Month: May 2017

This is a continuation of a question asked by an international at AIF.

 Q: Proof that God exists.

 A: I was communicating with a scholar interested in human rights. He was not a Christian, but he knew that humans have rights beyond those of animals. Here is some of our conversation:

You focus on human rights, and that focus is good. But can human rights be its own moral foundation?   In other words, if there is no God, why care about human rights? If there is no God, what makes humans more valuable than monkeys? If there is no God, then we are all atoms just as dogs are all atoms. Why is our arrangement of atoms more special than a cow’s arrangement? Atheist writers have been unable to answer this question. They say that they can be atheists and simultaneously care about human rights, and they are correct. But they have no explanation for the moral foundation that makes human rights right. I believe that the idea of human rights assumes God. This assumption is in the American Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal, and that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights.” Therefore, I believe that your focus points you to God, even if you do not recognize God in your motives. What do you think?

Those words prompted a conversation. So let me ask you what I asked my friend. Consider. You will kill and eat a chicken, but you will not kill and eat a man. Why?  You assume that humans are valuable, but I want you to think about why.  Where does our value come from?

If God does not exist, then nature is our creator, but an impersonal nature can have no moral authority or ability to give us special value. We are the random products of evolutionary forces just as mosquitoes are. It makes no sense to talk about human worth or rights. If, however, human beings are created in the image of God, then human rights make sense. God is the common sense foundation for them.

Attempts to answer this question without resorting to God always assume a moral standard. Sometimes that standard says that intelligent beings are more valuable than less intelligent ones. Sometimes it says that a species cannot survive if it treats its own members poorly. But if the universe is neither personal nor rational, who cares whether the human race survives? And who cares whether an organism is intelligent or dumb? If the universe is neither personal nor rational, then it has no purpose, and if it has no purpose, then the survival of the species can achieve no purpose. You see, even these explanations assume some standard, some purpose beyond us. And that takes us back to God.

The existence of human rights is not itself a proof of God’s existence, but, like the phenomena we discussed the past two weeks, it does point us in the direction of God. If you assume that humans have intrinsic rights, then God is the best inference from the data.

Interestingly, the scholar I had the discussion with saw this too.

This blog is a continuation of last week’s blog, in which I am addressing a question posed by an international at AIF.

Q:  Proof that God exists.

A:  Many Chinese today are morally outraged at the atrocities committed at Nanjing. Indonesians are outraged at the bloodshed of Suharto. Koreans rage against Kim Jong Un. Americans were angry when Muslims flew planes into the World Trade Centers.   People have been outraged against the bloodshed of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Amin, and Pol Pot. They have raged against the slavery in America, the apartheid in South Africa, and the corruption of politicians virtually everywhere. The world gives us plenty opportunity to show moral anger, but those opportunities are not just reserved for high-level international events. You are angry when a colleague falsely accuses you of cheating or when a driver hits your car and then blames you for the accident. Such behavior is wrong, and you know it.

You believe in moral absolutes, and you can’t escape the belief. You are human.   If you wish to say, “No, no. Moral absolutes don’t exist,” I shall have to reply that you don’t believe your own words. You say “morality is not absolute,” but then you turn around and complain when someone does wrong to you.   If morality is relative, then you have no complaint, no argument. You can’t say that your co-worker was wrong to steal your work if wrong does not exist.

So let’s get past this nonsense you sometimes hear about morality being relative. No one believes that. Including the people who say it.

It, thus, seems as if there is an absolute moral standard that both you and I claim to understand (though imperfectly) and that we assume other people also understand. We do not believe this standard is based on our culture, for when an American military jet flies into Chinese air space, the Chinese government accuses the American government of violating a moral rule involving air space. This moral rule is not something they appeal to on the basis of their culture. Instead they assume that this rule is universal and that all cultures understand it. The atheist Chinese government is, thus, appealing to a universal, moral absolute.

You believe in a moral absolute. So do I. So do Muslims. So do Hindus. So do atheists. Even big, bold Nietzsche, who wrote so strongly against morality, still believed in moral absolutes. Everyone knows that helping your neighbor is right and murdering him is wrong. It’s a human thing.

What does all this then tell us about the question of God? The fact of the matter is that God is the best explanation for the existence of moral absolutes. If God exists, moral right and wrong makes perfect sense. Morality has a foundation that is easy to see. If, however, God does not exist, then moral absolutes have no foundation, and we lose the ability to say that corporate greed is wrong.

Let’s think through this for a moment. At the West Mall at the University of Texas, I listened to an atheist student accuse Cliff Knechtle of supporting a God who ordered the slaughter of the Canaanite people. The student was morally outraged, and his moral outrage was evidence to him that God did not exist. Now what was the source of his outrage? He obviously had a powerful moral sense, and he was appealing to a moral standard that he understood, and that he expected the ancient Hebrews and Cliff Knechtle to also understand. He was an atheist, yet he appealed to a moral argument against God.

His appeal was ironic, for a moral argument against God assumes a moral absolute. If there is no moral absolute, then the student’s argument falls apart. But the moment you admit a moral absolute, you are back to God, for where did your moral absolute come from?

The strongest arguments against God are the moral ones, largely because of their emotional appeal. But the problem with them is that the atheist has to steal from God in order to argue against Him. This is the downfall of the famous problem of evil. If there is no evil, then what’s the problem? If there is evil, then there must be a moral standard that defines good and evil. Where did that standard come from?

Atheism so far has failed to provide a plausible, internally consistent answer to that question. Atheists want to get rid of the idea of absolutes but still cling to them when we talk about Hitler or the guy who punched them in the face. They want it both ways, but they can’t have it both ways. Theism, however, makes perfect sense of moral absolutes. Moral absolutes are not proof that God exists, but they are evidence that points toward God and away from atheism. God simply makes better sense of this phenomenon.

I am addressing questions posed by members of Austin International Fellowship. Today will be only a partial answer to the question.

Q: Proof that God exists.

 A: That’s a broad question, and the answer to it depends on what you mean by “proof.” Let me explain. Personally, I believe I have proof that my wife loves me, but if someone doubted my wife’s love, I don’t think I could prove to him that she loves me. The skeptic could always say that my wife’s words, gifts and actions had some other explanation. I would, thus, have sufficient proof for me but not for everyone else. In that sense, the skeptic always has an out.

For this reason, I don’t like the word “proof.” It has more than one meaning, and if you take the strictest meaning, then you can prove practically nothing, including things most people take for granted. For example, most people believe there is good proof that the Holocaust happened, but some people deny this. To them, proof is lacking. Now obviously the Holocaust happened, but I’m not likely going to prove it to the deniers. Therefore, instead of “proof that God exists” let’s talk about reasonable evidence. Is it reasonable to believe that God exists?

Yes. A thousand times yes. Intelligent, rational people have believed in God’s existence for thousands of years, and they will continue to do so for thousands more. Why? Is it because they are deluded? Or is there reasonable evidence that points to God? I believe there is reasonable evidence that points to God. So let me briefly give some of that evidence. Nothing I say will be new, and nothing I say will be a proof in the strictest sense. The skeptic will always have an out, but I don’t believe anyone can say these reasons are unreasonable.  For purposes of space, I will stick to the main arguments and leave alone all the objections and answers to the objections.

The Existence of the Universe

The universe either began or it didn’t. Most scientists today say that the universe began. They date its beginning at about 13.8 billion years ago. Common sense tells us that the universe began, for every other physical thing we see had a beginning.

Once you grant that the universe had a beginning, you need to ask what caused it.  This is crucial, for everything that begins has a cause outside itself. This is also common sense. A thing cannot cause itself to exist, for if it causes itself to exist, it already exists before it causes itself to exist. This is obvious nonsense. Therefore, the beginning of the universe had a cause outside the universe. It is rather silly to say that the universe popped into existence on its own.

What then caused the universe? Since the universe can’t create itself, it follows that something with immense power must have existed outside the universe and prior to the universe. Logic and common sense are now starting to point us in the direction of God. This argument is not a strict proof, mind you, but the explanation of God is an extremely reasonable inference from the data. No one can say you are irrational for believing that God caused the universe to begin. That explanation actually makes sense.

Apparent Design in the Universe

William Paley gave the most famous rendition of the argument from design. He said that if you take a walk and see a watch lying on the ground, you immediately assume a watchmaker. You do not think that all of those working parts just randomly flew together and presto, a watch. He then said that the universe we see is like a watch with many intricate parts, organized and working together. He concluded that the best inference from the data is that the universe has a watchmaker. Paley’s argument still stands today because it has an immense common sense approach to data. It is intuitively persuasive. Even if you disagree with him, you still see the power of the argument.

The idea that the universe looks designed is not at all unreasonable. Richard Dawkins, one of the most outspoken atheists on the planet today, said this:  “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” The Blind Watchmaker, p. 1. In other words, one of the staunchest opponents of the design argument admits that the universe does indeed look designed.

Ok. We say, simply, that if the universe looks designed, maybe it is. Is that unreasonable? The coding in DNA seems to suggest a coder. The intricacies in the neurological system, the complexity of the single cell, the mathematical precision of the movements of the heavens, all these and more seem to point to design. In fact, if the universe looks designed, the most reasonable position is to assume design unless you have strong evidence against it. The nature of the universe, thus, puts the burden of proof squarely on those who deny design.

One of the ironies of arguments against design is that they never eliminate design as an explanation. Arguments against design say that the appearance of design comes not from a designer but from random actions and natural laws and processes. The problem is that these random actions cannot produce anything resembling design without the presence of natural laws and processes, and those laws and processes have the appearance of design.

If you want to get into the science more, I suggest exploring the scientific arguments surrounding the theory of intelligent design. Read both sides. For proponents of intelligent design try Stephen Meyer Signature in the Cell or Darwin’s Doubt, Douglas Axe Undeniable: How Biology Confirms Our Intuition That Life is Designed, Michael Denton Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, or Michael Behe Darwin’s Black Box. For the critics read Michael Shermer Why Darwin Matters, Niall Shanks God, the Devil, and Darwin: A Critique of Intelligent Design, or Richard Dawkins The Blind Watchmaker. If you don’t have time to read entire books, try listening to a debate between Stephen Meyer and one of his critics. You’ll get to hear both sides in about an hour. You can access these debates on Youtube or elsewhere online. Just search for them.

I think you will find that the idea of design has some substantial scientific backing.

We are in the midst of a series in which I address questions posed by internationals in AIF.  This week’s answer is part 2 of the same question.

Q: How should Christians communicate/build relationships with others who have different beliefs?

 A: The previous blog addressed issues dealing with building relationships. This blog will focus on the communication part of your question.

Communication involves two issues: what to say and how to say it. You can say the right words the wrong way and do just as much damage as if you had said the wrong words.

What Do I Say?

Let’s first address the issue of what to say. Ultimately, you want to bring the gospel, but most conversations will not be hard-core gospel conversations. You’ll talk about work and classes. You’ll talk about soccer and flowers. You’ll talk about your favorite beach or the trip your friend took last week. So talk about that stuff. Talk is part of a relationship. But when you talk, don’t hide who you are. All of these topics give you opportunity to share your faith even if technically you are not giving a gospel presentation. For example, you are talking to a friend who is concerned about an upcoming exam. Ask him if you can pray for him. Then pray. Right there. Or your friend is showing you photos of his trip to Yosemite. As you see the beauty of nature spread on the screen, give praise to the God who made it. Bring God naturally into the conversation. If you want specifics, begin by listening to your friend (see last week’s blog).

Once the conversation gets to spiritual topics, share whatever is natural for the topic. If you are talking about prayer, tell them why you pray. If you are talking about sex, give them the Biblical picture of marriage — Christ and the church. If you are talking about money, let them know that you have something better than money. These conversations are not gospel conversations in the strict sense, but they will present a Biblical worldview.

Share your story. At some point in your past, you became a Christian. What were you like before? What happened? How are you different now? Keep it short and simple. In fact, if you can’t share your story, it’s time to work on it.

Share Jesus’ story. Here are the bullets:

• God created us for a great purpose — to know Him.
• Our sin ruined everything. We can’t fulfill our purpose on our own.
• We try to achieve purpose through money, relationships, power, pleasure, etc., but our attempts bring more brokenness.
• Christ came to fix what we broke. His death and Resurrection have defeated sin. Now we can know God in Christ.
• When we trust in Christ and make Him our Lord, He restores us to our original purpose.

That’s the gospel in a nutshell. Learn it and be able to share it anywhere.

I have oversimplified for the sake of space. Every conversation is different. I have merely given you some conversational tools. They are good tools, but not every tool fits every situation. Don’t use a hammer to drive screws into a hole. To know which tool to use and when, you will need the Holy Spirit.

How Do I Say It?

With boldness (Acts 4:29). Sometimes we are so afraid we’ll offend that we never say anything spiritual. Don’t make that mistake. It is possible you will offend. The gospel is an offense (Rm 9:33; Gal 5:11; I Pet 2:8). If you do offend, let the offense come from the gospel and not from you.

With firmness (I Pet 5:12). Do not compromise the message in order to better fit your culture. If your friend says that he believes that all religions are OK, don’t agree with him or soften the gospel in order to appeal to him. The gospel brings power (Rm 1:16). Change the message, and you lose that power.

With gentleness (I Pet 3:15). Your goal is not to prove that you are right and your friends are wrong. Your goal is their soul. To get their soul, you will have to treat them with honor, respect, and gentleness. The gospel will go further when you communicate it in a manner consistent with its message.

With patience (II Pet 3:9). A child does not grow up in a day. You have to let him mature over time. The spiritual world works the same way. I know you want to see your friend enjoy the peace of Christ now, but you have to let God change him. If you move faster than God, you will be more likely to manipulate your friend’s feelings than to change his heart, but if you’ll go at God’s pace, He will change the heart. Therefore, do not expect a nonChristian to live a sexually pure life or to automatically accept everything God says. You have enough difficulty living and believing the Scriptures yourself, and you have the Holy Spirit. When you see your weakness, you will be more patient with the weaknesses of unbelievers.

With prayer (Neh 2:1-5). Last week I spoke of the importance of prayer for the relationship with your friend. Here I want to talk about the importance of prayer as you talk. You should pray as you go. As you listen to your friend, ask God what to say. As you speak, ask God to speak. In the middle of Nehemiah’s conversation with King Artaxerxes, Nehemiah shot up a prayer to God. Don’t think that because you are talking you can’t be praying.