasis that, if you're familiar with their respective philosophies, makes the phrasing quite clever). Unfortunately, the wide-ranging differences between their systems had quite the negative impact on Malebranche.

Bartlett recounts the exchange between the two famous philosophers as follows:

[Berkeley] found [Malebranche] in his cell, cooking, in a small pipkin, a medicine for a disorder with which he was then troubled, an inflammation of the lungs. The conversation naturally turned on [Berkeley's] system, of which the other had received some knowledge, from a translation just published. But the issue of this debate proved tragical to poor Malebranche. In the heat of disputation, he raised his voice so high, and gave way so freely to the natural impetuosity of a man of parts, and a Frenchmen, that he brought on himself a violent increase of his disorder, which carried him off a few days after (Bartlett, 257–258).

I guess one could say that, according to Bartlett, Berkeley's idealism is what killed Malebranche! So, what does that the tell you and me? Always be careful when arguing with idealists.

The Perils of 'Pop' Philosophy

in ,

More than once I've heard (or read) people complain that too many popular writings/talks by Christian apologists lack the care and precision their topics require. While it's important to address difficult issues in ways that non-specialists can understand, one must take care to ensure that simplification does not end up as distortion. (It's rarely helpful to present ideas that are easy to refute, but not actually believed by anyone.) Unfortunately, I have to agree that this happens far too regularly within apologetics circles. However, this is not simply a problem that arises among ill-equipped Christian apologists. In what follows I aim to show that this is also a problem among those critiquing Christianity (or just critiquing arguments in its favor) and I hope to use a prominent atheistic philosopher as an example of what we Christian philosophers should be doing more regularly.

Read More