A Letter to the Editor

This week I wrote a letter to the editor of the USA Today opinion section in response to an article by Dr. Jerry A. Coyne of the University of Chicago.  I do not know if it will be published, but I had a great time writing it.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Dr. Jerry A. Coyne

I found Dr. Coyne’s article, As Atheists Know, You Can Be Good Without God, to be a fascinating and engaging read.  His story about instinctively helping the Federal Express delivery man was instructive as well as heartwarming.  The article was articulate and I found much of it impressive.

However, I do not think Dr. Coyne has adequately critiqued the theist’s view of morality.  While much of what he writes is emotive and seems to be true at first glance, he has either chosen to ignore, or has not fully understood the theist’s true position.  Either way, the position he has so thoroughly knocked down has turned out to be a straw-man, while the true nature of the theist’s argument is alive and well.

A Misunderstanding of the Theist’s View

Coyne begins by explaining that many theists point to instinctual morality as evidence for God’s existence.  He then argues the theist says evolution could not give instinctual morality, “for if we were merely evolved beasts, we would act like beasts.”  He explains how many theists believe immorality is “laid at the door of Charles Darwin.”

While Coyne is right in his assertion that theists believe morality comes from God, I think he has attacked a straw man in saying theists believe immorality is the fault of Darwin, and that beasts would act like beasts.  Some theists may believe that people would behave as beasts without God, and that may be true, but Coyne has taken on a very weak position here.

Thinking theists do not argue that atheists, like Charles Darwin, are immoral, but instead that if they are right that there is no God, that everyone, atheist and theist alike, is ammoral.  See, our view is that there is no such thing as morality if there is no transcendent grounding for these things we call morals.  It is not that all atheists are bad, or that we would behave immorally if we evolved from beasts, but instead that none of us would have a standard to argue about what is right and wrong and wouldn’t know the difference between behaving “red in tooth and claw” and not, because there would not be any standard to differentiate between the behaviors without God.  

A False Dichotomy

Dr. Coyne uses a familiar example in his attempt to show God is not necessary for the existence of morality.  Plato’s Euthyphro Dilemma, as it is often called, tries to show a problem in God’s commanding of morality.  One side of the dilemma is that if God arbitrarily picks how we should behave, then he can change this anytime, meaning the good behavior was never truly good to begin with. On the other hand, if the morals we should follow are truly good and even God himself is subject to them, then they are to be followed, not God.  According to Coyne, this dilemma shows that God cannot be the ground of morality.  At first glance, his idea seems to be hard for the theist to overcome.

However,  Plato’s dilemma is a false dichotomy.  There are more than just the two options Plato has given us.  A third option is that God has given these moral commands, not arbitrarily, and not because he is subject to them, but instead because morality is completely wrapped up in his character and personality.  In other words, morality is the way it is, because God is essentially the way he is.  Morals cannot change because they are an essential part of his nature, nor are these morals more important or essential than he, because they are wrapped up in his existence.

Dr. Coyne also accuses the Christian and Jewish God of sanctioning, even ordering, “immoral acts in the Old Testament.”  He furnishes numerous examples of God’s immorality.  Lack of space and time prevent a thorough defense of all of these examples, but it is not true that “Christians and Jews pass over” these passages with “judicious silence.”  There have been numerous Christians who have endevoured to answer these types of objections.  Not the least of which is the recent work by Paul Copan in Is God a MoralMonster: Making Sense of the Old Testament God.  I refer Dr. Coyne to this work for many of these answers.

In response to Dr. Coyne’s idea that “religiously based ethics have changed profoundly over time,” I fail to see this as evidence for his point.  The followers of God can be wrong about ethics just as much as anyone else, thus when someone misinterprets the Bible to defend immorality, it is not the ethics that have changed, but instead our understanding.  Thus, when God’s people truly follow God’s moral system, many of them fought to see justice (i.e. William Wilberforce and others in regards to slavery).  Coyne then makes the assertion that “secular improvements” forced religion to “clean up its act.”  What were these improvements?  It is easy to assert this, but he does not provide any evidence of such occurances.

A Rocky Conclusion

In conclusion, Coyne explains that evolution and secular reasoning aresupposedly enough to account for the morals we exhibit and follow.  He explains our “big-brained” animals have reasons to behave nicely towards other like minded, bodied, and specied individuals.  He explains that we need to throw out trivial ideas about what we “eat, read or wear,… or whom we  have sex with” for more important “matters of genuine moral concern, like rape and child abuse.”  After all, “isn’t it better to be moral because you’ve worked it out for yourself—in conjunction with your group—the right thing to do?”

Unfortunately, Coyne has fallen into a very common problem here.  He has confused epistemology and ontology/metaphysics.  He has explained very well that we can know what needs to be done, and that there are certain things that are really wrong (rape and child abuse), but he has not given a satisfactory reason for why this is the case.

I agree, rape and child abuse are wrong.  However, Coyne has said we get it by evolutionary genetics, and maybe by figuring it out in conjunction with our group.  While these explainations might be adequate in explaining how we know what is right and wrong, they are woefully inadequate in explaining why these actions are actually right and wrong. In other words, while he has shown reasons we might recognize rape and child abuse as wrong, he has not given us a reason that this recognition is the truth. 

The examples of evolution and secular reasoning are not capable of grounding true morality.  For example, if my group comes to the conclusion through secular reasoning that rape is wrong, but another group decides it is not only ok, but a preferred action to propagate their lineage, how can I argue against their idea?  I might just be able to say “my group does not prefer rape,” but can I actually argue that it is wrong according to evolution or group consensus?

On the other hand, if rape is wrong because it contrary to the way God created the world, in accordance with his nature, then we have a universal grounding as the source for the knowledge that rape is actually wrong.  The idea that we can figure this out apart from some such source is wrong.

Because God is needed as the ultimate ground for morality, if he does not exist it is not clear that anyone, atheist or theist, can be good without God. 

A Great Opportunity-- Does God Exist?

As I wrote earlier, I was given the opportunity to write three short blurbs for the Smart Faith Apologetics conference.  I had an amazing time writing these, and have said I would post them here.  The second one is on the question Does God Exist?  Here is my response to that question:

Does God Exist?

I can fully understand why it is hard to know if God exists.  We can’t see, smell, touch, or hear God. This makes it hard for us to be as certain about God’s existence as we are about the existence of our family, friends, or other people.  It may seem that it would take a lot more evidence to believe in the existence of God.

Can I prove God exists?  I don’t think I can prove it with 100% certainty, but I do think I can show it is completely reasonable to believe in God.  In fact, I think I can show it is more reasonable to believe in the existence of God rather than not believe in Him.

Imagine a huge, very complicated Lego castle.  If you were to come across this castle and wanted to know where it came from, what question would you ask?  You would probably ask, “Who built this?”  Castles don’t build themselves.  They are the sort of things that need creators or designers.  In fact, if we destroyed the castle, and put all the pieces in a box, do you think a castle would ever be created without outside influence?  Even if we shook the box, I don’t think a Lego castle will ever be made without a mind/personality creating it on purpose.

The universe is much more complicated than a Lego castle.   If something as comparatively simple as a Lego castle requires a designer, how much more would something as complicated as the universe need a designer?  The universe is designed in just the right way.  All of the laws of physics are arranged perfectly in order to promote the existence of life and the universe.  These laws were designed by something more powerful and bigger than the universe itself.  In other words, God!

Similarly, life is so complicated only God could have created it.  This is because even the most basic forms of life contain a lot (and I mean A LOT) of information.  Even the simplest cell is many times more complicated than our Lego castle.

The existence of morals also suggests the existence of God.  There are certain things that are just wrong.  Murder, rape, and torturing babies are examples of things that are just wrong.  Anyone who commits these acts has broken a moral law.  But laws need lawgivers.  Just as we saw earlier the existence of the laws of physics is best explained by a designer, so also the existence of the laws of morals is best explained by the existence of a lawgiver.  This lawgiver is God.  Only God has the power and knowledge to create these kinds of laws.

These are only three of the many different arguments for the existence of God.  All of these arguments can give us a confidence that it is completely reasonable to believe in the existence of God.

It is reasonable to believe in God. Conclusion

The End of a Long Road
Alright, it took me a little longer than I had projected to finish my short discussion on the reasonableness of belief in the existence of God.  Somehow, though its finished.  One last thing, lets wrap it up.

We began the series with my assertion that a very good case for the existence of God can be made cumulatively.  That is, these arguments strengthen each other, but all of them do not fall if one of them falls.

Next, I issued the evidence put forth by the Kalam Cosmological argument,  with some of the Scientific evidence supporting its claims.

In review, the basic argument goes like this:
1.  Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2.  The Universe began to exist
3.  Therefore, the Universe has a cause

Now, this did not prove the existence of God necessarily, but it did have some startling implications.  This cause is spaceless, timeless, immaterial, and personal.

After the Kalam argument, my next two posts were Teleological arguments, or arguments from purpose or design.

The first post draws evidence from the complexity of the universe, and it is inconceivable to believe it happened to be this way out of luck.  It would take a designer for all of the intricacies to be just right.

But, if that were not enough, the next post explains we find life is also too intricate to arise without a purpose.  Life is irreducibly complex, and could not just happen randomly, or in small steps.

I then moved to show evidence from the existence of an objective moral law.  Our legislation requires a law giver, why would a moral law be any different.

Lastly, I threw in a few more short arguments I think fun and helpful for belief in God.

Individually, the arguments are suggestive.  Together, as a cumulative case, they make belief in God a completely reasonable stance.

The question becomes, "Which God?"

I suggest starting that search with Christianity.

A Post on the Kalam Cosmological Argument.

I am in the middle of a series on the cumulative case for the existence of God.  You can find the first post in this series here.  So far I have 5 different posts in the series, with I think 2 more to go.

For those who might want supplementary explanation on the Kalam Cosmological Argument (Part 2), Wintery Knight has posted an excellent article detailing the way science has strengthened the Kalam.

Wintery Knight is an excellent apologist, I hope you take the time to review his argument.

It is reasonable to believe in God. Pt 5

I have been arguing for the viability of belief in God.  I have argued a cumulative approach to the issue is more beneficial than using any singular argument for the existence of God alone.  Instead, as a rope is stronger than the individual strands, the arguments, when used together are strong enough to hold up a large claim, such as God's existence.  My last post focused on the complexity of life and its suggestions for an Intelligent Designer. I now turn to the Moral Argument.

Objective Morality, It’s the Law!

Every law we encounter was underwritten by an intelligent lawgiver.  When we choose to break the speed limit, we are choosing to ignore the laws placed in effect by our legislation.  In the same way, if we break the moral law, we are choosing to ignore the law in effect by a moral legislature.

The existence of objective morality implies the existence of a creator.  If there are universal moral laws, they must have been given by a moral lawgiver.  The moral argument for the existence of God can be stated as:

Every law has a law giver

There is a Moral Law

Therefore, there is a Moral Law Giver

If the two premises of this argument are true than the conclusion necessarily is true as well.  However, can we show premise one and two are true?

The first premise is clear.  Every law needs a lawgiver.  You cannot have legislation without a legislature.  Obligations only come from being obliged to someone.  I am not obliged to things, only when persons are involved can obligation become real.

We recognize laws in everyday life.  Suppose you played a board game with some very quirky rules.  You ask a friend, “Who came up with these rules?”  To which your friend replied, “No one, they just happened.”  Would you accept that as an explanation?  No, you would know someone came up with the rules of the game.  In the same way, the rules we find in life have been legislated by an intelligence.

But, is there a moral law?  To answer premise two we need only search within ourselves to see what is true about morality.  Is it really wrong to murder, rape, or lie?  Clearly most people in most cultures at most times would agree murder is wrong. There are certain acts we instinctively recognize as wrong (torturing or murdering the innocent or committing rape).  Our natural reactions to actions such as rape, incest, murder, or torture indicate they are objectively wrong.  Obviously, some things are objectively, morally wrong.

However, we live in a culture trying to deny the existence of universal morals.  Often people will claim morality is subjective or relative.  However, if you disagree with them they will vehemently oppose your denial of their argument.  This is where they make their mistake.  When one denies an absolute, they have affirmed another absolute. A denial of the existence of objective morality assumes their opinion is correct.  They also assume this opinion has objective value.  Where does this value of their opinion come from?  Why should we listen to a moral relativist?  They are assuming their opinion has value, which only makes sense if a lawgiver has said human beings have value.  

Still, some will argue, that we do not have universal morals, because there are differences in morals around the world. I do not agree with this assessment.  Sure, it might seem as though some people think abortion (for example) is morally right, and some think it morally wrong, but this does not mean their morality is different.  Neither the pro-abortion, nor the pro-life advocate thinks murder is right.  Instead they disagree about whether or not there is a human being in the womb.  Both sides think it is wrong to murder human beings, but do not agree on what constitutes a human being.  If it can be shown the fetus is a human being, then we would have complete agreement.  Its not the morals of the situation we disagree about, its the nuances.

Since, there are universal objective moral laws, then there must a moral law giver.

Next: Quick Extras

Is Christianity True? A Month of Evidence

Apologetics 315 is releasing a series of web essays on reasons to believe Christianity is true.  I am so excited for this, as the presenters are many bloggers whom I admire very much.

The introduction to these essays makes it clear they are not trying to give 100% certainty to the Christian Worldview, but instead show it is a reasonable and viable option.  In fact, it is the woldview which best fits the facts we know of the world.

The presenters are a diverse lot, which makes the idea of this project even more compelling.  I am especially looking forward to the essays by Jim Wallace, Brian Auten, James Patrick Holding, and my personal favorite Amy Hall.

I am sure these essays will be eye opening for anyone who is searching to see if faith can be reasonable.

It is reasonable to believe in God. Pt 4

In a previous post I argued for the existence of God based on the Teleological Argument.  Specifically, I used the argument for the Fine-Tuning (and therefore purpose or design) of the Universe.  But we may also use the Teleological argument in another way.

Life is Good, But It is Complicated

Similarly, to the Fine-Tuning Argument, one can also determine life could only arise because of the intelligence of some designer.  Not only can we determine the universe would be inhospitable to life without the intervention of intelligence, but life itself is so complicated as to need an intelligence creating it as well.  This is because even the most basic forms of life contain a lot of information.

If you went hiking on a mountain one day, and came across a pattern of rocks arranged in such a way as to spell, “welcome to the mountains,” what would you conclude?  There are only two options to explain this phenomenon, impersonal causation and personal causation.  In other words, either something natural caused the rocks to be arranged this way, or a person caused the rocks to be arranged this way.  Clearly, this is a product of intelligence.  Messages are a sign of intelligence.  Messages assume there is a a sender!  Even if no one receives the message an intelligence must send and compile the information.  Information cannot be the product of natural processes.
Life contains similar information.  The genetic code of DNA is like a novel.  “DNA has specified complexity in its message.” “Significantly, the nucleotide sequences in the coding regions of DNA have, by all accounts, a high information content--that is, they are both highly specified and complex, just like meaningful English sentences or functional lines of code in computer software (http://www.arn.org/docs/meyer/sm_dnaotherdesigns.htm).”  The code of DNA is very complicated, is arranged in a very specific way.

There is no such thing as simple life.  Even the simplest form of life contains a lot of information.  Even the amoeba has as much information in its DNA as 1,000 sets of the Encyclopedia!  If a simple message such as “welcome to the mountains” needs intelligence behind it, why would we not conclude that the equivalent of 1,000 encyclopedias of information needs intelligence?  “Mind or intelligent design is a necessary cause of an informative system, one can detect the past action of an intelligent cause from the presence of an information-intensive effect, even if the cause itself cannot be directly observed.”  All other forms of information are recognized as the product of intelligence, the information of life is no different.  The complexity of life can only be explained as the product of an intelligence, and this intelligence is much like God. 

Again, this is not conclusive evidence for the existence of God, but is instead another link in our chain, making the belief in God a viable option.

Next, The Moral Argument for the Existence of God

It is reasonable to believe in God. Pt 3

             I have been arguing for the viability of belief in God.  My previous post on the Kalam Cosmological Argument  argued the beginning of the universe is best believed to be caused by something outside the universe.  But how do we know the universe was caused by a designer?  Part of the answer to this question comes from another type of argument for God's existence: The Teleological Argument, or Argument from Design.  There are at least two forms of this argument, in this post I will focus on the argument from the design of the universe.

Designer Jeans and Designer Worlds

            Sometimes people will comment how much better clothing looks on the models that wear it than it does on themselves.  There is a good reason for this.  The designer has made the jeans to fit people who look just the models who wear it.  Unfortunately, not many people actually look like models.  In fact, it is much more probable that clothing should be made different from how it often is, because most people do not look like models.

            In the same way, the universe could be much different from how we observe it to be.  The universe could be hostile to life in so many ways.  Most of the possible configurations for the world are hostile to life.  However, this is not what we find.  Instead, we find the universe is strangely configured for the flourishing of life.  It is as though the universe , like designer jeans, was made for those who live in it. This argument is often called the Fine-Tuning of the Universe for Life.

What evidence is there that the universe was fine-tuned for life?  Many aspects of our universe must be very specific for the habitability of complex life.  There are at least 154 different environmental requirements that must fall “within narrowly defined ranges for physical life of any kind to exist.”  These environmental requirements are often called Anthropic Principles.  These principles must be very narrowly defined or life would be impossible.  Some examples of these principles are the force of gravity, the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, the type of galaxy we live in and where we live in it, and even the size of Jupiter and our own moon.  All of these things must be exactly what we find them to be, or life would be impossible.

For example, if the force of gravity were changed even a little, the implications on life would be catastrophic.  If it “were altered by 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000001 percent our sun would not exist, and, therefore, neither would we.”  Similarly, if gravity were too strong the universe would have collapsed on itself during the Big Bang, but if gravity were too weak, planets, galaxies, and stars could not have formed as we know them.  We need gravity to act exactly as it does for life to be possible.

In the same way, even the size Jupiter creates an environment for life to be possible on earth.  If it the distance was greater too many asteroid and comet collisions would occur on Earth.  If the distance was less: Earth’s orbit would become unstable.

With at least 154 of these types of parameters, obviously the chance the universe could have just happened this way would be very low.  It has been calculated that the chance life would arise without an intelligent designer is less than 1 chance in 10²⁸² (million trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion).  In other words, this is the chance that the universe could be the way that it is without a God creating the universe for a reason.  This is astounding considering there are only 10⁷⁰ atoms in the entire universe.  In other words, the chance the universe just happened to be this way is effectively zero.  It would take an intelligence to create the universe in such a meticulous fashion.  God being omnipotent is able to produce a world orderly in these respects.  And he has good reason to choose to do so: a world containing human persons is a good thing.  The universe was intelligently designed for life.

Does this prove there is a God? Not 100%, but these arguments show it is reasonable. Next, the Teleological Argument pt. 2

Have No Fear Theists, the Big Bang Model is Here

In his article, A Beginner's-and Expert's-Guide to the Big Bang: Sifting Facts from Fictions, Hugh Ross explains why theists should not fear the implications of the Big Bang model for the origination of the universe.

Indeed, instead of fearing the Big Bang model, theists should embrace it.  The Big Bang model implies an "immensely powerful yet carefully planned and controlled release of matter, energy, space, and time within the strict confines of very carefully fine-tuned physical constants and laws which govern their behavior and interactions."  This kind of control and power implies a supernatural creator.

In fact, non-theists often try to disrepute the Big Bang model exactly because it has such theistic implications.

Christians would do well to not worry where there is no reason to worry.

It is reasonable to believe in God. Pt 2

In one of my previous posts, I argued belief in God is rational, not provable. In fact, I believe that belief in God is more reasonable than disbelief given the evidence. This evidence is a cumulative case for the existence of God, not just one silver bullet argument. Instead, the arguments for the existence of God are more like a chain-link fence, stronger together than the parts are apart.

So is belief in God actually rational? The first link to build our fence is the Kalam Cosmological argument. This argument has been popularized recently by William Lane Craig. In logical form the argument goes like this:

1. 1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause

2. 2. The universe began to exist

3. 3. Therefore, the universe has a cause

The conclusion clearly follows from the premises. Therefore, if the premises are true, then the conclusion is sound.

But are the premises true?

Does Everything that Begins to Exist Have a Cause?

There are only two options for premise 1. First, everything that begins to exist has a cause, or there are some things that begin to exist which do not have a cause. But what would an uncaused beginning look like? Can you think of anything that has begun which did not have a cause? I can’t. In fact, it seems as though it is a brute fact, that things which begin to exist are caused.

There is only one major objection to this premise. Often, atheists will point to quantum physics as examples of things coming into existence uncaused or without reason.

I will admit quantum mechanics are very weird, but there is no evidence to suggest there is absolutely no cause for the things we observe in the quantum world. Energy fluctuations and other reasons for the causes of the quantum physical world are not only possible, but considering our limited knowledge of the quantum they are probable. In addition, quantum mechanics is still an unreliable source of any kind of information. It seems to be clutching at straws to appeal to this “science.”

So, the first premise seems to be true. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

What about premise two?

How do we know if the universe began to exist?

There are two lines of evidence showing a beginning of the universe, Scientific and Philosophical. We will focus on the Scientific.

The Big Bang Theory. Virtually all astronomers and physicists now agree with the Big Bang Theory. Scientists have observed many lines of evidence for a Big Bang. Among these are the fact that the universe is expanding (which means it will get smaller if we went back in time), and the correct amount of background radiation consistent with what might have happened in an explosion at the beginning of the universe.

Also, the 2^nd law of thermodynamics suggest the universe began to exist at some point. This law states any closed system will use up energy and eventually die a “heat death.” At this point in time we have not yet run out of energy, meaning there is still energy to use. This shows us the universe cannot be eternal. If it was eternal, the universe would have gone through an infinite amount of time to reach the current point in time. This means the universe would have run out of energy. However, because we haven’t run out of energy, this means there has not yet been enough time to use it all up, suggesting a starting point.

Now, one objection to this evidence from the 2^nd law of thermodynamics is to speculate the universe might not be a closed system. If this was the case, then the universe could draw upon an outside force for more energy. However, there is no compelling reason to believe in such an outside force feeding the universe, and if it was true, this “source” would be dangerously close to the definition of God, being before time, spaceless, immaterial, powerful, etc. Also, the above evidence for the Big Bang, is suggestive to reach the simplest conclusion about energy in the universe, which is that energy is being used up.

These lines of evidence, and others, are suggestive to believing the universe did have a beginning.

But what does that prove?

The Universe Had a Cause

The above premises logically lead to the conclusion, the universe had a cause. Does this prove God? Could the cause be something other than God? It could, but one must remember this cause must be timeless, spaceless, immaterial, powerful, etc. These qualities are much like the definition of God of the Bible. We do not yet know if the God of the Bible is the cause of the universe, but whatever the cause, it is consistent with this definition of God.

This argument does not prove the existence of God 100%, but it is good evidence leading to that conclusion. If we can find other, independent lines of evidence, we can make the case even stronger.

Next: The Teleological Argument Pt. 1

Reflections on Berkeley from a(n Even More) Confident Theist—

As we walked onto the campus of the University of California at Berkeley, I couldn’t help but wonder, “What have I gotten these students into?!?” I was nervous and scared for them. “What if this doesn’t go as planned?” So, began one of the most rewarding experiences of the students’ lives, not to mention my own. Even with the incredible risks involved, it turned out our trust in God was not misplaced.

Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect. - 1 Peter 3:15

Within the first 15 minutes of arriving on Berkeley’s campus, we had sent the students out to share their faith. Equipped with surveys asking spiritual questions, these high school juniors and seniors were conversing with college undergraduates and graduates. They asked questions about the meaning of life, whether there is a God, and what is the ontological nature of morality. God blessed these students so mightily, helping them to recall their training, and giving them understanding and compassion beyond their years.

I remember thinking I would sit back and only pray for the students, being available if any of them needed help. This is not what God had in mind. I noticed a conversation between some of my students, our fearless leader Brett, and two picketers near me. God prompted me to enter this conversation. We spoke with these Berkeley students for over an hour. They were very caring and compassionate, but had never put much thought into many of their beliefs. We spent most of the time asking them questions, which led to many inconsistencies in their ideas, but the conversation never became less than friendly. They left with many new things to think about, and we left with a renewed confidence in our Lord.

Throughout the four-day trip, this basic story replayed itself repeatedly. Any time we spent time conversing with students/people we met on the campus or Telegraph Avenue, God showed himself to be faithful and completely reasonable.

Rise in the presence of the aged, show respect for the elderly and revere your God. I am the LORD. - Leviticus 19:32

One highlight of the trip was the opportunity to meet in the home of Dr. Phillip Johnson, the “godfather” of the Intelligent Design movement. I cannot express the honor of being able to meet with this man in his own home. He shared with us his journey into ID, the problem of the information in DNA, the inherent philosophy of Darwinists, and how searching for answers has strengthened his faith. After conversing with us, he spent time signing books with the students and getting to know them. It was so heart-warming that this intellectual giant would spend time showing these students what a life well-lived looks like.

See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ - Colossians 3:8

While on the trip, we had three prominent atheists present their views on topics such as morality, evidence against the existence of God, and faith. It was so encouraging to hear from these “learned” men and realize God’s way makes more sense.

The first atheist to present to us was Richard Carrier, a prominent atheist from Internet Infidels, who has debated William Lane Craig on the resurrection. He was personable, fun, and very intelligent. He shared with us his ideas about morality, claiming morals are real objective things of the world, but that we do not need God as their basis. Instead, he claimed morals are really an arrangement of neurons and chemicals in our brain, a reaction to things around us, and necessary for the survival of the species. Brett and some of the students realized this explanation did not provide a basis for morality (ontology), but instead is only a claim about how we know about morals (epistemology). When pressed for a real concrete explanation for the existence of objective morals in the world without God, Carrier was woefully inadequate in any explanation, even reverting to relativism at one point.

The topic of evidence against the existence of God was presented to us by Mark Thomas. As opposed to Carrier, Thomas was brash and forceful, continually interrupting others. He spent a lot of time telling us stories about the way we evolved, or came to our religious beliefs. His basic point was that man was religious because we find the idea of a God who loves us to be comforting. We pointed out that while this might be true, it does not mean there isn’t a God. In fact, maybe the reason we find this comforting is that God has instilled in us a desire to be loved by him. Thomas’ evidence did not come close to being convincing.

Lastly, we met with David Fitzgerald of the San Francisco Atheists. He was the kind of man who makes it easy to realize that a winsome, likable person can easily slip their ideas past your defenses because your guard might be down. He spent a lot of time talking about faith. His idea of faith was that it is some kind of blind leap, which cannot be falsified no matter what evidence is brought to bear. We were able to explain to him that this is not the Biblical idea of faith. Brett explained that a Biblical view of faith is trusting in what we have good evidence to believe (I Cor. 15; Heb 11:1). This was a wholly new idea for Fitzgerald.

Fitzgerald also mentioned he did not believe Jesus ever really existed. This was mind-blowing. Jesus is the most well attested historical figure of ancient history. Not only does the Bible speak of him, but many extra-biblical sources mention him as well (Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, etc.). It was very revealing to see how far some people will go to try and deny God.

Through all of these encounters, the reasonableness of the Christian worldview was evident. God was so good to help us understand where the ideas of these men were only “hollow and deceptive philosophy.”

Therefore, as God's chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience. – Colossians 3:12

We also had the opportunity to meet with SANE (Students for A Nonreligious Ethos, the student atheist group on Berkeley’s campus). We mingled with them, conversed, and generally just talked with them. It was clear they enjoyed having us to meet and talk with. Afterward we went to Thai food with them, where the conversations were deep and meaningful. I personally was able to converse with one girl for about an hour and a half about God, evolution, morals and free will. She was very surprised by many of my answers, and at one point said, “that is by far the best answer I have ever heard” about one of my arguments. I finished the evening sharing with her the Kalam Cosmological argument for the existence of God. She decided to give me her email address without my prompting. I look forward to continued interaction with her. I know she left the conversation with a new respect for Christians, and God.

The key to that night was we didn’t come across as arrogant, and we truly wanted to know their side of the issue. My students were very good at realizing the people they were talking to should be treated with respect and kindness. We were different from any other Christians they had encountered, and we truly enjoyed meeting with them.

Know that the Lord is God – Psalm 100:3

On Sunday, we experienced God’s beautiful creation in the morning, praising God and having devotions at a park. The view was incredible, as we were able to see the entire bay area. It brought tears to my eyes at several points.

God was so faithful to us. It was a very hard trip, but it was even more rewarding. Every student who went expressed how God had impacted their lives greatly, and they now have a desire to learn even more about Him and show others His love for the rest of their lives.

Thank you for your prayers and thoughts.

Comments from some of the students:

Berkeley mission trip was amazing and I learned so much! Gotta keep practicing and learning more so that we can keep defending the faith!—Hannah

The mission trip to Berkeley was an absolutely incredible experience. I learned how to better defend my faith and was encouraged that the Truth was able to stand up to the arguments of the secular world. I now have a passion to share my faith and God’s truth with other people—Sarah

This trip showed me that Christianity CAN stand up to the modern way of thinking—Jeremy

Berkeley was one of the best trips I’ve ever been on. It was an eye-opening experience, because I was able to see how God works when we put our trust in Him. I’d definitely do this again.—Lacey

Berkeley was a fantastic experience. I am more focused on what brings my life purpose.—Aubree

I cannot express in words how amazing the Berkeley trip was. It is mind blowing how incredible every single moment of that trip was. Just over the last 4 days I have changed and grown SO much in my views of Christianity. BY FAR the best trip I have ever been on and wishes with everything to still be there!!!—Elise

The Berkeley trip was an eye-opening and life-changing experience. God worked through all of the students and exposed us to the life outside the “Christian Bubble.” It boosted my confidence and brought me closer to God. I am so happy about the trip and cannot wait for next year—Kaitlan

The Berkeley trip was sublime. It was something that has changed my life and I would never trade the experience for anything.—Josh

It is reasonable to believe in God. PT. 1

Can the existence of God be proved? I don't think so. There are very few things in this world that can be proved 100%. I cannot prove to you that I am not just a brain hooked up to some weird scientific equipment. I cannot prove to you that I am not just some part of your imagination.

Nevertheless, it is completely reasonable to believe I do, in fact, exist. I live my life as though I do exist. It is not proved completely, but instead it is just reasonable to believe.

Most of our beliefs are in this area of knowledge. We do not necessarily have certainty, but it is more reasonable than not to believe the way we do.

Belief in God, I think, falls into this category. Belief in God is rational and based on evidence.

Over the next couple weeks, I will present several arguments for the existence of God. None of these, it seems, proves God's existence 100%, but they all make it reasonable. In fact, I would argue they make belief in God more reasonable than the alternative.

Now, one might argue that if none of the arguments can prove the existence of God with certainty, then there is a huge problem. They might say this means the arguments have holes and therefore they do not help each other to show the rationality of belief in God.

One popular example is called the leaky buckets objection. If you have 5 buckets with holes, no matter what you do water will leak through. These buckets cannot help each other to contain water.

However, the arguments I espouse are part of a cumulative approach. This means I think they are stronger together than they are apart.

For example, consider a chain-link fence. Apart from the whole of the fence, each individual strand of metal is not that strong. It can be bent, ignored, broken. However, when together, the cumulative strength of the metal strands adds up to something more. W. L. Craig uses the example of Chain mail armor in a similar fashion to show the cumulative strength of the arguments.

When the value of each argument is taken into account, the whole is much more powerful than only one.

Also, it is important to remember, reasonableness is in reference to the best explanation. This means it is always more reasonable to believe the explanation with the most explanatory power, than to believe other assertions.

There might be other possible explanations for these arguments, but this does not mean they are the most probable or best explanation.

When this series is over, I think it will be clear that the existence of God is the best explanation regarding the evidence put forth.

Next: The Kalam Cosmological Argument.