Search Results

Can an atheist rely on his brain to give him good reasons for his atheism? The late C.S. Lewis, a professor at Oxford University, did not think so. Lewis converted from atheism to Christianity and wrote extensively about why he found theism to be more rational. One of his reasons was that theism provided a basis on which to trust one’s mind to think logically and arrive at the truth. Atheism, on the other hand, implies that human brains are nothing more than the accidental products of a blind evolutionary process. As a result, brains, which are composed of physical matter, are subject to the laws of physics and chemistry, not logic. Lewis makes this point in the following passage. Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen for physical or chemical reasons to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It’s like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way the splashes arranges itself will give you a map of London. But if I can’t trust my own thinking, of course I can’t trust the arguments leading to atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I can't believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God. Learn More Short Blog: Why Do Atheists Trust Their Brains if They Are the Result of a Blind Evolutionary Process? Reference C. S. Lewis, The Case for Christianity, 1st Collier Books ed (New York: Collier Books, 1989), 395, Kindle.

Is Galileo a martyr for the cause of science? And does he represent science’s constant “defeat” of Christianity? Many people think so and they claim that religion has been hostile to the advancement of science for hundreds of years. But according to Dr. Peter Harrison (former Professor of Science and Religion at Oxford University), the story that so many people have been handed down is a distorted and oversimplified account. The truth is more complicated. Although there was a religious element to Galileo’s conflict with the Roman Catholic church, many other factors led to that event. For example, in Galileo’s time, the scientific evidence was strongly against his idea that the Earth revolved around the Sun (i.e. heliocentrism). This was mainly because a crucial scientific experiment revealed a noted absence of parallactic displacement of the stars. (See video in the link below for more.) Another factor included the effects of the Protestant Reformation which made the Catholic church very wary of anyone who wanted to interpret the Bible on their own. (Which is what Galileo seemed to be doing.) And a third factor (of several more) was the manner in which Galileo insulted the Pope in his book called, 𝘋𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘰𝘨𝘶𝘦 𝘊𝘰𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘛𝘸𝘰 𝘊𝘩𝘪𝘦𝘧 𝘞𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥 𝘚𝘺𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘮𝘴. The idea that Galileo was opposed solely because of religious bigotry, is just false. The truth is more complicated than the distorted story we have been handed down. Learn More Short Blog: Stephen Hawking Got Philosophy of Science Wrong External Video (below): Galileo: Science vs the Church?

One of the amazing discoveries of physics is the extremely precise fine-tuning of certain constants found in the laws of nature. These constants must be set exactly right in order for life to exist anywhere in the universe. Michael Turner, an astrophysicist at the University of Chicago and Fermilab puts it this way: “The precision is as if one could throw a dart across the entire universe and hit a bullseye one millimeter in diameter on the other side.” Given this amazing fine-tuning, there are only three possible explanations: chance, necessity, or design. Since there are no reasons to believe the fine-tuning is necessary (i.e. it must be this way), some people have held that it is the result of chance. But is this the best explanation? Many philosophers and scientists argue that the fine-tuning is best explained as the result of design. And if the universe has been designed then there must be a designer who brought about that design. The next question becomes: Who is the designer? From physics alone, one cannot make any conclusions. But through philosophy (i.e. other philosophical arguments) one can conclude that this being must exist outside of space and time and is very similar to what theists describe as God. Learn More Short Blog: Christianity and Science not in Perpetual War External Video (below): The Fine-Tuning Argument External Video (below): The Fine-Tuning of the Universe

The issue of homosexuality is certainly controversial. Part of the controversy involves the question of whether people are “born gay.” Despite what has been frequently touted in the media, there is no conclusive evidence that anyone is born with same-sex desires. There may be genetic factors involved but these do not necessarily determine someone’s sexual orientation. The American Psychological Association comments on this issue. What causes a person to have a particular sexual orientation? There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Learn More Short Blog: Opposition to Gay Marriage Equates to “Anti-Gay”? Reference “Answers to Your Questions for a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality,” https://www.apa.org, 2008, https://www.apa.org/topics/lgbt/orientation.

Did Christians really think the earth was flat? The answer is no. Jeffrey Burton Russell, Professor Emeritus of History at UCSB, thoroughly discredits this idea in his book Inventing the Flat Earth (1991). He explains that the idea was started and spread in the 1800s by individuals such as Washington Irving, Antoine-Jean Letronne, John William Draper and Andrew Dickson White. Contrary to their ideas, Russell points out that those living in the medieval era knew the earth was a sphere. And this fact was known by the vast majority of educated people as far back as the ancient Greeks - hundreds of years before the medieval era. In addition to Russell, other historians have been making this same point for decades. Given this, one might wonder why the idea continues in the modern mind. Russell gives his opinion on the matter in the following quote. The reason for promoting both the specific lie about the sphericity of the earth and the general lie that religion and science are in natural and eternal conflict in Western society, is to defend Darwinism. The answer is really only slightly more complicated than that bald statement. The flat-earth lie was ammunition against the creationists. The argument was simple and powerful, if not elegant: “Look how stupid these Christians are. They are always getting in the way of science and progress. These people who deny evolution today are exactly the same sort of people as those idiots who for at least a thousand years denied that the earth was round. How stupid can you get?” But that is not the truth. Reference Jeffrey Burton Russell, “Myth of the Flat Earth,” American Scientific Affiliation Conference, August 4, 1997, http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/russell/FlatEarth.html.

Gulshan Fatima was born and raised in a prominent and devout Muslim family living in Pakistan. As an infant, she contracted typhoid fever and as a result, became crippled. Later in life, when medical doctors declared that her situation was hopeless, she went on a pilgrimage to Mecca and prayed to Allah for his miraculous healing. When this also failed to bring about her healing, Gulshan decided to start praying to Jesus. After three years, Jesus appeared in her room in a blinding light. The details of what happened next are as follows. There were 12 figures in a row and the figure in the middle, the thirteenth, was larger and brighter than the others… Suddenly a voice said, ‘Get up. This is the path you have been seeking. I am Jesus Son of Mary, to whom you have been praying, and now I am standing in front of you. You get up and come to me.’ I started to weep. ‘Oh Jesus, I’m crippled. I can’t get up.’ He said, ‘Stand up and come to me. I am Jesus.’ When I hesitated he said it a second time. Then as I still doubted he said it for the third time, ‘Stand up.’ And I, Gulshan Fatima, who had been crippled on my bed for nineteen years, felt new strength flowing into my wasted limbs. I put my foot on the ground and stood up. Then I ran a few paces and fell at the feet of the vision. I was bathing in the purest light and it was burning as bright as the sun and moon together… I had not imagined the scene… for I had the evidence in my body. I took a few steps, then a few more. I walked from wall to wall, up and down, up and down. My limbs were unmistakably healthy… Learn More Short Blog: Ahmadiyya Muslim Accepts Triunity of God Reference Gulshan Esther and Thelma Sangster, The Torn Veil: The Story of Sister Gulshan Esther (1984; repr., Basingstoke: Zondervan, 2004), 59–60.

Do philosophical arguments for the existence of God ever convince anyone? In the case of Edward Feser, they certainly did. Feser was born and raised in a Catholic family but gave up his Catholicism, and then his theism, while still a young man. He went on to engage in intensive study of the philosophy of mind, philosophy of language, and various other philosophical disciplines. It was not until later in life, when he began to take a second look at the arguments for the existence of God, that he thought maybe they might have something to them. He describes the transition from atheism to theism as follows. I don’t know exactly when everything clicked.  There was no single event, but a gradual transformation.  As I taught and thought about the arguments for God’s existence, and in particular the cosmological argument, I went from thinking “These arguments are no good” to thinking “These arguments are a little better than they are given credit for” and then to “These arguments are actually kind of interesting.”  Eventually it hit me: “Oh my goodness, these arguments are right after all!”  By the summer of 2001 I would find myself trying to argue my wife’s skeptical physicist brother-in-law into philosophical theism on the train the four of us were taking through eastern Europe.… Speaking for myself, anyway, I can say this much.  When I was an undergrad I came across the saying that learning a little philosophy leads you away from God, but learning a lot of philosophy leads you back.  As a young man who had learned a little philosophy, I scoffed.  But in later years and at least in my own case, I would come to see that it’s true. Learn More Short Blog: Young Atheist Discovers Best Christian Scholars - Peter Byrom Video (below): Atheism vs Christianity Debate (with a twist) - The Campus Church Reference Edward Feser, “The Road from Atheism,” Edward Feser (blog), July 17, 2012, https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/07/road-from-atheism.html.

Elaine Howard Ecklund, a sociologist at Rice University, has done extensive research on how the study of science affects the worldview of scientists. Her research is based on a survey of 1,646 scientists at 21 elite research universities and in-depth interviews with 271 of the scientists. Her conclusions are very interesting. Our study data do not strongly support the idea that scientists simply drop their religious identities upon professional training, due to an inherent conflict between science and faith, or to institutional pressure to conform… So why (in the United States) are there a higher proportion of scientists who profess atheism, than in the general public? Ecklund writes, "It appears that those from non-religious backgrounds disproportionately self-select into scientific professions." In other words, a higher number of atheists, compared to theists, choose to become scientists. This means that science does not turn people into atheists; rather, it simply draws atheists into its fold. One other interesting result from the survey is that younger scientists are more likely to believe in God than older scientists, and they are more likely to attend religious services. If this holds throughout the career life-course for this cohort of academic scientists, it could indicate an overall shift in attitudes toward religion among those in the academy. Learn More Short Blog: Can an Atheist Rely on his Brain to be Rational? Reference Patricia Donovan, “Study Examines Religious Beliefs of Scientists - UB Reporter,” UB Reporter, July 12, 2007, https://www.buffalo.edu/ubreporter/archive/vol38/vol38n43/articles/EcklundReligiousScientists.html.

Did Charles Darwin renounce his theory of evolution and convert to Christianity on his deathbed? Ever since Darwin’s death, reports of such an event have circulated. Unfortunately, these claims are not true. The most frequently cited source for this myth comes from a woman called Lady Hope who claimed to have visited a bedridden Darwin several months before his death. However, there are numerous problems with her account including the fact that Darwin’s wife, Emma, who was a devout woman, denied that any such dramatic change occurred in her husband’s life. Another problem is that at the time when Lady Hope may have visited Darwin, he was definitely not bedridden. Even Dr. Tommy Mitchell, a representative of the young-earth creationist organization Answers in Genesis, concludes that this story is a fabrication. He writes, Given the weight of evidence, it must be concluded that Lady Hope’s story is unsupportable, even if she did actually visit Darwin. He never became a Christian, and he never renounced evolution. As much as we would like to believe that he died with a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ, it is much more likely that he didn’t. It is unfortunate that the story continues to be promoted by many sincere people who use this in an effort to discredit evolution... The evidence for, and against, Darwinism (and Christianity), needs to be examined fairly and honestly. There are excellent reasons to accept Christianity and to be skeptical of Darwinism, but the story of Darwin’s "deathbed conversion” is not one of them. Learn More Short Blog: Does the Fossil Record Support a Darwinian History of Life? Reference Tommy Mitchell, “Darwin’s Deathbed Conversion—a Legend?,” Answers in Genesis, March 31, 2009, https://answersingenesis.org/creationism/arguments-to-avoid/darwins-deathbed-conversion-a-legend/.

The Quran states that the Bible is from Allah (4:136; 29:46) and that the Bible should even be examined to determine the truthfulness of the Qur’an (10:94). The problem for Islam is that, in many cases, the Bible (which includes the four Gospel accounts) contradicts the teachings of the Quran. So how do Muslims get around this problem? How do they account for the endorsement of a book that also contradicts their sacred text? One way of doing this is to claim that The Gospel of Barnabas is actually the correct Gospel (i.e. injil) and not the canonical Gospels found in the Bible. Muslims make this claim because The Gospel of Barnabas supports many of the Quran’s claims. This, however, does not solve the problem for Muslims because of at least two main issues. First, virtually all scholars (i.e. other than a few Muslim scholars) regard this “Gospel” as a forgery of the late Middle Ages. Second, this supposed “Gospel” actually contradicts the Quran on at least one issue. Norman L. Geisler (Ph.D., Loyola University) and Abdul Saleeb (a former Muslim) point out that, …no Muslim should accept the authenticity of The Gospel of Barnabas since it clearly contradicts the Qur’an’s claim that Jesus was the Messiah. It claims, “Jesus confessed, and said the truth; ‘I am not the Messiah .… I am indeed sent to the house of Israel as a prophet of salvation; but after me shall come the Messiah” (sects. 42, 48). This is flatly contradictory to the Qur’an, which repeatedly calls Jesus the “Messiah” [the “Christ”] (cf. 5:19, 75). Learn More Short Blog: Muslim Scholar Says "Holes" in Traditional Account of Quran Reference Norman L. Geisler and Abdul Saleeb, Answering Islam: The Crescent in Light of the Cross, 2nd ed (Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Books, 2002), 306.

Intelligent Design (ID) theory is the view that living things have the appearance of being designed because they are, in fact, designed by an intelligent mind(s). Who (or what) that mind is, is something that ID is agnostic about. The designer could be the Christian God but it could also be the god of some other religion or even an extraterrestrial life form. Despite this, many critics of ID regard it as a religious attempt to “hijack” science. Many of these same people are also unwilling to acknowledge that ID has any evidence going for it, including evidence from the origin of life. James Shapiro is a Professor in the Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology at the University of Chicago. He is also a critic of ID and wrote a blog article titled, “What Is the Best Way to Deal With Supernaturalists in Science and Evolution?” The following excerpt from his article provides some telling comments for those who criticize ID with exaggerated claims. Rather than accept that evolution science is always a tentative work in progress, conventional evolutionists make absolutist statements like ‘all the facts are on my side.’ Making obviously inflated and unrealistic assertions is hardly likely to convince anyone who has serious questions. What is the alternative? ...In order to be truthful, we must acknowledge that certain questions, like the origins of the first living cells, currently have no credible scientific answer. Shapiro goes on to state his confidence that one day the question of life’s origin will be solved by a plausible scientific theory. And perhaps Shapiro’s confidence is well placed, but perhaps it isn’t. There may not be any plausible scientific theory because the first replicating cell did not, actually, come into existence through the blind forces of nature. Unless (or “until”) science provides such a plausible theory, ID remains a rational and defensible position. And given the rationality of the ID position, it is entirely possible that the designer is, in fact, the Christian God. Learn More Short Blog: Can a Universe Really Come From Nothing? Reference James Shapiro, “What Is the Best Way to Deal With Supernaturalists in Science and Evolution?,” HuffPost, June 16, 2012, https://www.huffpost.com/entry/evolution-debate_b_1425133.

For hundreds of years, many philosophers have been struggling to try and explain consciousness in the language of science. So far, a good number of philosophers would confess that they have failed. Despite this failure, many philosophers are unwilling to accept a long-standing solution – the existence of souls. Why is this? One of the objections to the "soul view” (a.k.a. substance dualism) cites Ockham’s razor. This principle states that entities should not be multiplied past what is needed to explain something. In other words, given two equally good explanations, the simpler one should be preferred. When this principle is applied to the existence of souls, the simpler explanation is that only one thing exists – physical bodies – rather than physical bodies and souls. (Or, at least, this is how the objection goes). The problem with this objection is that simpler explanations should only be preferred when they can account for all the evidence equally well. In the case of consciousness, reducing it to physical bodies/brains does not account for all the evidence. There are several reasons for this including the argument from intentionality. Put simply, the argument states that thoughts are about other things; we can have a thought about the sun or about dancing. But physical things are never about other things, they simply exist. Therefore our thoughts cannot be reduced to our physical brains. This argument, in combination with other arguments, means that Ockhams’ razor cannot be used to reject the existence of souls. The Christian philosopher, J.P. Moreland (Ph.D. in philosophy, University of Southern California), makes this point when he writes, Dualists can agree that one should not postulate dualism [i.e. souls] needlessly, but they insist that dualism [i.e. souls] is, in fact, needed to explain honestly and fairly, important, uneliminable features of human beings. The real debate, then, is not about Ockham’s razor, but about the relative merits of dualism [i.e. souls] versus physicalism [i.e. only physical bodies/brains exist]. Learn More Short Blog: How Can the Human Soul Interact With the Physical Body? Reference James Porter Moreland and William Lane Craig, Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview (Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity Press, 2003), 245.