The AK47 Podcast Season 1: Episode 20

Aaron and I talk about a dialogue that happened between Pastor Timothy Keller and Dr. Jonathan Haidt called The Closing of the Modern Mind.  Keller and Haidt talk about living in a pluralistic society and what resources their viewpoints have to offer to help people live in and foster a pluralistic society.  Aaron and I talk about the issue of civility when living around and talking with different people, the strengths Keller has as a speaker and representative of Christ, and the problems with identity politics.

Listen to the episode here.

This is the article Aaron mentions about Jim Jefferies and Jordan Peterson

The AK47 Podcast Season 1: Episode 18

I interview Dr. Greg Ganssle on fittingness arguments for God's existence and God of the Gaps arguments.  We discuss what fittingness arguments are, what fittingness arguments there are for theism, what fittingness arguments there are for atheism, and Greg responds to the arguments for atheism.  We finish off by giving an analysis of "God of the Gaps" arguments and responding to the charge that arguments for theism are God of the Gaps arguments.

Listen to the audio here.

The AK47 Podcast Season 1: Episode 6

In this episode, Aaron and I have a discussion about public debates.  We discuss their structure, the issue or persuasiveness, and if Christians are way too "nice."

This is my (Kyle's) first time hosting and uploading a podcast, so I don't know how to add an intro or outro yet, so I'll need to figure that out as we go along.  Forgive the lack of music!

Listen to the episode here on Anchor.

Apologist Recommendation: Timothy McGrew

In this series, I will recommend certain scholars and apologists to our readers and listeners.  These are people that I believe are worth listening to because they are informed and give good arguments and insights into the subjects that they study, which helps intellectually equip Christians so that they can grow in their own faith and their outreach towards non-Christians.  I am not claiming that these scholars and apologists have everything correct, but I think they are intellectual powerhouses that we can learn much from.

Timothy McGrew

Timothy McGrew is a philosophy professor at Western Michigan University.  His philosophical specialties are epistemology, probability theory, logic, and the history and philosophy of science.  When it comes to Christian apologetics, he frequently speaks and writes on the meaning of "faith" and the possibility and actuality of miracles.  Don't let his credentials as a philosopher fool you, however, he is also very competent when it comes to biblical studies.  Dr. McGrew has spent years researching the reliability of the Bible and he has shared his knowledge in numerous talks and debates over the years.  In the next section, I will provide resources on the various topics McGrew has been involved in over the years.

Miracles

Dr. McGrew has said a lot over the years on the possibility and actuality of miracles and the rationality in believing miracles.  Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, a fantastic source for learning philosophy, features Dr. McGrew's helpful article on miracles.  McGrew has given helpful talks on how to think about miracles and has participated in debates on the rationality of believing in miracles.  I also highly recommend this talk on the history of the discussion of miracles among philosophers over the centuries.  Many people make it seem like David Hume basically closed the issue of miracles, but Dr. McGrew shows that Hume has had his critics over the centuries.  Tim and his wife, Lydia, who is also a scholar, also have an article defending the resurrection of Jesus Christ in The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology (chapter 11).

Faith

Many people claim that faith is believing without evidence.  Being a philosopher who regularly thinks of evidence and rationality, Dr. McGrew has spent a lot of time showing that faith is not against the evidence.  In Tom Gilson's book, True Reason, Dr. McGrew and Dr. David Marshall respond to the charge that faith is unevidential belief by giving a historical perspective on how faith was understood and defined by thinkers in the church (chapter 11).  McGrew has also debated the atheist Peter Boghossian, who wrote a book arguing that faith is an unreliable way of knowing things because it doesn't rely on evidence.

The Reliability of the Bible

My favorite stuff from Dr. McGrew is his material on the reliability of the Bible.  He has spent a lot of time researching the subject and has helped to resurface an old argument for the Bible's reliability that, while good, has been forgotten for some time.  Dr. McGrew has an excellent series responding to alleged historical errors and contradictions in the Gospels.  He has debated the well-known biblical critic, Bart Ehrman, on the reliability of the Gospels.  The most interesting thing that Dr. McGrew has brought back into the apologetic discussion is the issue of Undesigned Coincidences.  An undesigned coincidence occurs when two or more people give completely different details about the same event, but despite the details being different, they fit together and explain each other like pieces of a puzzle, which gives a full picture of the event.  Undesigned coincidences are marks of reliability and truthfulness because they are subtle and unlikely to be made up or planned by the group of people giving the details, but despite this, the details still fit together well.  The kicker is that these undesigned coincidences are found all over the Bible.  Tim McGrew has spoken extensively on these things, but it is actually his wife, Lydia McGrew, who has put the most work into bringing this argument for biblical reliability back.  Lydia's book, Hidden in Plain View, explains undesigned coincidences and details a massive number of them in the Bible.  You can also find a number of her posts on various undesigned coincidences in the blog, What's Wrong With the World.

The Existence of God

I have not seen Dr. McGrew talk as much about the arguments for God's existence, but he does have some material on it that I think is worth looking into.  Here is a talk by him giving three arguments for God's existence and answering questions and criticisms from people.

I hope Dr. McGrew's materials are helpful to you all.

Be Sure to Clarify Ambiguous Words When Debating

This article was originally featured on ResistanceTV.

Ambiguity

Something that I have quickly learned in my philosophical studies and my job teaching English to Chinese kids is that individual words often have more than one meaning.  When you use a word in a sentence that has more than one meaning, but the meaning of that word is not clear in its context, the word is ambiguous.  This is one way that our words can be unclear. One of the things that affects the productivity of discussion and debate is that people will use the same words, but mean slightly different things by them.  Unless the debaters are clear on what they mean by the words that they use, ambiguity will remain and the debaters will be talking past each other.

An Example from Discussions on Morality

An example of where ambiguity can negatively affect a discussion is in the realm of morality.  The word “morality” is an ambiguous word and, unless the speakers are clear, it can be easy for speakers to talk past each other on this issue.  Most of the time, “morality” can mean one of three things:

1. Moral Beliefs: These are simply what one believes is right or wrong; good or bad.
2. Moral Behaviors: These are the right or wrong behaviors or actions that people engage in.
3. Moral Facts: These are the truth-makers for moral claims.  A moral fact is what makes our moral judgments true or false.

When Christians and atheists debate on how Christianity or atheism ground morality, I think both groups often talk past each other because they sometimes mean different things by “morality.”  Often, when an atheist uses the word “morality,” he is talking about moral beliefs and behaviors.  If an atheist says “We don’t need religion or belief in God to explain morality,” he likely means that we do not need God to explain the development of moral beliefs and behaviors.  Dawkins, for example, says this

We now have four good Darwinian reasons for individuals to be altruistic, generous or ‘moral’ towards each other.  First, there is the special case of genetic kinship.  Second, there is reciprocation: the repayment of favours given, and the giving of favours in ‘anticipation’ of payback.  Following on from this there is, third, the Darwinian benefit of acquiring a reputation for generosity and kindness.  And fourth, if Zahavi is right, there is the particular additional benefit of conspicuous generosity as a way of buying unfakeably authentic advertising. (The God Delusion, pg. 251)

Dawkins gives an account of how moral beliefs and behaviors may have developed, but that does not address whether moral facts exist. However, when a Christian says “morality,” she often means moral facts.  When a Christian says “In order for moral values to exist, God needs to exist,” she is likely talking about the things that make our moral judgments true or false.  Notice that they are not actually disagreeing with each other.  They can both agree with each other because neither of their claims are inconsistent with one another due to the fact that they are referring to different things when they say “morality.”  In fact, William Lane Craig constantly makes it clear that the moral argument for God’s existence is referencing moral facts, not beliefs and behaviors.

Now it’s important that we remain clear in understanding the issue before us.  The question is not: Must we believe in God in order to live moral lives?  There’s no reason to think that atheists and theists alike may not live what we normally characterize as good and decent lives.  Similarly, the question is not: Can we formulate a system of ethics without reference to God?  If the non-theist grants that human beings do have objective value, then there’s no reason to think that he cannot work out a system of ethics with which the theist would also largely agree.  Or again, the question is not: Can we recognize the existence of objective moral values without reference to God?  The theist will typically maintain that a person need not believe in God in order to recognize, say, that we should love our children. (Reasonable Faith, 3rd ed. pg. 175-176)

When this ambiguity is not cleared up and eliminated, the atheist and the Christian are simply talking past each other and no progress is being made in the discussion.

Be Clear on the Meaning of your Words

The example I gave above is just one subject where ambiguity can come up.  There are many other controversial topics where ambiguous words can pop up, so my advice is to make sure that you clearly know what you mean when you use certain words and that you clearly express the meaning of that word to whoever you are speaking to.  You should also make sure that the individual or individuals that you are debating are clear with their words too.  Ask questions like “What do you mean by x?” or “When you say x, do you mean?. . .”  Being clear will help your apologetic and hopefully make your discussions more productive.

Note: A good book to read on how to discuss your Christian beliefs in a winsome and intelligent way is Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions by Greg Koukl.

Does Hebrews 11:1 Teach that Faith is Belief Without Evidence or Reason?

This article was originally featured on ResistanceTV.

Faith, what is it?

In our modern context, many people think that “faith” means to believe that something is true without evidence or without adequate evidence.  This is something many skeptics will say in order to invalidate the legitimacy of faith.  In The God Delusion, Dawkins says

The dictionary supplied by Microsoft Word defines a delusion as ‘a persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence, especially as a symptom of psychiatric disorder’. The first part captures religious faith perfectly. (p. 28)

In A Manual for Creating Atheists, Peter Boghossian says

If one had sufficient evidence to warrant belief in a particular claim, then one wouldn’t believe the claim on the basis of faith.  “Faith” is the word one uses when one does not have enough evidence to justify holding a belief, but when one just goes ahead and believes it anyway. (pg. 9)

To be fair, a reason why many skeptics believe this is because many Christians also perpetuate this view of faith.  In Love Your God With All Your Mind, J.P. Moreland gives this account

A few years ago I conducted a series of evangelistic messages for a church in New York.  The series was in a high school gym, and both believers and unbelievers attended each night.  The first evening I gave arguments for the existence of God from science and philosophy.  Before closing in prayer, I entertained several questions from the audience.  One woman (who was a Christian) complained about my talk, charging that if I “proved” the existence of God, I would leave no room for faith.  I responded by saying that if she were right, then we should pray that currently available evidence for God would evaporate and be refuted so there would be even more room for faith! (p. 26, emphasis added)

Sadly Christians Believe Faith is Shallow

Unfortunately, many Christians do believe that faith is believing something without evidence, but many Christians, especially the ones in apologetic circles, will rightly point out that this is not what faith means.  Faith is compatible with evidence and reason.  Skeptics, however, will respond by citing Hebrews 11:1

Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. (ESV)

This verse, according to the skeptic, shows that the Bible agrees with their definition of faith, not with the definition of the Christian apologist.  If the Bible itself says that faith is belief without evidence, then that means the Christian is incorrect to say that faith can and even should involve evidence.

The skeptic, however, grossly misuses this verse when she uses it to support her case.  Hebrews 11:1 does not say that faith is belief without evidence, what I will call “blind faith” from now on.  I will give two reasons why this verse does not mean what the skeptic says it means.  First, taking the verse by itself without context does not lead us to the conclusion that it is talking about blind faith.  Second, when we look at the textual context that the verse is in, it cannot be talking about blind faith.

When one reads this verse critically, it is not clear how it means or implies blind faith.  Which part of the sentence suggests blind faith?  Is it “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for” part?  Being assured of things that you hope for is not a necessarily unevidential thing.  Is it the “conviction of things not seen” part?  This is probably what makes the skeptic think that this verse is talking about blind faith, since it says “not seen,” but “not seen” does not mean “no evidence.”  For example, many philosophers and mathematicians believe that numbers actually exist as abstract objects.  They cannot see, hear, taste, or touch numbers, but they still believe they exist because they think there are very good reasons to believe that numbers exist.  Seeing is not the only form of evidence.  Also, astronomers know that there are many other planets in the galaxy revolving around other stars.  These astronomers do not see many of these planets, but they know they are out there because there is good evidence that those planets are there.  They can see the effects the planets and their gravity have on other heavenly bodies that can be seen, like stars.  In both of these cases and in many others, people believe something exist because they have good reasons to believe them, but the evidence does not involve actually seeing the things in question.  The fact that Hebrews 11:1 says “not seen” at the end does not necessarily or automatically mean “no evidence,” so simply citing this verse does not prove that the Bible has the same definition of faith as the skeptic is proclaiming.  This gives us reason to doubt the skeptic’s claim that this verse confirms their belief, but it does not give positive evidence that the verse does not affirm blind faith.  If we look at the context of chapter 11, however, verse 1 clearly does not affirm blind faith.  

If one continues through chapter 11 or Hebrews, one will come across what is called the “Hall of Faith,” where the author of Hebrews lists off a number of people in the past who exhibited great faith in God.  This list of people includes Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Rahab, David, Gideon, and others.  The author of Hebrews would have believed that all of these people saw manifestations of God’s presence, examples of His power, and His faithfulness in keeping promises.  So, to the author of Hebrews, these people would have had a lot of evidence that God exists and is who He says He is.  If the author of Hebrews is teaching blind faith in verse one, he would not be using these people as examples of great faith.  Since he is using these people as examples of great faith, he must not be teaching that faith is blind in verse one.

Since blind faith does not fit into the context of chapter 11 and blind faith is not implied by the language of the verse, this means that the skeptic is wrong to use it as a response to Christians when they say faith is compatible with evidence.