mdemchsak

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.  (Gen 1;26)

When I look inside myself and when I see the human soul, I marvel at what You have made, O Lord.

A human is an amazing creature. We have written Hamlet, composed the Canon in D, painted the Sistine Chapel, sent men to the moon, invented iphones, worshiped at temples, set up complex governments, discovered calculus, and died for doctrines. We have a moral sense. We have a spiritual sense, an awareness of the holy. We desire real purpose and are not fulfilled with mere earth. We enjoy beauty. We are highly relational. We intuitively understand that a human being has special value. We can think abstractly.

The amount of information we can store and comprehend is mind-boggling, but consider the different types of information. Beauty is not rational, but we understand it. The spiritual is not physical, but we can grasp it. Love is not an idea you reason to, yet we know what it is. Why? Why are we able to process such a wide array of nonphysical and sometimes nonrational information?

The Christian answer is that God created us in His image. Each of these human capacities corresponds to some aspect of God, and He has created us with this incredible software package so that we can enjoy Him. Our ability to reason helps us understand a rational God. Our moral nature gives us a foundation for understanding His righteousness. Our sense of purpose and inability to find ultimate meaning on earth point us beyond earth. Our sense of the holy enables us to feel the transcendent otherness of God. Our relational nature and desire for love prepares us to know a relational God who loves us. Our appreciation of beauty prepares us for the Glorious One, who is lovelier than all the lilies of the valley.

God desires us to experience Him fully and not just in a rational dimension. When any of these areas of knowledge is deficient, our knowledge of God shall also be deficient, for these different aptitudes tell us different types of things about God. A logical intellectual who has squashed any sense of the spiritual will be incapable of understanding God. He may understand doctrine, but God is much bigger than doctrine. A romantic may sense aspects of God’s beauty, but she may also allow her experiences to make her think of God any way she pleases. God becomes whatever she feels. She thinks doctrine is dead. It doesn’t show her God. She has already felt Him. A man bent on indulging his desires may damage his sense of right and wrong so badly that he can no longer recognize righteousness. Many have lived a life of sin so long that they consider it normal. They are ill-prepared to comprehend the Righteous One.

We are to enjoy God, and we cannot fully enjoy God in only one way. We glory in His beauty. We bow before His holiness. We love Him. We approach Him as our Father. Yet we revere Him as a righteous King. We marvel at the intricate works of His hand, works that our minds have discovered. He is our purpose. He is our life. He is our joy.

We relate to God in all of these ways, but the only reason we can do so is grace. God has graciously equipped us with the software to handle a multifaceted God. Consequently, as we grow in Jesus, we develop our sense of beauty, our sense of morality, our reason, our love, and all the rest, for these give us a fuller, more heartfelt knowledge of God.

Let me give you some pictures. Think of a commanding officer with his staff. Each staff officer informs the commander on a different type of information within the unit. It would be a foolish commander indeed who listened only to his operations officer or who ignored his maintenance or intelligence officers because they were not important enough. Yet such is what many people do concerning God. Some proudly claim that they listen only to their reason. Others focus on their desires or their sense of right and wrong and ignore the information that their other senses give them.

Or let’s switch the picture.  Think of chess. Reason is our queen, morality a rook, our senses of purpose and of the Holy are knights and bishops, and so on. Each type of knowledge has a different ability and serves a different purpose. The chess player who leans too heavily on his queen is immature in the game; but the one who can use all the pieces (for they really ought to work together) and see the board holistically will be the tougher player to beat. No piece is a bad piece, though every piece can be moved in a bad way. Each piece contributes something different, yet some can do more than others. And every piece, including the queen, has limitations.

This is a human being, and I want you to think of a human being as a human being and not just a brain.  We are God’s creation, and as we submit our minds, our hearts, our relationships, our desires, to Christ and to Scripture, we see God more holistically, and His glory grows in our eyes.

This is but a little piece of the image of God.

 

We have finished addressing the questions put to us by internationals at AIF. Today’s blog resumes the discussion from February, but fortunately, the last several blogs have picked up the theme we left off with. To review: We were discussing what it means to be created in the image of God, and we have talked about things like our ability to detect moral right and wrong, our sense of a spiritual reality, and our desire for purpose. So to continue …

 We have a proverb in English:

“Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.”

The idea is that different people see beauty in different things. You’ve certainly experienced this. Your friend likes modern art, but you think it is a jumble. One man likes the look of a suit, while another prefers the look of blue jeans. Despite your experience with differing tastes, however, I want to push back a little against the proverb.

On one level, the proverb works, but on another level, it is problematic, for the more I think about beauty, the more I have to confess that it isn’t random. If beauty had no connection to anything outside a person, then we ought to expect much more disagreement about it than we do. Now we do find disagreement about many things, but we also find many phenomena that virtually everyone says are beautiful. I have heard people argue about the attractiveness of a painting or a building or a lady, but we must admit that not all paintings, buildings and ladies engender the same amount of disagreement. Some are more generally acknowledged to be lovely, some more generally acknowledged to be ugly, and some have the populace split. Almost everyone would have to confess that Banff, Alberta is far prettier than Gary, Indiana, including (likely) the mayor of Gary, Indiana. I have yet to hear someone say that the stars are ugly, and people all around the globe believe the Grand Canyon to be fabulous, and almost every human who has ever lived will tell you that a sunset is splendid. Why? If beauty is entirely in the eyes of the beholder, why are the beholders sometimes so overwhelmingly in agreement? It seems as if two things are true. First, not all things have the same intrinsic beauty. Second, we humans are wired to appreciate beauty, and, in some cases, the wiring brings consensus, as if beauty were more like an objective reality than anything else.

So. To summarize. Humans have the ability to sense beauty, and beauty seems to be real. I do not wish to argue whether it is our wiring or the sunset that defines beauty; for regardless of which one you give preeminence to, the other must still be present or we enjoy no beauty. It’s like any other sensor. A light sensor requires internal wiring and light in order to sense light. A movement sensor requires internal wiring and movement in order to sense movement. A camera requires an internal apparatus and a real object in order to take a picture. So it is with beauty. The human race has the software for processing beauty, and it seems as if beauty really does exist.

This ability we humans have is part of the package that comes with being made in the image of God. We have a moral sense. We have a spiritual sense. We have an aesthetic sense. All of these senses are designed to process different types of information. We are more than a body, more than a brain. There’s something else inside us.

This is a continuation of a discussion that addresses a question from one of our internationals.

Q: Proof that God exists?

A: Let’s pretend. Let’s say, you and your roommate wake up in the middle of the night throwing up in the toilet. Let’s also say that you both ate some under-cooked pork at a dinner party earlier that day. You conclude that you both have food poisoning. Is that a fair conclusion?

Now, let’s say a friend stops by in the morning, and you tell him your woes. But he disagrees with your assessment. He says you don’t both have food poisoning. He says that you have contracted a bacterial infection from not washing your hands properly and that your roommate is exhibiting an allergic reaction to the sage, which was in the pork. Let’s say that you don’t recall washing your hands before eating last night, and — it’s true — there was sage in the pork.

We now have competing theories for why you and your roommate are sick. Both theories are plausible and both accurately fit the known facts. Whose theory do you favor and why?

Most people will say that, given what we know, the food poisoning theory is the better theory. The reason is not that the other theory can’t work. It’s just that the food poisoning theory is simpler. It explains the same phenomena that your friend’s theory explains without as many contingencies. All other things being equal, we prefer simple explanations over complex ones. This idea is not a piece of evidence per se. Instead it is a principle for evaluating theories, and this principle has a name — Ockham’s Razor.

William of Ockham was a medieval priest and philosopher who often spoke of the necessity of economy in a theory. His principle is this: “plurality should not be posited without necessity.” In other words, when we have competing theories, we should select the one with fewer assumptions, unless we have reason to select a different one. Most people do this naturally. We call it common sense.

I am bringing up Ockham’s Razor in a discussion about the existence of God because atheists generally do. People like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens have used Ockham’s Razor as a principle to favor atheism. Their argument goes something like this.

1. Science can explain life through purely material explanations.
2. Christians do not generally deny science (except perhaps for evolution). Instead they posit a God behind the science. For example, science offers explanations for how rain works or how galaxies formed. Christians, however, believe that God brings the rain and that God formed the galaxies, but in believing this, they frequently accept much of the science. In other words, the Christian theory suggests an extra step or an assumption that we don’t need to explain these phenomena.
3. Therefore, using Ockham’s Razor, we should prefer the atheist explanation of life.

If you read atheist arguments long enough, sooner or later you will hear some form of Ockham’s Razor.

So then. How can we address this line of thinking?

A.  First, we need to see Ockham’s Razor for what it is. It is not evidence but a principle for evaluating evidence. Consequently, it doesn’t prove anything one way or the other. It may be that you didn’t wash your hands, and your roommate is allergic to sage. Sometimes life is complex.

B.  Ockham’s Razor says that we should not posit entities without necessity. Ockham understood that simple isn’t always best. When you suggest an extra entity, you should have a reason for it.

C.  Christians would strongly disagree with #1 above, that science can explain life through purely material explanations. We do not believe that materialistic science can adequately provide a foundation for moral absolutes, purpose, human value, reason, the beginning of the universe, design, beauty, this inward sense of something beyond us, and more. We see atheistic explanations as utterly inadequate. Therefore, when we posit God to explain these things, we are not doing so without necessity. Atheism just doesn’t work.

D.  Life seems to be more than just biology. To reduce it to biology seems rather narrow-minded. When we include things like moral absolutes, purpose, etc. in our description of life, all of a sudden, God seems to best fit Ockham’s Razor.

Let’s think this through.

Let’s take moral absolutes. Moral absolutes either exist or they don’t. If they don’t, then slavery is not wrong, Stalin was not wrong, and the person who cheated you out of a thousand dollars was not wrong. There is no wrong. If moral absolutes do exist, then they need a moral foundation. Materialism cannot give us a moral foundation. Thus, to be consistent, an atheist has one of two choices: he can say moral absolutes do not exist, or he can say that moral absolutes do exist and that they just are. Why is it right to be kind? It helps the species survive. Why is it right to help the species survive? It just is. If you ask long enough, you get to “It just is.” Some things are right because — well — they just are. Fair enough.

Let’s take human value. What makes humans more valuable then parrots? Well, we are more intelligent or have a sense of beauty or whatever. And what makes intelligence more valuable than a lack of intelligence? Well, intelligence allows creatures to accomplish more sophisticated things. And why is it more valuable to accomplish more sophisticated things? At some point, you end up with “It just is.”

Let’s take the beginning of the universe. If there is no God, then where did the universe come from? Some may say that the universe just is. Others posit some other cause, maybe a multiverse. And where did that cause come from? At some point you end up with “It just is.”

Let’s take purpose. Life has a purpose beyond mere survival or it doesn’t. If it doesn’t, then the atheist should be consistent and stop criticizing people who say it does. If life has no purpose, then neither does their criticism. If life has no purpose, then the atheist and the Christian are equally floating in the sea of meaninglessness. If, however, life does have a purpose, where did it come from? At some point, you end up with “It just is.”

We could continue this game, but the fact of the matter is that at the end of the day, the Christian has one thing that just is. God explains all these phenomena by Himself. The materialist, however, must have multiple realities that just are. Unless, of course, he wishes to deny those realities altogether. Kindness is just right or kindness doesn’t exist. We have no purpose or our purpose is whatever they say, and at some point, it just is. Humans have value. They just do. At some point something caused the universe to exist, and it just is.

Now let me ask you a question. Which of these ideas — theism or atheism — best fits Ockham’s Razor?

 

 

This blog is a continuation in a series dealing with questions internationals have asked at AIF. If you scroll down far enough to the blog titled “You Want Purpose,” you will find another discussion of this topic.

Q: Proof that God Exists?

A: I have been addressing this question for several blogs, and we have discussed topics like the beginning of the universe, the apparent design in the universe, morality, human rights, the existence of a religious desire in human nature, and the legitimacy of reason itself. Today, we will add another topic to that list: your desire for purpose.

Keep in mind that nothing I have said or will say is a proof in the strict sense. Neither theists nor atheists can prove their case, but everything I have said is more like a clue that seems to point us in a certain direction. Life itself smells as if there is a God. Today is no different.

You want purpose. You do. You do not want to live a meaningless life just so you can die. And if you are perceptive, you see that the quest for money and stuff is a meaningless life. You also see that the survival of the species cannot be a real purpose, for if materialism is true and if in the end our species survives, who cares? What is the purpose of our species? Just to survive?   That’s not a purpose, and you know it. There has to be some other purpose.

But just because you desire a deeper purpose doesn’t mean that earth has one. Maybe we are all atoms. Maybe our desire for meaning is an illusion. Maybe people invent purpose because they want it.

Maybe. But doesn’t it seem strange that atoms would care about meaning? If materialism is true, then you and I are nothing more than some carbon, some hydrogen, oxygen, a little magnesium, and so on. Why would such chemicals desire meaning? But if God exists, we have a purpose. And if we have a purpose, it makes sense that we should desire one.

The atheist may say that we invent purpose because we want it, but he has a harder time explaining why we want it.

Of course, when we deal with purpose, we must talk about events that seem senseless — the suffering of children, the death of a loved one, the rise to power of evil men. Why? If there is a purpose, why do these things happen?

I don’t know. I’m not God. But I should point out that if you believe there is a purpose, you can find comfort in the midst of these events.   You may not understand why, but you know there is a why. If, however, there is no purpose, then there is nothing particularly wrong with these events. If there is no purpose, then you have no purpose, the suffering child has no purpose, being good has no purpose, and being evil has no purpose. Purpose doesn’t exist. Everything is just an event. Torturing a child is just an event. Hitler simply was. The problem with this way of thinking is that even the atheist recognizes that we should not torture children. But if there is no purpose, he can’t explain why, except to say, “It’s just wrong. It just is.”

But why is it wrong? How is kindness different from torture in a meaningless world?   In the end, a consistent atheism has no ground to stand on to protest torture, evil, or other “meaningless” events. And in the end, atheism offers no comfort in the face of suffering.

Doesn’t it seem as if your desire for purpose points you to — well — purpose?

 

 

 

 

 

 

We are still addressing questions that AIF internationals have asked. 

Q:  Proof that God exists.

A:  Everywhere you go, you find religion. You find it in the remotest reaches of Tibet and the busy streets of Manhattan. You find it in ghettos and mansions; you find it in blacks, whites, Hispanics, Asians, Inuits, Filipinos, Polynesians, you name it. You find it in scholars and simple fishermen, in men and women, in elderly and youth. You can’t escape religion. In fact, many atheists complain of the fact that they can’t escape religion. It’s everywhere they turn, and it frustrates them.

So let’s ask a question. Why is religion everywhere?

Every religion is an attempt to connect with ultimate reality, and different religions say different things about that reality. But every religion has one thing in common. It assumes that ultimate reality lies beyond the physical world. The human race possesses a sense that there is something else out there. This sense lies behind Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Taoism, Shinto, spirit religions, cults and virtually all nonmaterialistic philosophies, and this sense exists strongly in countries that are officially atheistic. The Soviet Union, in the height of its power, could not squash out religion. Communist China cannot convince masses of its own people that this world is the end game, and the fact that North Korea uses such force to fight against religion suggests that religion’s appeal is strong in its own people. If religion had no appeal, North Korea wouldn’t have to do anything. Why then do most people possess this sense that there is a reality beyond atoms? And why do they so strongly desire to connect with that reality?

I’ll let C.S. Lewis explain: “Creatures are not born with desires unless satisfaction for these desires exists. A baby feels hunger; well, there is such a thing as food. A duckling wants to swim; well, there is such a thing as water. Men feel sexual desire; well, there is such a thing as sex. If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world.” (Mere Christianity, Bk. III, chap. 10, “Hope”)

Religious desire suggests that the human race was made for something beyond earth. This is not a proof that God exists. Nor does it necessarily delineate between the God of Christianity and the beliefs of other religions. Religious desire is merely a clue that seems to point broadly away from materialism and toward the existence of a different type of reality.

The fact that some people claim to have no religious desire is no argument against the desire. Some people are asexual, some are heterosexual, some homosexual. But sexual desire is real and nearly universal in the human race. So it is with religious desire.

The fact that religious desire is broad is no argument against the desire. Nor does it mean that all religions are equal. Again, the sexual desire is broad. It produces, adulterers, pedophiles, homosexuals, premarital sex, masturbation, bestiality, pornography, and more. It also produces legitimate marital sex between a man and woman. Sexual desire points to the existence of sex, not to the legitimacy of every act. Religious desire points to the existence of a spiritual reality, not to the legitimacy of every religion.

Now what I wish to argue is that the existence of God is a better explanation of religion than materialism is. If God exists, then religious desire makes perfect sense, but if materialism is true, we have a rather sticky phenomenon. The overwhelming majority of people who have ever lived have a sense that materialism is not true. So if materialism is true, we must have a materialistic explanation for a powerful sense that materialism is not true.   In other words, materialism must explain why most people don’t believe it. Again, this is not a proof that materialism is false; it is merely a steeper hill that materialism must climb.

And almost universally, atheists do propose an explanation. Evolution. They claim that religious desires, feelings and beliefs are the result of evolutionary forces, and that at some point in the past, religion helped the species survive. Consequently, religious desires became hardwired inside us, and today, they are merely leftovers from the past. There are, of course, variations on this theme, but within the materialistic worldview, evolution is the great explainer of this religious sense. Religious desires and beliefs exist not because they have any connection to reality but because they helped the species survive.

On the surface, this thinking seems quite plausible. It offers a naturalistic explanation of religion. But philosophers for years have pointed out the self-defeating strategy of appealing to evolution to explain such phenomena. If it is true that people develop desires and beliefs because those desires and beliefs are useful and not because they reflect reality, then evolution produces usefulness and not necessarily truth.

But this argument cuts both ways.  If religious beliefs are just the result of evolution, then aren’t materialist beliefs the same?  Does Sam Harris believe atheism because it is true?  Or because it is useful to him?  If materialism is true, then Sam Harris’ beliefs are the result of materialism, but materialism doesn’t necessarily produce truth.

It gets stickier.  Atheists claim that the human ability to reason has evolved. Fair enough. I would then ask them to be consistent in their philosophy. If evolution produces usefulness and not necessarily truth, and if our reason is a product of evolution, then our reason may be useful, but it also may have no connection to truth at all. So then. If evolution has produced reason, why should I trust my reason?

The irony of this is that the atheist constantly says he is the rational one. Reason is the bridge he is standing on. But when he says that the foundation for reason involves nonrational forces and random mutations, he blows up his bridge.

It should be quite obvious that the notion of God offers a simple, straightforward foundation for both religion and reason. With God, we can trust our reason because it actually has a rational foundation. And with God, we see quite clearly why people the world over have this sense that there is something like a God. We were made in His image to know Him. It should not surprise us then, if we find people wanting something beyond earth.

Religion and reason do not prove the existence of God, but I believe that God offers the simplest and most common sense explanation of these phenomena.

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.

We are continuing a series in which we address questions posed by internationals in the church.

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

 A: This week I will focus only on the part of your question that deals with building relationships. We’ll do a second blog next week that focuses on the communication part.

I am glad that your question assumes that Christians should engage with nonbelievers. The light must shine in the darkness. I am also glad because your question shows that you understand that the light must still be light. When we go to the darkness, we are not to lose our light. We are to shine.

Here are some principles:

Walk with God

Spend time with God daily. Pray in the Spirit. Read Scripture and let it soak into your heart. Love your local church. These practices will help keep the light in your life. If you lose your light, you have nothing to share.

 

Pray

When you meet people who do not know Christ, God will be faithful to let you know whom to pray for. Pray for them. Regularly. Pray that God will open a door for you and that He will give you clarity and wisdom (Col 4:3-6). Pray that you will be bold and that God will work signs and wonders in the life of your unbelieving friends (Acts 4:26). Pray for them to repent (II Pet 3:9), and pray not just for them but those who will believe through their word (Jn 17:20). E.M. Bounds once said: “Talking to men for God is a great thing, but talking to God for men is greater still.” In other words, before you talk to your friend about God, talk to God about your friend. You will get nowhere spiritually without prayer. You may get to know this person, you may be a great help to him or her, but without God, whatever you do will amount to nothing eternal. To get eternal things, you must bring God into the equation. Start praying.

 

Go Where They Are

Jesus came to us. We did not go to Him. Therefore, these people with different beliefs?  Do they like basketball? Play basketball with them. Or watch a game together. Do they enjoy bubble tea? Take them for a bubble tea. Are they in your lab? Talk with them in the lab. Eat lunch with them. Celebrate their birthday. Study with them. Go shopping with them. Most of these activities are pursuits you were going to do anyway. Just do them with someone else.

 

Listen Well

To share the gospel, you need to know your audience. Ask them about their story. How did they get here? Why did they choose Austin? What do they most miss? What do they hope to do? Have them tell you about their family, their background, their interests. Ask them what they believe spiritually. And when they tell you, ask questions to help you understand. For example, if they say they are atheists, ask them why. If they say, “Because I have a hard time believing things I can’t see,” you’ve just learned something about them. Don’t be quick to slam them if their views are not Biblical. You are asking in order to understand, not to argue, and you are dealing with a human being, not a website comments section.  When you ask them, be genuinely interested. You will get further with people spiritually if you spend more time listening than talking. Then when you do talk you can actually address real issues they have. You know. Diagnose before you treat.

 

Meet Needs

Do they need a ride to the grocery store? If you have a car, give them a ride. Maybe you can help them when they are sick or when they have to move. Maybe they need a place to stay for a week, and you say, “You can sleep in my apartment.” Help them pick a professor or an advisor.   Show them where to find food from their country.   Be a friend. This principle — meet needs — naturally flows out of the previous two. If you spend time with people where they are and you listen well, you will discover what needs they have. Go help them.

 

Let Them Meet Your Needs

Don’t be so strong that people can’t help you. Are you having a problem understanding a concept in a class? Ask for help. An unbeliever can help you just as much as a believer can. People don’t have to have Christ to understand aerospace engineering. Maybe you need a ride to the grocery store. Ask. Maybe you are sick or need to move. Ask. Be real. Don’t be this superman or superwoman who is so spiritual that you never have any needs or struggles. Let your friends see that you are a regular human being just as they are.

 

Apologize When Necessary

This is part of being real. And the reality is that sometimes you sin and nonChristians see it. You say things you regret. You get angry over flea-size issues. You forget to pick up your friend or forget that your roommate asked you not to put the mugs in the top shelf. When you realize that you have ignored your friend or mistreated another person, take responsibility. Confess your sin and ask for their forgiveness. When they see how you handle your own sin, they may be surprised, for humility is not normal in the world they live in. Sometimes your sin can be an open door for Christ.

 

Introduce Them to the Body of Christ

No one ever becomes a Christian because of only one person. Think of your own conversion. In your story, you became a Christian because of the influence of multiple people. One Christian was praying for you though you never knew it. Another showed you great kindness when you first moved here. A third was able to explain the message of Christ in a simple way, so that the light bulb turned on in your mind. You saw the love of a group. You saw joy in more than one person. You saw a Christian show integrity when most people from your culture would not. These are the sorts of things that draw people to Christ. The reality is that you cannot bring people to Jesus by yourself. The Holy Spirit will use a community, not just you. Therefore, don’t put pressure on yourself to do everything. Instead bring them to God’s people, and let the church be strong where you are weak.

So. Throw a party and invite your Christian and nonChristian friends together. When you watch that basketball game, do it with five people instead of two.

 

Respect Their Culture as Much as Possible

If your friend is Muslim, don’t serve pork. If she is vegetarian, don’t serve meat. If he is fasting for Ramadan, don’t offer food during the day. Celebrate their holidays. Take off your shoes when you enter their home if that is their culture. People will appreciate your efforts to accommodate their cultures. Ask them about their culture and if they have any practices you should know about. Understand, however, that you may not be able to accommodate everything. You should not skip church because Sunday morning is the best time to get together in your friend’s culture. You will lose your light. Nor should you approve of Western sexual ethics just because your roommate lives them in front of your face. You have to walk with God. But in most issues, you should be able to respect the other person’s culture.

I hope you see that everything in this blog is basic, common sense. Rather than shaking your world with radical, new concepts, I hope I have merely confirmed what you already knew and have, thus, emboldened you to practice it with confidence.