Head vs Will

Lee Strobel was an atheist who became a believer after he investigated the evidence for Jesus and the Bible.  As a result of that investigation he wrote the book, The Case for Christ: A Journalist's Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus.  It's the book that got me introduced to the evidence for God, Jesus, and the Bible as a very new believer and started my study and defense of the evidence for Christianity.  I've read dozens of books by different authors since then on various different topics and this book still stands out as one of the very best.  It walks you through Lee's path as an atheist in his examination of the evidence.  It's written in a way that makes sense to the everyday person.  I remember reading it for the first time and being a little bit angry that I'd never been told some of these things before because if they had I'd have been a believer much sooner than I was.

As I reflect on the impact that apologetics has had on my life and faith I can't help but think about those who see the evidence and still don't believe that Jesus was the son of God.  There are also those that have heard there is evidence but don't bother to give it a look and complain about God in some way.  I think it really comes down to a matter of will.  For me a big part of the reason I didn't want to commit to Christianity was that I didn't want to give up my lifestyle.  I gave lots of other external reasons including: hypocritical Christians, how can you really know which religion is right, I'm a good person because I'm not as bad as Ted Bundy or whoever.  But internally what it really came down to is that I still wanted to swear, I wanted to have pre-marital sex, I wanted to drink excessively, I didn't want to be a Bible thumper,  I didn't want to be one of those weird religious people, and the list went on.  It's not that I don't struggle with some of those things from time to time now because I do.  Some of those things I don't do at all anymore while others are certainly much, much less frequent than they used to be and I'm still working on others.  The important thing is that immortality no longer controls me like it did before my belief in Jesus.

When I was living apart from God (which is what I was doing by not committing to Jesus) sin controlled me and now I am free of the hold it had on me.  That's not to say I don't still sin, because we all do, it's just that my bondage to it has been broken and the penalty has been paid for me.  I think differently about my sin now than I did before.  I'm remorseful and I turn from it even if I have to do it over and over again.  The other thing I've noticed is that I see others sin differently too.  I see it in light of the struggles I have had in the past and the struggles I still have.  It helps me to have compassion for others when they stumble.
What I've learned is that evidence is very helpful but for most people becoming a believer is not a matter of the head but a matter of the will.  Several years ago I exchanged private messages with an atheist who I had met in an atheist online forum.  I asked what it would take for him to believe in God.  His answer was that even if God appeared before him and he knew it was God appearing before him he would never worship Him.  Which stunned me a little bit quite honestly.  I asked him why and he said because he couldn't worship anyone who was as cruel as God was (see Paul Copan's book below for answers to this objection).  It really illustrated the point to me about believing (or not believing) being a matter of will for many people and not just a matter of reason and evidence. 

Is this you or someone you know?  That no matter what evidence you are presented you won't believe?  Can you look at the evidence objectively or is your will so hardened that you can't even give the evidence a fair look?  Do you think it's intellectually dishonest to believe in God?  Do you think there is no evidence and no matter what someone presents to you it won't even qualify as evidence?  If it is then no amount of evidence will probably convince you.  But if it's not and you have some questions you want answers to like: Why does God allow so much suffering and evil in the world?  How can there only be one God?  I've done some really bad things and hurt others, how can God forgive me or love me?  Or maybe it's something completely different.  If that's the case seek out the answers.  Read a book, ask someone else who may be able to help, look at a resource from this or another apologetics blog, or pick up the Bible and start with John's gospel.  Jesus said:

For everyone who asks, receives. Everyone who seeks, finds. And to everyone who knocks, the door will be opened. Matthew 7:8

It's promised to us that if we seek answers about God we will find them.  So I encourage you to objectively seek answers and based on what Jesus taught you will find them.

Books


Video
Lee Strobel's story

Blogs
Apologetics 315
Answers For Atheists
Reasons To Believe

Do all religions lead to God?

Here's a quick video (< 2 minutes) on an interview with Norm Geisler done by the One Minute Apologist.  He answers the question: Do all religions lead to God?

Christians Are Intolerant of Other Viewpoints

Christians are often accused of being intolerant.  The view comes from an incorrect view of what it means to be tolerant.  The view is that tolerance means accepting all other views as true. 

Tolerance

tol-er-ance

a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry.,  dictionary.com

We practice tolerance for that which we don't agree with or that which we believe is false.  Tolerance doesn't accept all views as true it involves practicing restraint towards views that are different.  If people accepted all views to be true there would be no need for tolerance.  Tolerance only needs to be practiced when people disagree.  Think about it, do you tolerate things you like? 

Being Accused of Intolerance
If you're accused of being intolerant the response might go something like this:

Bob: Christians are intolerant of other religions.  You all think you're right and they're wrong. John: Why are you being intolerant of my views? Bob: I'm not being intolerant you're the one that says other religions are wrong. John: But you're not being accepting of my views.  You think I'm wrong.  You are being intolerant.

The problem with this view of tolerance is that it says it accepts all views as being valid except for the view that all views aren't valid.  The statement doesn't even meet it's own view of tolerance.  It's very misunderstood view of what tolerance really is.

Tolerance is about respecting the other person you disagree with because they are made in the image of God the same as you are.  However, it doesn't require you to respect their held views. 

Intolerance of Tolerance
One of the books I've recommended in the past is I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist.  One of the authors, Frank Turek, is right now experiencing the secular intolerance of tolerance.  Dr. Turek was just fired by Cisco Systems for his political and religious views even though his views were never expressed in the course of his work at Cisco.  The story is here.

Resources
True For You, But Not For Me by Paul Copan, Chapter 5
The Intolerance of Tolerance article by Gregory Koukl
Why Are Christians So Intolerant? article on PleaseConvinceMe.com
Apologetics 315: Terminology Tuesday: Tolerance blog post on Apologetics 315

Who Are You to Judge Others?

One of the complaints I had about Christians before I became one was that they were judgemental.  Then when I did become a Christian it was something I was accused of!  It's an accusation that is sometimes accurate though.  But judging and being judgmental are two different things. 

Judging vs Judgementalism
We all make judgements every day.  Being discerning and making decisions are something we all have to do and it's unavoidable and appropriate.  Judgementalism is a critical, smug, attitude of moral superiority.  Making right judgements is a virtue while being smug is not.  Judge but don't be judgemental.

Judging Judgementalism
The statement "Who are you to judge?" is again a self defeating statement.  The person is making a judgement that you are being judgemental.  They are doing the very thing they are accusing you of.  The conversation might go something this:

Bob: Who are you to judge others? John: Why are you judging me? Bob: What? John: Why are you judging me if it's wrong to judge others? Bob: I'm just saying that Christians aren't supposed to judge others. John: Hang on a second.  You just said it's wrong to judge.  Now you're judging me.  So why are you doing the very thing you say is wrong when I do it? Bob: I'm not judging you I'm just saying it's wrong to to judge. John: OK, then I'm not judging either I'm just simply saying you're wrong.

This may take a little bit to sink in but you can see the double standard here.  The statement about judging just doesn't hold up to it's own standard.  What most people actually mean when they accuse you of judging is that you're not allowed to tell other people they're wrong.  But here we go again, they are telling you it's wrong to tell someone else they're wrong!  The relativist is now being an absolutist which is the very thing he's accusing you of.

Why is this important?  Because Christian's get attacked all the time for taking an absolute stand on issues and are trivialized for their views of exclusivity.  They are accused of being intolerant, judgemental, close-minded, and the list goes on.  Why?  Because they hold views in opposition to those making the accusations.  Most people making these statements practice the very thing they condemn.  So don't be afraid to stand up for yourself but do it with gentleness and respect for the other person even if they don't do the same for you.

Resources
"True For You, But Not For Me" by Paul Copan, Chapter 4
"Tactics" by Gregory Koukl

That's True For You But Not For Me

I've read a book by Paul Copan titled True for You, But Not for Me.  It looks at some of the common objections to Christianity and how to answer them.  I thought I'd start blogging on some of these objections raised in the book.  These objections are covered in many other great books, blogs, podcasts, and articles too so much of what I'll write will be based on this book as well as other great resources I've come across.

What is Truth?
The idea that we each define our own truth is prevalent in our society.  We all have our own opinions but opinions are not necessarily the same as the truth.  Truth is an idea or description that matches with how things really are.  Truth exists whether our opinion matches it or not.  Truth is something that we discover not something we create for ourselves.   For instance at one time it was thought that the sun revolved around the earth and it was later discovered that wasn’t true.  No matter what was thought about the sun and earth’s orbit it was never true that that sun revolved around the earth.

Truth is Not Ice Cream
My favorite ice cream flavor is vanilla (yeah, I know pretty plain, but I love it).  Is it true that vanilla is the best flavor of ice cream over all other flavors?  You may agree with me but we all know people who have a different favorite flavor or even, gasp, don’t like ice cream at all!  So is it true or false that vanilla is the best flavor of ice cream?  It’s an odd question because this is truly subjective (relative) to the person answering the question.  In fact you might say it’s my opinion that vanilla is the best ice cream flavor but it’s not yours.  It’s a subjective claim because it’s dependent on the subject (me in this case).  Subjective claims are not true or false.

Taking another look at ice cream though what if I were to say, “Vanilla ice cream cures cancer.”  You probably wouldn’t agree with my statement and even if you did that wouldn’t make it true. Imagine if someone responded to me by saying, “Well, it might be true for you that vanilla ice cream cures cancer but it’s not true for me.”  You'd think both participants in the conversation were probably just a little off center.  Why?  Because we know objectively that vanilla ice cream does not cure cancer no matter what I might think.  Objective claims are either true or false.

Contradicting Statements
Suppose someone from New York said, “New Yorkers are all liars and you can’t trust them.”  The person claiming to tell the truth about New Yorkers is contradicting themselves.  They are saying what I say is true, I’m a liar.  Kind of like saying “Don’t believe a word I say.”  In the same way the relativist’s statement “That’s true for you but not for me” contradicts itself.  They are making an absolute truth statement that applies to everyone that no truth applies to everyone.   This statement self destructs under its own weight, which makes it a useless statement.  If claims are only true for each person then why should I accept the relativists view and not my own?  The question to ask then is, “Is that true?” or “Are you asking me to accept that statement as true for everyone or is that just your own view?”

Truth is important and truth can be objectively known.  Believing something that is not true can have small consequences like believing the sun revolves around the earth.  You might get embarrassed and be seen as a dope if you say that but you probably won’t die from believing this.  But believing that fire won’t burn you could have very real and devastating consequences including death.  So when someone says, “Christianity is true for you but not for me” it’s not a subjective (relative) claim that Christianity makes, it’s an objective (absolute) claim.  Objective claims can and should be backed up by evidence and reason.  Either Christianity is true or false but it’s not both because Biblical Christianity is not ice cream.

Other Resources
The "truth is not ice cream" is something developed by Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason.  He gives a good talk on it titled “Truth is Not Cream, Faith is not Wishing” available on STRs website on CD, MP3, or PDF.

Relativism

People say That's true for you but not for me or some form of it all the time and it's called relativism.  Most people believe truth is based on the situation or circumstances.  A Barna survey showed that 64% of American adults said truth is "relative to the person and their situation" where 83% of teenagers said "moral truth depends on the circumstances".  6% of those surveyed said moral truth is absolute.  This survey is from 2002 but it probably hasn't changed all that much, if anything the percent believing in relativism has probably increased.

Some examples of statements that reflect relativism are:

"Christianity and the Bible may be true for you but it's not for me." "That's just your interpretation." "Who are you to judge?" "There are lots of paths to God." "Belief in Jesus as the only way to God is intolerant."

Most everyone has heard at least a couple of these.  Is relativism true?  Does relativism even stand up to it's own claim that truth is in the eye of the beholder?  One question can start to point out the problem with relativism and the rejection of absolute truth.

Bob: "Everyone's beliefs are true or false only relative to himself." John: "Is that absolutely true?"

Do you see the problem here? The statement Bob is making is an absolute statement about truth.  If truth is relative to the person why should I even care about Bob's statement because it's not true for me?  Bob is saying that truth is not absolute but yet he's making an absolute statement about it.  It's because in practice relativism doesn't match with reality.  Truth is a belief that matches the way things really are.

Regardless of our own view something can be true even if...

• ...we don't agree with it
• ...we don't practice it
• ...we don't follow it

Moral relativism says that right and wrong are dependent on individual or culture.  The question to ask the moral relativist is: Were Hitler and the Nazis wrong?  There is no basis within relativism to say that it is wrong.  If according to relativism each culture gets to decide their own right and wrong how could Hitler have been wrong?  The culture of Nazism said it was right to murder, rape, torture, and scientifically experiment on Jews.  If the relativist answer is that the rest of world said it was wrong and they stopped it, it's then just a case of might makes right.  The biggest and strongest get to decide what's right and wrong.  So if the Nazis would have prevailed in WWII it would have been ok because they were stronger?  Or would murdering innocent Jews be ok because the Nazis won?  When taken to it's logical conclusion it's clear to see that moral relativism is really just a justification for not following an objective moral standard.

Truth can be known and truth is real.  We don't get to make up our truth because truth is objective and is true no matter if we agree with it or not.  Truth claims should be examined and tested.  Test people's truth claims with gentleness and respect.  Our culture is ripe with relativism and they didn't come to their ideas overnight and won't change their minds with just one conversation.

Resources

True for You, But Not for Me: Overcoming Objections to Christian Faith by Paul Copan

Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions by Gregory Koukl
Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis
On Guard: Defending Your Faith with Reason and Precision by William Lane Craig

These are just some of the really great books that discuss the problems with relativism.  All the above selections are also available on Kindle.

Free will

Below is an article on a recent book by Vincent Bugliosi titled The Divinity of Doubt. Bugliosi prosecuted Charles Manson and is an atheist.

PleaseConvinceMe Blog: Should God Have Given Us Free Will?