Quotes of the Day

"People may use religious agents as a moral compass, forming impressions and making decisions based on what they presume God as the ultimate moral authority would believe or want," the team writes. "The central feature of a compass, however, is that it points north no matter what direction a person is facing. This research suggests that, unlike an actual compass, inferences about God's beliefs may instead point people further in whatever direction they are already facing."

****

"The scientific community is not infallible, which is why disagreements over data and its interpretation should be robust and thoughtfully engaged. While claiming that 'No true scientist believes X' or 'No true scientist doubts Y' may be the easiest way to dismiss dissenters, it is often counterproductive. The slow-witted and simple-minded may be dazzled by academic credentials and institutional affiliations but most thoughtful people are harder to fool. They recognize that No True Scientist should fear honest inquiry and solid arguments—even when their colleagues disagree."

****

"A good president is not obsessed with detail at the expense of the big picture. A president cannot master all the details needed to make rational decisions about the issues that cross his desk. He will need a well thought out political philosophy and experts he trusts in order to make good calls. As a result, he need not be a philosopher, Reagan certainly was not, but the president needs a carefully worked out governing philosophy that can guide his decision making. A good president also needs the ability to attract the loyalty of details people, the famed policy wonks, to help frame the issue.

"A good president does not ignore detail and can change his mind in changing conditions. Lincoln and Reagan both had to jettison advisers and generals under changing circumstances. If Lincoln had not been political sensitive to his conduct, he would not have won reelection and the Union would have been lost. He was able to see when a strategy had failed and change....

"A good president can make decisions in a crisis. A James Buchanan tries to wait out his time and does nothing. A Harry Truman acts and saves Greece from a communist revolution.

"A good president understands the complex, but can explain it to the rest of us. We no more want our president to be “like we are” intellectually than we want our heart surgeon to be like we are medically. We hope he has deep and sophisticated knowledge of the political system and of a philosophy of governance. As voters we are picking our representative in Washington and our hope is that he will represent our views better than we could.

"We want someone better at the job than we would be, but who can explain to us what he is doing.

"There are two kinds of bad leader: a bad leader who wonks out on everything and a bad leader who cannot wonk out on anything. The first is a tragic failure of the virtue of prudence and the second of either intellect or diligence.

"Given this, a sound conservative has reasons to worry about Sarah Palin."

Defending the Faith With a Smile

And crazy smarts. Doug almost gets the atheist super nerd to go ballistic at the end. Wait for it.

Mysticism Keeps Men Sane

G.K. Chesterton, in Orthodoxy, p. 23:

Mysticism keeps men sane. As long as you have mystery you have health; when you destroy mystery you create morbidity. The ordinary man has always been sane because the ordinary man has always been a mystic. He has permitted the twilight. He has always had one foot in earth and the other in fairyland. He has always left himself free to doubt his gods; but (unlike the agnostic of to-day) free also to believe in them. He has always cared more for truth than for consistency. If he saw two truths that seemed to contradict each other, he would take the two truths and the contradiction along with them. His spiritual sight is stereoscopic, like his physical sight: he sees two different pictures at once and yet sees all the better for that. Thus he has always believed that there was such a thing as fate, but such a thing as free will also. Thus he believed that children were indeed the kingdom of heaven, but nevertheless ought to be obedient to the kingdom of earth. He admired youth because it was young and age because it was not. It is exactly this balance of apparent contradictions that has been the whole buoyancy of the healthy man. The whole secret of mysticism is this: that man can understand everything by the help of what he does not understand.

Breakup Record to God

Oh, I mean a breakup record about a "particular narrative about God." Brilliant.

David Bazan. So awesome, so weird. I came into Pedro the Lion's stuff way late, but I am glad I finally saw the light. Bazan's sound is always unique and his lyrics always insightful and provocative. I am still haunted by his tune "Rapture" about a cheating spouse.

Bazan used to be a fundy evangelical. But rather than be really weird and stay a Christian in da biz, he went the boring way and has allowed his faith to "evolve." Indy that is not. He consistently dips his toes in heretical sounding prose now (I heard him at a show talk about "Jebus"), but at least he's honest about his war against God.

Anyway, here's an interview with him on ABC:

On a side note, does anyone else get the feeling that that reporter might be a Christian? He's the one who has done the segments on Mars Hill and Driscoll. Just wondering.

HT: JA

Dawkins Gets Theism Better Than Some

In a debate over at the WSJ, Dawkins writes on the silly notion that God need only exist in our heart, not that he needs to exist objectively:

Now, there is a certain class of sophisticated modern theologian who will say something like this: "Good heavens, of course we are not so naive or simplistic as to care whether God exists. Existence is such a 19th-century preoccupation! It doesn't matter whether God exists in a scientific sense. What matters is whether he exists for you or for me. If God is real for you, who cares whether science has made him redundant? Such arrogance! Such elitism."

Well, if that's what floats your canoe, you'll be paddling it up a very lonely creek. The mainstream belief of the world's peoples is very clear. They believe in God, and that means they believe he exists in objective reality, just as surely as the Rock of Gibraltar exists. If sophisticated theologians or postmodern relativists think they are rescuing God from the redundancy scrap-heap by downplaying the importance of existence, they should think again. Tell the congregation of a church or mosque that existence is too vulgar an attribute to fasten onto their God, and they will brand you an atheist. They'll be right.

HT: KD

On Faith is Not What You Think it Is

Greg Koukl:

Faith is not what we fall back to when reason isn't available. It's the conviction of what we have reason to believe.

Also on this topic, see this post.

Why is Christianity True?

Why is Christianity true?

Normal Christian response: Because of what Jesus has done in my life.

Correct response: Because we know that Jesus existed in space and time, that the scriptures speak to his historicity, that he lived, died and rose again, that he was an atoning sacrifice for our sins. Or, not because I believe it, but because it actually happened and continues to be reality.

What is faith in Christianity?

Normal Christian response: It is a feeling I get in my heart that Jesus loves me; it is a burning in my bosom.

Correct response: Faith is the reasoned decision, based on particular historical and empirical evidence, that Christianity is truer than any other religion (based primarily on the work of Christ). Or, it is not blind feeling, but that belief in Jesus is not just possible, not just plausible, but something that is probable.

For a longer discussion on this topic, listen to this radio broadcast.

On Learning from Unbelievers

Spurgeon says you can learn much from unbelievers. I totally agree. From Lectures to My Students, p. 211:

I have seen very much of my own stupidity while in conversation with seeking souls. I have been baffled by a poor lad while trying to bring him to the Saviour; I thought I had him fast, but he has eluded me again and again with perverse ingenuity of unbelief. Sometimes inquirers who are really anxious surprise me with their singular skill in battling against hope; their arguments are endless and their difficulties countless. They put us to a non plus again and again. The grace of God at last enables us to bring them to the light, but not until we have seen our own inefficiency. In the strange perversities of unbelief, the singular constructions and misconstructions which the desponding put upon their feelings and upon scriptural statements, you will often find a world of instruction. I would sooner give a young man an hour with inquirers and the mentally depressed than a week in the best of our classes.

On Freedom Isn't What You Think It Is

Contention: Freedom is being free from all restriction.

Rejoinder: Tell that to a concert pianist.

'There is No Hell' is also 'Jesus Died for Nothing'

Contention:

If God is truly loving, he would send no one to hell. Or, if God is a God of love, then he would not be a God of wrath.

Rejoinder:

If there is no wrath and no hell, then there was no point for Jesus' death. God sent Jesus out of his love so that he could save us from his wrath. On the other hand, if there was no actual propitiation, then why did Jesus die?

Six Views on Creation/Evolution

From C. Michael Patton:

1. Young Earth Creationism

The belief that the universe and all that is in it was created by God around ten-thousand years ago or less. They insist that this is the only way to understand the Scriptures. Further, they will argue that science is on their side using “catastropheism.” They believe that world-wide biblical catastrophes sufficiently explain the fossil records and the geographic phenomenon that might otherwise suggest the earth is old. They believe in a literal Adam and Eve, Garden of Eden, snake talking, and world-wide flood.

2. Gap Theory Creationists

Belief that the explanation for the old age of the universe can be found in a theoretical time gap that exists between the lines of Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. God created the earth and the earth became formless and void. Therefore God instituted the new creation which begins in Genesis 1:2b. This theory allows for an indefinite period of time for the earth to exist before the events laid out in the creation narrative. Gap theorists will differ as to what could have happened on the earth to make it become void of life. Some will argue for the possibility of a creation prior to humans that died out. This could include the dinosaurs. They normally believe in a literal Adam and Eve, Garden of Eden, snake talking, and world-wide flood.

3. Time-Relative Creationism

Belief that the universe is both young and old depending on your perspective. Since time is not a constant (Einstein’s Theory of Relativity), the time at the beginning of creation would have moved much slower than it does today. From the way time is measured today, the succession of moments in the creation narrative equals that of six twenty-four hour periods, but relative to the measurements at the time of creation, the events would have transpired much more slowly, allowing for billions of years. This view, therefore, does not assume a constancy in time and believes that any assumption upon the radical events of the first days/eons of creation is both beyond what science can assume and against the most prevailing view of science regarding time today. This view may or may not allow for an evolutionary view of creation. They can allow for in a literal Adam and Eve, Garden of Eden, snake talking, and world-wide flood.

4. Old Earth Creationists
(also Progressive Creationists and Day-Age Creationists)

Belief that the old age of the universe can be reconciled with Scripture by understanding the days of Genesis 1 not at literal 24 hour periods, but as long indefinite periods of time. The word “day” would then be understood the same as in Gen. 2:4 “. . . in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.” While this view believes the universe and earth are billions of years old, they believe that man was created a short time ago. Therefore, they do not believe in evolution. They believe in a literal Adam and Eve, Garden of Eden, snake talking, and world-wide flood.

5. Theistic Evolution (with a literal Adam and Eve):
The belief that God created the universe over billions of years, using evolutionary processes to create humanity. At some time, toward the end of the evolutionary process, God, through an act of special creation, created Adam and Eve as the head of the human race. Some also believe that God did not use special creation, but appointed already existing humanoids as the representatives for humanity calling them Adam and Eve. They may or may not believe in a snake talking and usually believe that the flood was local.

6. Theistic Evolutionists (no literal Adam and Eve)
The belief that God created the universe over billions of years, using evolutionary processes to create humanity. Adam and Eve are simply literary and symbolic, representing the fall of humanity and the ensuing curse.

Can you be a Christian and believe any of these?

The Problem With Being Nice

From Kevin DeYoung's Defining Discourse Down, on why, when taking part in an argument, being nice is just as bad as being mean:

The problem with the nice problem is twofold. First, we are all victims or want to be victims. We argue emotions not ideas. We debate who has been hurt more or who was meaner, rather than who is right and who is wrong. If I can position myself as the one under attack and you as the attacker, then I’m more than halfway to winning in the court of public opinion. We all want to root for the underdogs. We all want nice guys to finish first.

Second, we are all proud. Because I’m proud I get hurt when people disagree with me strongly. Because I’m proud I feel the need to give thirteen qualifications before I make an argument, not usually because I’m a swell guy but because I love for people to love me and loathe for them to dislike or misunderstand me. Because I’m proud I hedge my criticisms so that I won’t have to publicly repent and recant when I go too far and get something wrong. Because we’re proud, protectors of self more than lovers of truth, we often don’t discuss things with candor or with verve.

And yet, look at the model provided by Jesus in the gospels. Half of his sayings beg for qualifications. Come on Jesus, give us a little “I’m not saying . . . I’m just saying” before you tell us to hate our parents (Luke 14:26). Issue a few caveats before you use the tragedy of the tower of Siloam to call people to repent of their sins (Luke 13:4–5). Tell us something about how the Pharisees really mean well before you lambast them with woes (Luke 11). Of course, Jesus was Jesus and we are not. But judging from the example of Paul, Peter, John, the Church Fathers and the Reformers, the point still stands. It is possible to be too nice, especially when eternal truth is at stake.

He ends with a great quote from A.W. Tozer:

The kingdom of God, has suffered a great deal of harm from fighters—men who would rather fight than pray; but the kingdom of God has also been done great harm by men who would rather be nice than right.

Whole thing.

Presuppositional Apologetics

The video below is a debate between Greg Koukl and Deepak Chopra. If you have 37 minutes, this is an amazing interchange, mostly because Koukl is so convincing. And what is fascinating about the debate is that Koukl never tried to argue that Christianity is right. His only point, and one Chopra never did see, was that all belief claims are truth claims. Even the idea, "I am uncertain and you are not" (despite it's dubiousness) is itself a truth claim. The ground for debate is not "no one has the truth" but "what is the truth? Koukl masterfully exposes this.

Rationalists are Not Really Rationalists

Here's the first thirteen minutes of the soon to be released Colission, covering the debates between Christopher Hitchens and, my new hero, Doug Wilson. Extrememly cool:

HT: JT

What is Truer is Most Important

What is the difference between Islam and Christianity?

One is truer than the other one.

What is the difference between Christianity and Inclusivism?

One is truer than the other one.

What is the difference between Christianity and the statement "There is no 'right' religion"?

The 'statement' is itself a belief and, thus, one is truer than the other one.

What's the Son of a Duck? It's a Duck

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Bart Ehrman
colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor NASA Name Contest

It's probably time to stop writing books when Colbert can, on the fly, expose and defeat your sorry, old scholarship.

For more extensive critiques of Ehrman's work, see Witherington here and here, and Darrell Bock here.  

The Resurrection Is Important Because it Means You Aren't Stupid

Paul is unequivocal about why the resurrection is vital in the history of the universe. 1 Corinthians 15:14:

And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.

I was at a party a few years ago and got into a conversation with a guy about the importance of religion. He was a nominal Episcopal (or, better said, "watered-down water") and while he wasn't an active participant in his faith--in fact, he didn't know if he believed in God anymore--he thought that religion was a good thing for the world. I listened to him wax theological/sociological for a while and then said, "Well, I think that it would be better if you became a porn star." After letting him sit bewildered (and kind of creeped out) for a while, I paraphrased for him 1 Cor. 15:14. I told him that you might as well live out your wildest, most Epicurean fantasies here on earth, because if Jesus isn't alive, then there is no reason to have faith in him. Who cares if religion is helpful? If there is no Jesus, there is no God, and then what does "helpful" mean anyway, I said? He showed up at church the next Sunday.

Paul's statement is powerful because it forces you to believe or not believe. The heresies today are much more destructive than the heresies in the early days of Christianity. Even if guys like Pelagius and Arius were completely off base and heretical, at least they were trying to make truth claims about Jesus. Today people marginalize him. They say, "He is a great guy and I dig some of his teachings, but I don't think he did miracles or rose from the dead." That sort of reasoning is so devoid of rationality that it is nearly impossible to interact with. C.S. Lewis called it "foolish." The truth claims of the Bible are so bold and obvious (really, prima facie) that one would have to tear huge sections from the scriptures to actually make Jesus just a good teacher (thanks Thomas Jefferson and Jesus Seminar). You must either believe or disbelieve. You must come up against the truth presented in the scriptures and either turn to Jesus or deny him altogether.

But if Jesus has been raised from the dead, and if we dedicate our lives to him, then we have eternal hope. If he has not been raised and we dedicate our lives to him, then we are all insanely stupid.

Jesus Was Just a Good Teacher?

Courtesy of Pyromaniacs:

Challenge: I believe Jesus was a moral example and a great sage and teacher.

Response: ...who sagaciously taught that He was God incarnate, the only sufficient sacrifice for man's sins, and the only mediator between God and man; who made worship of Him as God a moral imperative; and taught that anyone who doesn't believe in Him, and believe all those things about Him, is going to Hell? Hey, yeah! Me too!

Why Believe in the Resurrection?

Send this to your friends who don't know Jesus:

Debating the Goodness of Religion is Killer

Or at least it looks that way in this clip, in the forthcoming movie (called Collision) on debates between atheist Christipher Hitches and (Reformed) Christian Doug Wilson:

I would really like to call that video what it is, but will make it palatable to all: BadDonkey. I have grown to love Wilson and am stoked about this film. It may have stemmed from a debate they had over at CT. Here.

HT: JT