One of my favorite things to do on a warm summer evening is sit outside on my patio, smoke a cigar, and have a beer or glass of wine and reflect on the world around me as the sun sets and darkness reveals the stars. I have a great sense of awe when looking at the view and up at the stars and the vastness of the universe and the world around me. The beauty of the outdoors and our universe has always captivated me. Just soaking it all in gives me a great sense of perspective.
I think though that on a daily basis we take the greatness of the world around us for granted. I lived in Colorado for 16 years and moved about a year ago to the desert of Southeastern Washington. For 16 years I got to wake up and see the beautiful Rocky Mountains and the 53 peaks over 14,000 feet in elevation, known as 14ers. When I first moved there I was taken in by their beauty. As time passed I got used to seeing them there every time I went outside or looked out a west facing window. It got to be where I didn't even think about it on a daily basis because it's always there, in other words I took it for granted.
I'm experiencing the same thing after moving to Southeastern Washington near the Columbia River. The Columbia River is a powerful river starting in Canada and running through Washington and ending at the Pacific Ocean. Much of the power and size is due to the many dams along the river which provide roughly 80% of the electricity to the region. It gives you pause to contemplate the raw power and beauty of the water. I expect over time I'll lose my awe and will just take the magnificence for granted to some degree.
I think the world around us and the universe is one of those things we just take for granted. The universe is massive. I don't even think massive is a grand enough word to describe just how big the universe is. There are billions upon billions upon billions of stars. When looking up in the sky each star is an average of 3 trillion miles apart. We see it every day and it's easy to just take it for granted because it's there day after day. We do the same thing with God. We take Him for granted because He's always been here and will be day after day.
I think a lot of times we want to attribute our success to ourselves and blame God for our failures, pain, and suffering. We ignore the greatness of our world and who is responsible for that greatness. I'm no exception to that. I have to remind myself all the time that my house, my job, my family, my success is not because of me. I owe everything I have as a gift from God. Not I'm better than other people. Not because I'm an American. Not because I'm a Christian. Not because I pray. Not because I've earned it because I haven't. No, God has given it to me because of His grace. God's opened doors for me and He's closed doors for me. It's all to prepare me for things here and things eternally. I didn't build that.
In July President Obama uttered the now infamous quote, "If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.” Of course it started a fire storm of political propaganda on both sides. Democrats saying that the 'someone else' is the federal government. Republicans saying that it is 'no one else' responsible for a business' success other than the business owner.
Both parties have it wrong. Success is a gift from God not from the government or from ourselves but as a result of God's grace. Don't forget this truth, you didn't build that by yourself. It's not about ourselves and it's not about deifying a government (which again is ourselves). Be humble in your success and know that it's a gift from God and give thanks. As much as we want to think we are great and can accomplish great things on our own, we can do nothing without God's grace.
So the next time you look up in the night sky, gaze at the water, or even see great human success, just remember: You didn't build that. But give thanks to the one who made it happen.
Saturday, September 22, 2012
Friday, July 20, 2012
The Evil of the Movie Theater Shootings
As I write this in the aftermath of the movie theater shooting in Aurora, Colorado the problem of evil in the world hits close to home. I lived in Denver for 16 years and moved last year. Colorado still feels like home to me and I'm deeply saddened by the events that have taken place and the loss of life in the community that I still love and have a deep connection with.
I remember eating lunch one day in 1999 when the Columbine shootings were happening just a few minutes from where I was sitting and the TV in the restaurant was showing the event unfold. The pain and sadness was very real and deep as I knew many in that community who were affected directly by it.
Many turn to God for comfort in these situations. Some blame God and want to know where he's at during all of this and how he could let this happen. Others say it proves God doesn't exist because no loving God would allow so much evil in the world. Most of us do or have struggled with the problem of evil in the world. People can do some pretty nasty things to other people. Unspeakable moral evil has been committed in our world and this latest tragedy is a painful reminder of the broken world we live in.
Why Is There Evil?
If there is a God why is there evil? God is supposed to be in control yet horrible things happen in our world. When Jesus was asked by the Pharisee's what the greatest commandment of all was he replied.
God made us to love each other and love requires choice. The greatest command God gave us requires us to have the freedom to choose to love each other. However, a choice means there is an option not to love. Love wouldn't be so great if we had no choice but to love each other. What makes love so great and touches us to our core at times is because that same person could have choosen not to love. With freedom comes the ability to choose to hate and with hate comes evil.
Did God Create Evil?
God created love but did he create evil? What God created was humans who had the potential for evil because we have freedom of choice. Adam and Eve were the first created humans and they disobeyed God and ate the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The punishment was death and Adam and Eve did eventually die. God couldn't have created beings capable of loving if they weren't also capable of not loving. Man actualizes evil by sinning. We only know evil by comparing it to goodness. Evil isn't a thing it's the absence of goodness just like darkness is the absence of light. If there weren't an ultimate standard for goodness, God, we wouldn't even know what evil was. When people choose to reject goodness there is evil. God did not create evil, people make something evil when they reject goodness.
Is There a Solution For Evil?
The punishment for evil is mortality (death). We all die and there's no escaping that and that's God's punishment for our sin. Jesus dying on the cross is the solution but why? God's standard is perfection because God is holy and God is perfect. God's nature has no sin, God is not capable of sinning. He can't let unholiness be in his presence. We are unholy because we fall short of God's standard of perfection. That sounds pretty harsh but God can relate to us because he sent his son, Jesus, to earth to live along side us and live a perfect life for us. God's justice is perfect and therefore sin requires punishment. Jesus loved us and took the punishment in our place. The reason he could take it in our place was because he was sinless. He willingly took the sins of the entire world for all time on his shoulders so that we didn't have to bear the punishment. Jesus rose from the dead three days later to prove that he was the Son of God and had the authority to take our punishment. We still die a physical death by we live eternally in the presence of God if we ask Jesus to forgive us and accept the sacrifice he made for us.
There will be a point in the future that God separates those that accept Jesus from those that don't and we'll each get to live in the presence of that which we've chosen, either evil or good. God's solution is Jesus and we all have the opportunity to accept or reject him. Jesus comes along side to comfort and love us. He knows how we feel because he's been through it and he's felt pain and loss. God uses all things to point to his good though.
Good will come out of this tragedy but there will also be lots of pain. People will come to know Jesus through this. Christ followers will come along side those who are hurting and show the love of God. I'm not even going to pretend that I know the exact purpose of this event or how God will use something that he didn't cause to point others to him. I do know that he comforts us in our time of need. If you don't know that comfort ask Jesus to comfort you. If you do know that comfort go give the same comfort to someone else.
I remember eating lunch one day in 1999 when the Columbine shootings were happening just a few minutes from where I was sitting and the TV in the restaurant was showing the event unfold. The pain and sadness was very real and deep as I knew many in that community who were affected directly by it.
Many turn to God for comfort in these situations. Some blame God and want to know where he's at during all of this and how he could let this happen. Others say it proves God doesn't exist because no loving God would allow so much evil in the world. Most of us do or have struggled with the problem of evil in the world. People can do some pretty nasty things to other people. Unspeakable moral evil has been committed in our world and this latest tragedy is a painful reminder of the broken world we live in.
Why Is There Evil?
If there is a God why is there evil? God is supposed to be in control yet horrible things happen in our world. When Jesus was asked by the Pharisee's what the greatest commandment of all was he replied.
| 'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.' This is the great and foremost commandment. The second is like it, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'
Matthew 22:37-38
|
God made us to love each other and love requires choice. The greatest command God gave us requires us to have the freedom to choose to love each other. However, a choice means there is an option not to love. Love wouldn't be so great if we had no choice but to love each other. What makes love so great and touches us to our core at times is because that same person could have choosen not to love. With freedom comes the ability to choose to hate and with hate comes evil.
Did God Create Evil?
God created love but did he create evil? What God created was humans who had the potential for evil because we have freedom of choice. Adam and Eve were the first created humans and they disobeyed God and ate the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The punishment was death and Adam and Eve did eventually die. God couldn't have created beings capable of loving if they weren't also capable of not loving. Man actualizes evil by sinning. We only know evil by comparing it to goodness. Evil isn't a thing it's the absence of goodness just like darkness is the absence of light. If there weren't an ultimate standard for goodness, God, we wouldn't even know what evil was. When people choose to reject goodness there is evil. God did not create evil, people make something evil when they reject goodness.
Is There a Solution For Evil?
The punishment for evil is mortality (death). We all die and there's no escaping that and that's God's punishment for our sin. Jesus dying on the cross is the solution but why? God's standard is perfection because God is holy and God is perfect. God's nature has no sin, God is not capable of sinning. He can't let unholiness be in his presence. We are unholy because we fall short of God's standard of perfection. That sounds pretty harsh but God can relate to us because he sent his son, Jesus, to earth to live along side us and live a perfect life for us. God's justice is perfect and therefore sin requires punishment. Jesus loved us and took the punishment in our place. The reason he could take it in our place was because he was sinless. He willingly took the sins of the entire world for all time on his shoulders so that we didn't have to bear the punishment. Jesus rose from the dead three days later to prove that he was the Son of God and had the authority to take our punishment. We still die a physical death by we live eternally in the presence of God if we ask Jesus to forgive us and accept the sacrifice he made for us.
There will be a point in the future that God separates those that accept Jesus from those that don't and we'll each get to live in the presence of that which we've chosen, either evil or good. God's solution is Jesus and we all have the opportunity to accept or reject him. Jesus comes along side to comfort and love us. He knows how we feel because he's been through it and he's felt pain and loss. God uses all things to point to his good though.
| And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.
Romans 8:28
|
Good will come out of this tragedy but there will also be lots of pain. People will come to know Jesus through this. Christ followers will come along side those who are hurting and show the love of God. I'm not even going to pretend that I know the exact purpose of this event or how God will use something that he didn't cause to point others to him. I do know that he comforts us in our time of need. If you don't know that comfort ask Jesus to comfort you. If you do know that comfort go give the same comfort to someone else.
| Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort, who comforts us in all our affliction so that we will be able to comfort those who are in any affliction with the comfort with which we ourselves are comforted by God. For just as the sufferings of Christ are ours in abundance, so also our comfort is abundant through Christ.
2 Corinthians 1:3-5
|
Friday, July 13, 2012
Why Atheism is Self Defeating
Here is a blog post titled Why Atheism is Self Defeating by Scott Youngren. It reasons that there is no basis for trusting reasoning in an atheistic worldview including atheism itself. Why should we rely on our reasoning if it's just a product of evolution because evolutionary processes are based on survival not truth? Reasoning and logic are all about truth but survival is not.
Wednesday, July 11, 2012
Psychology and God: The Genetic Fallacy
I was recently in a conversation with an atheist on FB who I've known for probably 35 years. He's an intelligent guy and is pretty feisty (as am I. Feisty that is, me being intelligent could be questionable). It got a little heated but he did throw a challenge my way that after considering it I thought I'd do a little more homework. His interest lies in the area of psychology and the basic claim is that God is something people have made up to fulfill emotional needs. I'm boiling the claim down but I think that captures what he was trying to say.
I've studied the psychological arguments atheists make but my real interests are in the area of the cosomological, teleological, or moral arguments in favor of theism. So I thought I'd give some treatment to my thoughts about the idea that God is made up in our minds to help us cope with our world.
Ludwig Feuerbach was one of the first to suggest that God was the product of the human mind. He certainly hasn't been the only prominent figure to assert that. Nietzsche, Marx, and Freud all followed along those lines as have others after them. One of the problems with this argument is the genetic fallacy.
The genetic fallacy is when an idea is rejected because of where it came from. This is a disapproval of the source of the idea rather than the content of the idea. So how does this relate to people wishing God exists? Let me give a couple examples and maybe it will be more clear.
Pythagoras was a Greek thinker who was also a religious mystic who worshipped numbers and geometry. However he also is the father of the Pythagorean theorem. Suppose someone were to reject the Pythagorean theorem because Pythagoras had some wacky mystic ideas. That would be fallacious because it doesn't follow that because the source, Pythagoras, had mystical ideas about numbers that his theorem is wrong.
Here's another example from CS Lewis in God In The Dock:
Whether someone wishes God exists or it gives them comfort that God exists has nothing to do with the actual truth of whether God exists or not. People have all kinds of crazy ideas about things that are actually true. Psychological motivations have nothing what so ever to do with whether something is true or not. The truth has to come from somewhere else outside of psychology. Saying that psychological motivations prove something is true or not is committing the genetic fallacy.
I've studied the psychological arguments atheists make but my real interests are in the area of the cosomological, teleological, or moral arguments in favor of theism. So I thought I'd give some treatment to my thoughts about the idea that God is made up in our minds to help us cope with our world.
Ludwig Feuerbach was one of the first to suggest that God was the product of the human mind. He certainly hasn't been the only prominent figure to assert that. Nietzsche, Marx, and Freud all followed along those lines as have others after them. One of the problems with this argument is the genetic fallacy.
The genetic fallacy is when an idea is rejected because of where it came from. This is a disapproval of the source of the idea rather than the content of the idea. So how does this relate to people wishing God exists? Let me give a couple examples and maybe it will be more clear.
Pythagoras was a Greek thinker who was also a religious mystic who worshipped numbers and geometry. However he also is the father of the Pythagorean theorem. Suppose someone were to reject the Pythagorean theorem because Pythagoras had some wacky mystic ideas. That would be fallacious because it doesn't follow that because the source, Pythagoras, had mystical ideas about numbers that his theorem is wrong.
Here's another example from CS Lewis in God In The Dock:
| Suppose I think, after doing my accounts, that I have a large balance at the bank. And suppose you want to find out whether this belief of mine is 'wishful
thinking.' You can never come to any conclusion by examining my psychological
condition. Your only chance of finding out is to sit down and work through the
sum yourself....If you find my arithmetic wrong, then it may be relevant to
explain psychologically how I came to be so bad at arithmetic...but only after
you have yourself done the sum and discovered me to be wrong on purely
mathematical grounds....In other words, you must show that a man is wrong before
you start explaining why he is wrong.
C.S. Lewis
|
Whether someone wishes God exists or it gives them comfort that God exists has nothing to do with the actual truth of whether God exists or not. People have all kinds of crazy ideas about things that are actually true. Psychological motivations have nothing what so ever to do with whether something is true or not. The truth has to come from somewhere else outside of psychology. Saying that psychological motivations prove something is true or not is committing the genetic fallacy.
Tuesday, July 10, 2012
Challenging Atheism's Definition of Faith
Many atheists portray the Christian faith as being ungrounded in evidence. Faith is portrayed as being something that's exercised in spite of the evidence. However that's not how the Bible defines faith. This post at Ratio Christi explains what the Biblical definition of faith is.
Monday, July 9, 2012
Discovery of Higgs boson particle
The apparent discovery of the Higgs boson particle nicknamed the God particle is exciting (this link explains a little more about it http://bit.ly/N8P3GP).
At first when it was released that there would be an announcement on the discovery of Higgs boson I saw several atheists jump all over this. It surprised me because to my recollection this discovery would do nothing to disprove the existence of God. Come to find out it was a case of some not understanding science and assuming because of the particles nickname they it would be proof of no God. (The article explains the nickname http://bit.ly/N8P3GP).
I find it ironic that a vocal group that opposes the existence of God based on science has very little knowledge of science. Clearly not all atheists are this uniformed about science but many of the one's who make noise are especially the "celebrity" atheists we see in the media. I even saw it called Higgs Dixon (boson is the particle that Higgs predicted. I'm not sure who Dixon is.) by an atheist who said they'd been following it closely. To be fair many theists show similar ignorance on their own position and I'm equally critical of them.
The discovery of the particle that was predicted is a huge one that should be celebrated. A Noble prize may even come out of this. However don't believe all the proclamations you read or are implied that this somehow does away with God. Read up on it and decide for yourself.
EDIT: The person who called it Higgs Dixon let me know that was just a mistake. They had made multiple posts on Higgs boson within a FB dicussion but corrected me and said they had never claimed to follow it closely they were just following it.
At first when it was released that there would be an announcement on the discovery of Higgs boson I saw several atheists jump all over this. It surprised me because to my recollection this discovery would do nothing to disprove the existence of God. Come to find out it was a case of some not understanding science and assuming because of the particles nickname they it would be proof of no God. (The article explains the nickname http://bit.ly/N8P3GP).
I find it ironic that a vocal group that opposes the existence of God based on science has very little knowledge of science. Clearly not all atheists are this uniformed about science but many of the one's who make noise are especially the "celebrity" atheists we see in the media. I even saw it called Higgs Dixon (boson is the particle that Higgs predicted. I'm not sure who Dixon is.) by an atheist who said they'd been following it closely. To be fair many theists show similar ignorance on their own position and I'm equally critical of them.
The discovery of the particle that was predicted is a huge one that should be celebrated. A Noble prize may even come out of this. However don't believe all the proclamations you read or are implied that this somehow does away with God. Read up on it and decide for yourself.
EDIT: The person who called it Higgs Dixon let me know that was just a mistake. They had made multiple posts on Higgs boson within a FB dicussion but corrected me and said they had never claimed to follow it closely they were just following it.
Monday, July 2, 2012
Why a Vast Universe Makes Sense
Why is the universe so mind bogglingly huge? Here's a blog post at PleaseConvinceMe.com exploring the question: PleaseConvinceMe Blog: Why a Vast Universe Makes Sense
Tuesday, June 26, 2012
What About People Who Never Hear About Jesus?
One of the questions I've been asked in the past is "What happens to people who've never heard of Jesus?" Clearly Jesus taught that he is the only way to heaven. Speaking to Thomas:
Here's a post on what William Craig Lane teaches about people who have never hear of Jesus at the Wintery Knight blog.
| Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me."
John 14:6
|
| No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him
John 6:44
|
Here's a post on what William Craig Lane teaches about people who have never hear of Jesus at the Wintery Knight blog.
Sunday, June 24, 2012
Links to recent read articles
A few articles that I found interesting last week....
Youth Need Apologetics
Why Isn't God More Obvious?
How Can We Show Love to Homosexuals? (Video)
Bad Objections: Nothing as a Cause of Something
A Case for Apologetics
Is Atheism a Faith?
Are All Religions the Same?
10 Principles Every Dad Needs to Know
What is the Trinity?
The Multiverse Theory
Saturday, June 23, 2012
What matters more? Beliefs vs Behavior
In the last week or two I saw multiple posts on Facebook of the same saying. It was a picture of a chalkboard with this written on it: Beliefs don't make you a better person behavior does.
It does matter how we behave and how we treat others, I think that is pretty obvious to most of us. However, the implication in the statement is that beliefs don't matter or that beliefs and behavior don't have anything to do with one another. Is that really true? Beliefs lead to behavior. We may act contradictory to our beliefs (I recently wrote a post about that) but you can't just separate beliefs from behavior. For example, the belief that certain people groups are subhuman led to Hitler murdering over 6 million Jews and 15 million others. Yes, that's a counter example to the saying because that behavior clearly was not better than not murdering people but it shows that beliefs do matter.
We see things all the time where behavior was apparently good but the belief behind it wasn't. Someone might do something nice for another person but the only reason they do it is because it will benefit them personally. Suppose Bob wants something that Martha has. Martha is a window and her husband had a really nice collection of tools. Bob covets the tools but knows that Martha won't sell the tools to just anyone. Bob doesn't particularly like Martha and in fact he can't stand her but he mows her yard and fixes a few things around her house with those tools. Martha is very grateful and eventual asks Bob if he'd like to have her husbands tools at a price that's 1/2 of their value. Bob of course buys the tools.
Now let's take another look at this same situation and the reason Bob helps Martha. Bob sees that Martha has lost her husband and needs help. He's aware that her husband was quite handy around the house and had an extensive tool collection. Bob sees that Martha's yard isn't getting mowed and her house needs some repairs. Out of compassion he offers to mow the yard with her mower and fix things with her tools. Martha wants to show her appreciation and offers to sell Bob the tools at 1/2 price and he buys them.
The outcome is exactly the same in both instances, the behavior doesn't change. Someone on the outside looking in might say "Martha got benefit and so did Bob. It was fair." But the question here isn't about fairness it's about whether Bob's behavior made him a better person or not. In which scenario is Bob a better person? The second one of course because we recognize that Bob's motivation (his beliefs) are good. In the first scenario he is taking advantage of Martha and in the second one he is helping out of compassion. Same behavior but different beliefs.
We've all seen this type of situation and if we're honest we've all done it. It makes none of us a better person. Behavior does matter and is extremely important but the beliefs behind our behavior are just as important and motivate our behavior.
It does matter how we behave and how we treat others, I think that is pretty obvious to most of us. However, the implication in the statement is that beliefs don't matter or that beliefs and behavior don't have anything to do with one another. Is that really true? Beliefs lead to behavior. We may act contradictory to our beliefs (I recently wrote a post about that) but you can't just separate beliefs from behavior. For example, the belief that certain people groups are subhuman led to Hitler murdering over 6 million Jews and 15 million others. Yes, that's a counter example to the saying because that behavior clearly was not better than not murdering people but it shows that beliefs do matter.
We see things all the time where behavior was apparently good but the belief behind it wasn't. Someone might do something nice for another person but the only reason they do it is because it will benefit them personally. Suppose Bob wants something that Martha has. Martha is a window and her husband had a really nice collection of tools. Bob covets the tools but knows that Martha won't sell the tools to just anyone. Bob doesn't particularly like Martha and in fact he can't stand her but he mows her yard and fixes a few things around her house with those tools. Martha is very grateful and eventual asks Bob if he'd like to have her husbands tools at a price that's 1/2 of their value. Bob of course buys the tools.
Now let's take another look at this same situation and the reason Bob helps Martha. Bob sees that Martha has lost her husband and needs help. He's aware that her husband was quite handy around the house and had an extensive tool collection. Bob sees that Martha's yard isn't getting mowed and her house needs some repairs. Out of compassion he offers to mow the yard with her mower and fix things with her tools. Martha wants to show her appreciation and offers to sell Bob the tools at 1/2 price and he buys them.
The outcome is exactly the same in both instances, the behavior doesn't change. Someone on the outside looking in might say "Martha got benefit and so did Bob. It was fair." But the question here isn't about fairness it's about whether Bob's behavior made him a better person or not. In which scenario is Bob a better person? The second one of course because we recognize that Bob's motivation (his beliefs) are good. In the first scenario he is taking advantage of Martha and in the second one he is helping out of compassion. Same behavior but different beliefs.
We've all seen this type of situation and if we're honest we've all done it. It makes none of us a better person. Behavior does matter and is extremely important but the beliefs behind our behavior are just as important and motivate our behavior.
Friday, June 22, 2012
The Things I Do
There are times when I wonder what I'm doing. It's the struggle of the person I am and the person I want to be. The times when I do things I don't want to do and those things which are inconsistent with what I believe as a Christian. It's a swear word or gossiping. It's a sharp response in anger or an indifferent attitude towards someone in need or even worse behavior. Paul wrote about this very struggle he had:
Paul wrote much of the New Testament and was a convert to Christianity when he met the resurrected Jesus on the road to Damascus. He traveled all over preaching and defending the gospel and was eventually martyred for his faith. Yet here he is admitting that he struggles to not do things contrary to his faith. It brings comfort to me every time I read this.
Much of the criticism Christians get is because they are seen as hypocrites. They are seen as saying one thing and doing another. However, I'm not sure I've ever known anyone who hasn't done this, Christian or not. I think a more fair measure is how does someone handle themselves after realizing they've acted contradictory to their beliefs. Do they justify or deny their behavior or do they acknowledge it, own it, and work to correct it?
Knowing that Paul had these struggles helps to encourage me that I can make changes. It also reminds me that being a Christian isn't about being perfect. My shortcomings only point out to me my need for a savior. God's standard is perfection because He's holy. I am not perfect but Jesus is. All Christians should take heart when they have these struggles that they are not alone. The good news is none of us need to be alone with any struggles and if we accept Jesus' sacrifice we can have someone to always go through these struggles with us.
| For what I am doing, I do not understand; for I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate.
Romans 8:15
|
| For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want.
Romans 8:19
|
Paul wrote much of the New Testament and was a convert to Christianity when he met the resurrected Jesus on the road to Damascus. He traveled all over preaching and defending the gospel and was eventually martyred for his faith. Yet here he is admitting that he struggles to not do things contrary to his faith. It brings comfort to me every time I read this.
Much of the criticism Christians get is because they are seen as hypocrites. They are seen as saying one thing and doing another. However, I'm not sure I've ever known anyone who hasn't done this, Christian or not. I think a more fair measure is how does someone handle themselves after realizing they've acted contradictory to their beliefs. Do they justify or deny their behavior or do they acknowledge it, own it, and work to correct it?
Knowing that Paul had these struggles helps to encourage me that I can make changes. It also reminds me that being a Christian isn't about being perfect. My shortcomings only point out to me my need for a savior. God's standard is perfection because He's holy. I am not perfect but Jesus is. All Christians should take heart when they have these struggles that they are not alone. The good news is none of us need to be alone with any struggles and if we accept Jesus' sacrifice we can have someone to always go through these struggles with us.
Wednesday, June 20, 2012
Sunday, June 17, 2012
Saturday, June 16, 2012
Why Does It Matter What We Believe?
Our culture is one that says it gives equal value to all beliefs. You hear people say things like "Who are you to judge?" or "That might be true for you but it's not for me." or "Jesus works for you but you shouldn't force him on others." We see cars with the coexist bumper sticker where the letters are the various symbols from world religions with the implication being that all religions are equal or say the same thing. However, our culture doesn't actually believe this in practice. If you want to test this try giving an opposing opinion to someone who clings to 'all beliefs are equal' on gay marriage, abortion, or any other hot social issue. Guaranteed they won't think your belief has equal value and you're likely to be labeled or thought of as intolerant or bigotted no matter what side you're on.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think all beliefs are equal or true. I respect that others have a different belief but that doesn't mean I accept it as true. That's because truth is true no matter what anyone believes about what's true. For instance it's never ok to torture 2 year olds for fun. Even if someone believes it's ok, that doesn't mean that it's actually ok.
I had a conversation with a Wiccan one time and it was her belief that we each got to decided what was right and wrong. I asked if it was ok if someone decided it was right for them to rape her. Of course she objected and said it's against the law so it wouldn't be right. I asked then if it were legal to rape her would that make it right. She said well it's not legal. I said then based her belief killing Jews was ok. She of course said no it's not, I don't think that's ok! I said well Germany's leadership decided it was ok and they killed millions of Jews and it was legal in Germany so by your belief it must be ok. She initially said it wasn't her business because they could do what they wanted. I challenged her on this and said so you have no problem with the holocaust because Germany decided it was ok? She back tracked and was stuck in her own contradictory belief. I said would be ok if it was legal to kill Wiccans? At this point she just wanted to stop the conversation and I let it go.
The reason she was stuck was because her belief system didn't even hold up to it's own standard. She didn't really believe that what each person, state, or government decides is ok just because they agree on it. There is never ever a time where it's ok to torture a 2 year old for fun or kill Jews because they're Jews, but yet her belief system when taken to it's natural conclusion allowed that it was ok if enough people in a social group decided it was ok.
Beliefs when taken to their logical conclusions matter. Beliefs which are contradictory or opposing can not both be true at the same time. Jesus can't be the only way and not be the only way at the same time. He either is the only way or is not the only way. I think the evidence says that He is the only way and therefore anything that contradicts that is false.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think all beliefs are equal or true. I respect that others have a different belief but that doesn't mean I accept it as true. That's because truth is true no matter what anyone believes about what's true. For instance it's never ok to torture 2 year olds for fun. Even if someone believes it's ok, that doesn't mean that it's actually ok.
I had a conversation with a Wiccan one time and it was her belief that we each got to decided what was right and wrong. I asked if it was ok if someone decided it was right for them to rape her. Of course she objected and said it's against the law so it wouldn't be right. I asked then if it were legal to rape her would that make it right. She said well it's not legal. I said then based her belief killing Jews was ok. She of course said no it's not, I don't think that's ok! I said well Germany's leadership decided it was ok and they killed millions of Jews and it was legal in Germany so by your belief it must be ok. She initially said it wasn't her business because they could do what they wanted. I challenged her on this and said so you have no problem with the holocaust because Germany decided it was ok? She back tracked and was stuck in her own contradictory belief. I said would be ok if it was legal to kill Wiccans? At this point she just wanted to stop the conversation and I let it go.
The reason she was stuck was because her belief system didn't even hold up to it's own standard. She didn't really believe that what each person, state, or government decides is ok just because they agree on it. There is never ever a time where it's ok to torture a 2 year old for fun or kill Jews because they're Jews, but yet her belief system when taken to it's natural conclusion allowed that it was ok if enough people in a social group decided it was ok.
Beliefs when taken to their logical conclusions matter. Beliefs which are contradictory or opposing can not both be true at the same time. Jesus can't be the only way and not be the only way at the same time. He either is the only way or is not the only way. I think the evidence says that He is the only way and therefore anything that contradicts that is false.
Monday, May 21, 2012
Finally Settled In
The past 18 months have represented a lot of change. We moved 4 times and 1,200 miles, changed jobs, sold a house, built a house, and just generally uprooted our lives to be closer to most of our family. It's something we'd talked about doing for a long time but when it actually came time to do it, it was much harder than we expected. We had to leave our daughter and her family, really great friends, the church we'd attended for 13 years, and countless other things we enjoyed in our 16 years in Colorado.
We'd prayed for a long time to get here and God granted our request. It wasn't exactly how we'd envisioned it but it rarely ever is. It was grander than we'd asked for and at the same time it was harder than we'd asked for. I think sometimes we forget that growth is a process and with growth comes pain. Sometimes a lot of pain and sometimes a little pain but growth rarely comes with no pain.
I won't list all the things God has done for us because some of it is personal and writing about it in a blog like this can come across in a way it's not intended. I'm more than happy to share it more personally and individually with those that want to hear it. What I will say is that all the glory goes to God. He made us be patient and He did it on his timeline not ours. Prayers aren't always answered or at least the answer isn't always 'Yes', many times it's 'No' and many other times it's 'Not now'. God is not a genie where we rub the lamp, make our wish, and it's granted. When we ask for those things that are in accordance with His will and purpose for our lives I believe he grants those things for us.
We are still struggling some with the adjustment to our new lives but we are also grateful. We didn't earn any of what's been given to us and that's the way it works with God. We can't do enough to earn His favor but He does it anyway and many times He does it bigger than what we'd asked for. I've learned that's the way I like it because when I look back if I got exactly what I asked for I wouldn't be where I am today.
I'm hoping now that things are settled down enough that I can begin to write my thoughts again about the Christian worldview. I've definitely grown over the last 18 months and I hope to share some of that in my upcoming posts.
We'd prayed for a long time to get here and God granted our request. It wasn't exactly how we'd envisioned it but it rarely ever is. It was grander than we'd asked for and at the same time it was harder than we'd asked for. I think sometimes we forget that growth is a process and with growth comes pain. Sometimes a lot of pain and sometimes a little pain but growth rarely comes with no pain.
I won't list all the things God has done for us because some of it is personal and writing about it in a blog like this can come across in a way it's not intended. I'm more than happy to share it more personally and individually with those that want to hear it. What I will say is that all the glory goes to God. He made us be patient and He did it on his timeline not ours. Prayers aren't always answered or at least the answer isn't always 'Yes', many times it's 'No' and many other times it's 'Not now'. God is not a genie where we rub the lamp, make our wish, and it's granted. When we ask for those things that are in accordance with His will and purpose for our lives I believe he grants those things for us.
We are still struggling some with the adjustment to our new lives but we are also grateful. We didn't earn any of what's been given to us and that's the way it works with God. We can't do enough to earn His favor but He does it anyway and many times He does it bigger than what we'd asked for. I've learned that's the way I like it because when I look back if I got exactly what I asked for I wouldn't be where I am today.
I'm hoping now that things are settled down enough that I can begin to write my thoughts again about the Christian worldview. I've definitely grown over the last 18 months and I hope to share some of that in my upcoming posts.
Sunday, February 26, 2012
Saturday, February 25, 2012
What do worldviews and truth have to do with each other?
A worldview is the lens through which we see the world. There are many worldviews held amongst the people of the world. There are Biblical, materialistic, atheistic, Marxist, relativistic, and the list goes on. Why does it matter what worldview we hold? It matters because when a worldview matches up with how the world actually is (aka reality) that's called truth. Believing something false can have serious consequences.
I read a poll recently (I can't remember the source) that 6% of Americans (that's over 2,000,000 people) believe lunar landings never happened and were staged in a movie studio. However, given the evidence this worldview doesn't reflect reality. Now the consequences of this worldview probably aren't too serious. It might cause embarrassment or ridicule but it's unlikely it's going to affect your health or well being. However, other worldviews have serious consequences. We all know that Hitler's worldview led to the holocaust and the execution of millions.
This is why it's important to examine the evidence and defend the truth of the Christian worldview. There is an abundance of evidence to support the Biblical worldview and the Christian worldview best explains the world around us. Others would have you believe that Christianity and science are at odds or reason is the enemy of faith. However, that viewpoint is a pretty new phenomena in terms of human history. The first scientists were Christians and the Christian tradition is steeped with great philosophers we have defended the faith going back centuries.
All of this isn't to say that all non-Christian worldviews lead to the holocaust. However, on a more personal level if Jesus was a real person in history and he was the son of God then what he had to say matters. Jesus said "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me." John 14:6 (NLT). If that's true and Jesus is the only way to heaven then having a worldview other than that has real consequences. That's why all Christian's have a responsibility to provide answers for those who ask. Peter wrote "Instead, you must worship Christ as Lord of your life. And if someone asks about your Christian hope, always be ready to explain it. But do this in a gentle and respectful way." 1 Peter 3:15 (NLT).
If you don't have answers to the tough questions do some reading and get them. There are lots of great resources out there and this blog references several of them. But know that there are answers to those questions and take hope that the Christian worldview best explains and matches up with reality. Go to the resources below and search their websites on specific questions you have. There is great material on these websites and will no doubt lead you to other great resources as well.
Resources
Please Convince Me (www.pleaseconvinceme.com)
Stand to Reason (www.str.org)
Apologetics 315 (www.apologetics315.com)
I read a poll recently (I can't remember the source) that 6% of Americans (that's over 2,000,000 people) believe lunar landings never happened and were staged in a movie studio. However, given the evidence this worldview doesn't reflect reality. Now the consequences of this worldview probably aren't too serious. It might cause embarrassment or ridicule but it's unlikely it's going to affect your health or well being. However, other worldviews have serious consequences. We all know that Hitler's worldview led to the holocaust and the execution of millions.
This is why it's important to examine the evidence and defend the truth of the Christian worldview. There is an abundance of evidence to support the Biblical worldview and the Christian worldview best explains the world around us. Others would have you believe that Christianity and science are at odds or reason is the enemy of faith. However, that viewpoint is a pretty new phenomena in terms of human history. The first scientists were Christians and the Christian tradition is steeped with great philosophers we have defended the faith going back centuries.
All of this isn't to say that all non-Christian worldviews lead to the holocaust. However, on a more personal level if Jesus was a real person in history and he was the son of God then what he had to say matters. Jesus said "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me." John 14:6 (NLT). If that's true and Jesus is the only way to heaven then having a worldview other than that has real consequences. That's why all Christian's have a responsibility to provide answers for those who ask. Peter wrote "Instead, you must worship Christ as Lord of your life. And if someone asks about your Christian hope, always be ready to explain it. But do this in a gentle and respectful way." 1 Peter 3:15 (NLT).
If you don't have answers to the tough questions do some reading and get them. There are lots of great resources out there and this blog references several of them. But know that there are answers to those questions and take hope that the Christian worldview best explains and matches up with reality. Go to the resources below and search their websites on specific questions you have. There is great material on these websites and will no doubt lead you to other great resources as well.
Resources
Please Convince Me (www.pleaseconvinceme.com)
Stand to Reason (www.str.org)
Apologetics 315 (www.apologetics315.com)
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Is truth unknowable?
One of my favorite movie scenes is in A Few Good Men. Tom Cruise is cross examining Jack Nicholson during a military court marshal about an incident that happened on the battle field. We've probably all seen or at least heard someone say the famous line that Nicholson uses. Here's the clip just because I love the imaginery of it.
I'll get back to the clip in a minute. A few years back my brother was out hunting with his son. They were looking for deer and my nephew spots some but my brother couldn't see them. He immediately realized that he needed eyeglasses. His vision had degraded over time like it does for most of us and it was so gradual he hadn't noticed it. The fix was easy, he went to the eye Dr. and got glasses. But it took my nephew, who had better eyesight, to point it out to him. Imagine if he went to the eye Dr. and the Dr. told him he needed glasses to be able to see things and my brother replied "That's just your perception that my eyesight is bad. How can you know that? I can see all kinds of things so I don't accept your perception." That's kind of absurd but people do that with the world around them all the time.
I first encountered this in college or at least it was the first time I paid attention to this kind of thinking. I took a philosophy class and one of the philosophiers we studied was Immanual Kant. In a nutshell Kant says we can't really know the world around us all we know is what we perceive. In otherwords we "Kant" know the truth. At the time I felt like this was a bunch of hooey because my own experience about the world told me otherwise but I didn't know how to refute it. This kind of thinking and variations of it are rampant in our society but is it actually true? Can we know truth or is truth unknowable?
Any statement that makes a claim about the world must hold valid against it's own claim. If I say "Don't believe a word I say" that statement must apply to itself. So in this example I'm asking you to "Believe me that you shouldn't believe a word I say". Believe me but don't believe me. That statement doesn't even stand up to it's own claim so therefore it's false. This is a logical fallacy because it's self contradictory.
So when someone says "Truth isn't knowable" Ask them "Is it true that truth isn't knowable?" Or "How do you know that truth isn't knowable?" This statement commits the self contradictory logic fallacy though and many times they miss the point completely. They will likely give some long explanation about how they know that truth isn't knowable. Sometimes they even think you're pulling some sort of slight of hand or tricking them but you're just applying their own statement to itself. They are telling you that truth isn't knowable but then go on tell you something that they know about truth, that it's unknowable. The statement can't stand up to it's own claim and therefore is false. In otherwords their statement can't handle the truth!
I'll get back to the clip in a minute. A few years back my brother was out hunting with his son. They were looking for deer and my nephew spots some but my brother couldn't see them. He immediately realized that he needed eyeglasses. His vision had degraded over time like it does for most of us and it was so gradual he hadn't noticed it. The fix was easy, he went to the eye Dr. and got glasses. But it took my nephew, who had better eyesight, to point it out to him. Imagine if he went to the eye Dr. and the Dr. told him he needed glasses to be able to see things and my brother replied "That's just your perception that my eyesight is bad. How can you know that? I can see all kinds of things so I don't accept your perception." That's kind of absurd but people do that with the world around them all the time.
I first encountered this in college or at least it was the first time I paid attention to this kind of thinking. I took a philosophy class and one of the philosophiers we studied was Immanual Kant. In a nutshell Kant says we can't really know the world around us all we know is what we perceive. In otherwords we "Kant" know the truth. At the time I felt like this was a bunch of hooey because my own experience about the world told me otherwise but I didn't know how to refute it. This kind of thinking and variations of it are rampant in our society but is it actually true? Can we know truth or is truth unknowable?
Any statement that makes a claim about the world must hold valid against it's own claim. If I say "Don't believe a word I say" that statement must apply to itself. So in this example I'm asking you to "Believe me that you shouldn't believe a word I say". Believe me but don't believe me. That statement doesn't even stand up to it's own claim so therefore it's false. This is a logical fallacy because it's self contradictory.
So when someone says "Truth isn't knowable" Ask them "Is it true that truth isn't knowable?" Or "How do you know that truth isn't knowable?" This statement commits the self contradictory logic fallacy though and many times they miss the point completely. They will likely give some long explanation about how they know that truth isn't knowable. Sometimes they even think you're pulling some sort of slight of hand or tricking them but you're just applying their own statement to itself. They are telling you that truth isn't knowable but then go on tell you something that they know about truth, that it's unknowable. The statement can't stand up to it's own claim and therefore is false. In otherwords their statement can't handle the truth!
Sunday, February 12, 2012
Is Reason Really an Enemy of Faith?
Here is a link to an article that answers the charge that reason is the enemy of faith.
Is Reason Really an Enemy of Faith? By J. Warner Wallace at PleaseConvinceMe.com
Is Reason Really an Enemy of Faith? By J. Warner Wallace at PleaseConvinceMe.com
Saturday, February 11, 2012
DNA by chance?
In the movie Dumb and Dumber Lloyd asks Mary what are the chances that they'll be together and the following clip shows what happens in the movie.
We laugh because we know she's telling him there is no chance. This clip comes to mind when really examining the probability of DNA arising by chance.
My career area of expertise is computer information systems so I'm not a molecular biologist or a mathmetician. I would say though that I have a very good lay understanding of these areas because of my interest in the subjects. So I'll just try to summarize what the actual chances are of a cell forming by chance and random variation. See my previous post on what DNA is and how it works.
Proteins are the machines in the body that make life tick. Let's take a short functioning protein of a chain of 150 amino acids. I'll spare you all the math behind it but it can be referenced in the book I give below. The odds of getting one functional protein in a chain of 150 amino acids from the prebiotic soup (the chemical condition that would have existed for proteins to form by chance) is no better than 1 in 10164. How big is that number?
However there's more. The 1 in 10164 chance is just the probably of one protein being formed. A cell is made up of many proteins. A "simple" cell needs at least 250 proteins each made up of at least a chain of 150 amino acids. To get the probability of the most simple cell being created by chance and random variation you multiple that out and get a 1 in 1041,000 chance. That number is really not even comprehensible. It's certainly a lot less than a 1 in million chance.
It would be like sitting down to play poker against someone and every hand they had a royal flush. One, you'd expect. Two in a row you'd be amazed. Three in a row and you'd be highly suspicious and four in a row you'd know it was fixed. This chance is way more than 4 royal flushes in a row. So why is it that some scientists still cling to chance as the cause for life? Well, the truth is more and more non-theistic (agnostic or atheistic) scientists are doubting the chance explanation. However, in spite of the actual data and facts there are still many who hold on to chance as being the explanation for life. Because the facts and science don't actually support chance as being the best explanation for the origin of life there has to be something else at play here. What is it? Whatever it is it's certainly not because science supports it as being the best or even a good explanation.
So we can take confidence in a position of intelligent design as being not only a reasonable explanation given the facts, science, and evidence but we can take confidence in it being the best explanation. Many would have you believe that intelligent design is not science or can't be supported by science. Take another look at the probability of chance explaining our existence. You can't look at that and say objectively that ID isn't a better option than chance.
I've done a lot of summarizing for these numbers and the details can be found in the book Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design
which also has extensive bibliography to site the references for the calculations in Chapter 8 and 9. If nothing else you should take away that the rhetoric about ID not being scientific or supported by science is just plain false and likely uninformed.
We laugh because we know she's telling him there is no chance. This clip comes to mind when really examining the probability of DNA arising by chance.
My career area of expertise is computer information systems so I'm not a molecular biologist or a mathmetician. I would say though that I have a very good lay understanding of these areas because of my interest in the subjects. So I'll just try to summarize what the actual chances are of a cell forming by chance and random variation. See my previous post on what DNA is and how it works.
Proteins are the machines in the body that make life tick. Let's take a short functioning protein of a chain of 150 amino acids. I'll spare you all the math behind it but it can be referenced in the book I give below. The odds of getting one functional protein in a chain of 150 amino acids from the prebiotic soup (the chemical condition that would have existed for proteins to form by chance) is no better than 1 in 10164. How big is that number?
| 1016 | Seconds since the Big Bang |
| 1065 | Atoms in our galaxy |
| 1080 | Protons, electrons, and neutrons in the observable universe |
| 10139 | Number of possible events that could have taken place in the observable universe since the Big Bang |
However there's more. The 1 in 10164 chance is just the probably of one protein being formed. A cell is made up of many proteins. A "simple" cell needs at least 250 proteins each made up of at least a chain of 150 amino acids. To get the probability of the most simple cell being created by chance and random variation you multiple that out and get a 1 in 1041,000 chance. That number is really not even comprehensible. It's certainly a lot less than a 1 in million chance.
It would be like sitting down to play poker against someone and every hand they had a royal flush. One, you'd expect. Two in a row you'd be amazed. Three in a row and you'd be highly suspicious and four in a row you'd know it was fixed. This chance is way more than 4 royal flushes in a row. So why is it that some scientists still cling to chance as the cause for life? Well, the truth is more and more non-theistic (agnostic or atheistic) scientists are doubting the chance explanation. However, in spite of the actual data and facts there are still many who hold on to chance as being the explanation for life. Because the facts and science don't actually support chance as being the best explanation for the origin of life there has to be something else at play here. What is it? Whatever it is it's certainly not because science supports it as being the best or even a good explanation.
So we can take confidence in a position of intelligent design as being not only a reasonable explanation given the facts, science, and evidence but we can take confidence in it being the best explanation. Many would have you believe that intelligent design is not science or can't be supported by science. Take another look at the probability of chance explaining our existence. You can't look at that and say objectively that ID isn't a better option than chance.
I've done a lot of summarizing for these numbers and the details can be found in the book Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design
which also has extensive bibliography to site the references for the calculations in Chapter 8 and 9. If nothing else you should take away that the rhetoric about ID not being scientific or supported by science is just plain false and likely uninformed.
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
The Design of DNA
We all know about DNA. We know that each person has a unique DNA signature but do most people really know what DNA is? DNA structure was discovered in 1953 by Francis Crick and James Watson. They revealed the double helix structure that had previously been unknown. But what is DNA and what does it do? DNA encodes the proteins that do the work in the cell.
Since 1953 a lot has been learned about DNA and it's complexity. What fascinated me at first about DNA is it's similiarity to software and computers because that's my world. DNA is machine code for the genes. Computers speak in machine code (binary language). All instructions that the device you are reading this on boils down to a series of 1's and 0's called bits which when put together are called bytes. For instance the letter A in binary code is represented as 01000001. So the computer takes that and displays an A on your screen. There are programs that instruct the computer what to do with the 1's and 0's. It instructs the browser you're reading this on to display the size, color, typeface, and many other attributes of the A. These programs were written by programmers with minds which gives the computer instructions on how to process the information. DNA works exactly the same way in that it contains specific digital information that is translated and processed by a complex set of chemical machines in the body. It copies, assembles, and error corrects the proteins in our bodies. However, it's much more complex than software.
Just think about that statement for a minute. Think about some of the amazing things that software does and DNA is more advanced than that. Where does information come from? Not just any information but information with a specified purpose? Information which contains instructions for the buildings blocks of life. Do we see information which contains complex instructions coming from non-intelligent sources? When we see information containing complex instructions we know there is intelligence behind it. When I see information in DNA I can come to no other conclusion than it was created by an intelligent mind. In fact there is no reasonable evidence to suggest otherwise. Given the evidence and what we know about complex information it's completely reasonable to believe that there is intelligence behind the creation of DNA. In fact it's the most reasonable conclusion to come to given what we know and the more we find out the more we realize how complex DNA is. So the more we learn about DNA it points more and more away from chance and random variation than it does towards it.
Below are a couple links to videos on DNA. The first one is an animation of how DNA works and the second one is Dr. Stephen Meyer talking about information in DNA. Meyer also wrote the book Signature In The Cell which explains pretty clearly how DNA works and what information in the DNA is.
Since 1953 a lot has been learned about DNA and it's complexity. What fascinated me at first about DNA is it's similiarity to software and computers because that's my world. DNA is machine code for the genes. Computers speak in machine code (binary language). All instructions that the device you are reading this on boils down to a series of 1's and 0's called bits which when put together are called bytes. For instance the letter A in binary code is represented as 01000001. So the computer takes that and displays an A on your screen. There are programs that instruct the computer what to do with the 1's and 0's. It instructs the browser you're reading this on to display the size, color, typeface, and many other attributes of the A. These programs were written by programmers with minds which gives the computer instructions on how to process the information. DNA works exactly the same way in that it contains specific digital information that is translated and processed by a complex set of chemical machines in the body. It copies, assembles, and error corrects the proteins in our bodies. However, it's much more complex than software.
| "DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created"
Bill Gates
|
Just think about that statement for a minute. Think about some of the amazing things that software does and DNA is more advanced than that. Where does information come from? Not just any information but information with a specified purpose? Information which contains instructions for the buildings blocks of life. Do we see information which contains complex instructions coming from non-intelligent sources? When we see information containing complex instructions we know there is intelligence behind it. When I see information in DNA I can come to no other conclusion than it was created by an intelligent mind. In fact there is no reasonable evidence to suggest otherwise. Given the evidence and what we know about complex information it's completely reasonable to believe that there is intelligence behind the creation of DNA. In fact it's the most reasonable conclusion to come to given what we know and the more we find out the more we realize how complex DNA is. So the more we learn about DNA it points more and more away from chance and random variation than it does towards it.
Below are a couple links to videos on DNA. The first one is an animation of how DNA works and the second one is Dr. Stephen Meyer talking about information in DNA. Meyer also wrote the book Signature In The Cell which explains pretty clearly how DNA works and what information in the DNA is.
Sunday, January 22, 2012
The Design Argument
One of the arguments for God is the argument from design. Technically known as the Teleological Argument coming from the Greek telos which means design. An argument is stated premises that lead to a conclusion. If the premises are true then the conclusion follows. Many scientists believe the precision of the universe is persuasive evidence for a designer. The argument takes the following form:
How do we determine if universe is actually designed and doesn't just look designed? First we look at things that are non-natural that appear to be designed and determine if they did or didn't have a designer. Watches, cars. art, music, electronics, buildings, and anything else you can name that are non-natural all have designers. When we see these things we know intuitively that there was intelligence involved in their design and we know that they are indeed designed. In fact there is nothing in the non-natural realm that looks designed that didn't have a designer behind it. So given that all things that are non-natural that have the appearance of design have a designer it's reasonable to say that if the universe is designed it had a designer.
So how do we know the universe is designed? The fine-tuning of the universe for life is an extremely powerful piece of scientific evidence for the universe being designed. I've already posted on some of the science behind this premise in a post titled Our Awesome Universe so I won't post it again. Considering the fine-tuning in the previous post is it reasonable to say the universe is designed? The universe is highly complex and exhibits the characteristics of design therefore it's reasonable to say the universe is designed. I would even say that given the scientific evidence saying the universe is designed is more reasonable than saying the universe is not designed.
For further study
Video: Largest star ever discovered. Shows just how vast our universe is.
Books
Web
The Measurability of the Universe––a Record of the Creator’s Design Reasons To Believe: The Measurability of the Universe––a Record of the Creator’s Design
The Discovery Institute
- Every design had a designer
- The universe has highly complex design
- Therefore, the universe had a designer
How do we determine if universe is actually designed and doesn't just look designed? First we look at things that are non-natural that appear to be designed and determine if they did or didn't have a designer. Watches, cars. art, music, electronics, buildings, and anything else you can name that are non-natural all have designers. When we see these things we know intuitively that there was intelligence involved in their design and we know that they are indeed designed. In fact there is nothing in the non-natural realm that looks designed that didn't have a designer behind it. So given that all things that are non-natural that have the appearance of design have a designer it's reasonable to say that if the universe is designed it had a designer.
So how do we know the universe is designed? The fine-tuning of the universe for life is an extremely powerful piece of scientific evidence for the universe being designed. I've already posted on some of the science behind this premise in a post titled Our Awesome Universe so I won't post it again. Considering the fine-tuning in the previous post is it reasonable to say the universe is designed? The universe is highly complex and exhibits the characteristics of design therefore it's reasonable to say the universe is designed. I would even say that given the scientific evidence saying the universe is designed is more reasonable than saying the universe is not designed.
For further study
Video: Largest star ever discovered. Shows just how vast our universe is.
Books
Web
The Measurability of the Universe––a Record of the Creator’s Design Reasons To Believe: The Measurability of the Universe––a Record of the Creator’s Design
The Discovery Institute
Friday, January 20, 2012
Do Christians have a bias to believe?
Do Christians just believe to cope or because they need a crutch? And why would the skeptic be exempt from this type of coping behavior? Couldn't it be that the skeptic is taking a skeptically position in an attempt to cope with accountability to God?
Here's a post titled Do Christians Have a Bias to Believe? on bias and objective truth.
Here's a post titled Do Christians Have a Bias to Believe? on bias and objective truth.
Thursday, January 19, 2012
Introduction to ID
An interview at Apologetics315 on Intelligent Design with Casey Luskin from the Discovery Institute.
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Is faith opposed to science and logic?
Is faith just wishful thinking? Do people just cling onto God as a crutch? Here's an article at Wintery Knight discussing the issue.
Sunday, January 15, 2012
How much evidence is enough?
How much evidence does it take to believe in God, Jesus, or the reliability of the Bible? Most of the time when this question is asked or implied it's really not the question that's at hand. The question really should be what evidence does it take to believe?
Many naturalists (those who take faith that science and the natural world is all there is) will say "I want to see God appear before me" or "I want physical evidence of God". Because of their commitment to naturalism they except no other evidence for God. Since God is not a physical being they think they've proved their case that God doesn't exist. The problem with this is they accept all sorts of other things about our world that are not material, physical things. They accept love as being real but you can't touch, see, measure, or weigh love but yet no one is saying love doesn't exist. They might point to acts people do out of love but that's not love because all those things can be done just as easily in the absence of love. The most obvious problem with the premise that the natural world is all there is, is that it can't be proved through science or natural means yet they accept it any way. The statement fails to hold up under it's own assertion.
I think a parallel that comes to mind are the Casey Anthony and OJ Simpson murder trials. The evidence seems to be overwhelming in favor of a guilty verdict yet 12 jurors let them go free. Some of the jurors said afterward that they weren't comfortable convicting without an eyewitness. Despite a lot of very convincing evidence they were asking for the one piece of evidence they were never going to get.
Naturalists aren't going to see God. However, that doesn't mean there isn't a lot of very convincing evidence to support the existence of God. They'll believe things contrary to their own worldview to avoid considering God. They'll believe that the universe was created from nothing by nothing despite no one ever having observed this and it could never be observed (you can't observe nothing because once you observe it there isn't nothing). They'll believe that complex things we observe in the ancient past like pyrmiads or cave drawings were created by a mind but the most complex things in the universe that appear designed aren't, like the universe itself or the human biology.
Everyone believes in things they can't see, touch, measure, or weigh but the question of God brings with it other implications. If there is a God then we will be held accountable for what we do in this life. There is a standard above ours and if God exists that standard is set by God and we all fall miserably short of it. So it's not really that there isn't enough evidence for the existence of God it's more about the implications of the existence of God.
If you fall into this category have you actually looked at the evidence? If you haven't why not?
Resources
Many naturalists (those who take faith that science and the natural world is all there is) will say "I want to see God appear before me" or "I want physical evidence of God". Because of their commitment to naturalism they except no other evidence for God. Since God is not a physical being they think they've proved their case that God doesn't exist. The problem with this is they accept all sorts of other things about our world that are not material, physical things. They accept love as being real but you can't touch, see, measure, or weigh love but yet no one is saying love doesn't exist. They might point to acts people do out of love but that's not love because all those things can be done just as easily in the absence of love. The most obvious problem with the premise that the natural world is all there is, is that it can't be proved through science or natural means yet they accept it any way. The statement fails to hold up under it's own assertion.
I think a parallel that comes to mind are the Casey Anthony and OJ Simpson murder trials. The evidence seems to be overwhelming in favor of a guilty verdict yet 12 jurors let them go free. Some of the jurors said afterward that they weren't comfortable convicting without an eyewitness. Despite a lot of very convincing evidence they were asking for the one piece of evidence they were never going to get.
Naturalists aren't going to see God. However, that doesn't mean there isn't a lot of very convincing evidence to support the existence of God. They'll believe things contrary to their own worldview to avoid considering God. They'll believe that the universe was created from nothing by nothing despite no one ever having observed this and it could never be observed (you can't observe nothing because once you observe it there isn't nothing). They'll believe that complex things we observe in the ancient past like pyrmiads or cave drawings were created by a mind but the most complex things in the universe that appear designed aren't, like the universe itself or the human biology.
Everyone believes in things they can't see, touch, measure, or weigh but the question of God brings with it other implications. If there is a God then we will be held accountable for what we do in this life. There is a standard above ours and if God exists that standard is set by God and we all fall miserably short of it. So it's not really that there isn't enough evidence for the existence of God it's more about the implications of the existence of God.
If you fall into this category have you actually looked at the evidence? If you haven't why not?
Resources
Thursday, January 12, 2012
Is ID Science?
Those who oppose Intelligent Design (ID) on the grounds that it's not science don't really understand what ID is. Intelligent Design is not science. For that matter though neither is naturalism. ID and naturalism are conclusions about what the science tells us.
ID looks at the evidence and says the universe around us looks designed and everything complex thing we observe that looks designed has an intelligent designer (a mind). The universe is highly complex therefore the universe requires an intelligent designer. There is no "ID science", ID is a conclusion about the same scientific observations that naturalists look at.
Naturalism looks at the evidence and says the universe around us looks designed but isn't. The universe is highly complex but was created from nothing by nothing. Some naturalists say that ours is just one of multiple universes that are being generated at an infinite rate. However, multi-verses can't be observed and there is no evidence to support it.
ID is not some alternative science and it's not unsupported by science despite what some naturalists claim. It's based on sound thinking, reason, and evidence. Below are some links and resources on ID.
Intelligent design: The next decade
PleaseConvinceMe Blog: Is Intelligent Design “Dead”?
50th Peer-Reviewed Pro-ID Scientific Paper Published
Multiverse 101
Can Science Inform Our Understanding of God?
ID looks at the evidence and says the universe around us looks designed and everything complex thing we observe that looks designed has an intelligent designer (a mind). The universe is highly complex therefore the universe requires an intelligent designer. There is no "ID science", ID is a conclusion about the same scientific observations that naturalists look at.
Naturalism looks at the evidence and says the universe around us looks designed but isn't. The universe is highly complex but was created from nothing by nothing. Some naturalists say that ours is just one of multiple universes that are being generated at an infinite rate. However, multi-verses can't be observed and there is no evidence to support it.
ID is not some alternative science and it's not unsupported by science despite what some naturalists claim. It's based on sound thinking, reason, and evidence. Below are some links and resources on ID.
Intelligent design: The next decade
PleaseConvinceMe Blog: Is Intelligent Design “Dead”?
50th Peer-Reviewed Pro-ID Scientific Paper Published
Multiverse 101
Can Science Inform Our Understanding of God?