Click to hide HTML preview
Answers to Common Questions From Non Christians
Prepared for Evangelistic Talks / Taken from Handbook of Chrisitan
Apologetics, Peter Kreeft, IVP 1994
Curtis Chang, April 23, 1999
I. Does God exist?
1. Design Argument: Staggering order and regularity. Either this
intelligible order tis product of chance or of intelligent design. Chance
seems improbable: Edwin Carlston, Princeton prof. of biology, “Probability
that our universe proceeded from sheer chance equiv. to explosion in
printing factory producing dictionary.” Design comes from mind of
designer. Therefore universe is product of intelligent Designer.
Why not just chance? To say something happened by chance is to
say it did not turn out as expected. But expectation is
impossible without order. If chance is ult. source and there
is no designed order, taken away the only background that
allows us to speak meaningfully about chance at all.
Darwinianism? All D. theory argues is species descend via
random mutation and suvival of ittest. No empirical evidence
that al creation is result of random change. Indeed empirical
science, which is heart of D, depends on faith in order (i.e.
what happend today will happen t’morrow all things being
equal).
What if order just product of our minds? Our minds are only
means which we know reality. Why does our mind seek order and
not chaos? Could it be that we are made in image of one who
has designed order and chaos?
2. Argument from morality: Real moral obligation is a fact (morality
itself and not just belief in morality are objective reality). Either
atheistic view of reality is correct or religious one. But the atheistic
one is incompatible w/ there being moral oblication. Atheism based on
random and purposeless chance. Moral obligation can hardly be rooted in
purposelessness. Therefore the religious view is more persuasive.
Moreover, morality only makes sense when connected to a person
(we don’t call molecules moral) and it is impossible to
conceive of moral principles floating around on their own,
apart from any person. Points to origin of morality in a
personal God.
Morality is just subjective, result of society or who has
power (Nietzche): No one is a consistent subjectivist. What if
I hit you in the face and took your money?
Act own conscience but no objective right? But where did this
moral principle for obeying own conscience come from. From
nature (but it is less than me), me (but how can I obligate
myself absolutely? If locksmith locks self in room, not really
locked), society (what right do my equals have to impose this?)
Only persuasive source is something superionr to me. Only
adequate ground for obligation to obey our conscience, and 10
command. are like 10 divine footprints in our psychic sand.
They rep. conscience because they are from our Maker.
3. Argument from Desire: Every natural innate desire corresponds to some
external object that can satisffy that desire (as opp. to artificial
extrinsic desire from advertising). For ex., sleep, hunger, thirst. But
there exists in us a desire which no creature, time, place on earth can
satisfy. Therefore something must exist outside of time, place, earth
which can satisfy. This is called God.
I don’t feel that desire: Really, are you perfectly happy?
Even J.P. Satre admit, “Therecomes a time when you ask of
Shakespeare even of Beethoven, ‘Is that all there is?’ Do you
think that even if you aren’t happy now, there will be
something eventually? No one has won by believing that.
God is projection of desire/view of own father: Begs the
question since we only seek psych. explanations for what we
already believe to be false. If afraid of all black dogs, we
ask about projected psych. expl. (i.e. did you have a bad exp.
as child) becasue we know all black dogs are not bad. We don’t
ask of people who aren’t afraid of all black dogs, “Did you
have a GOOD exp. w/ black dogs as child?’. Moreover. the
picture of God we have from Jesus seems to violate what we
would expect from projection in a patriarchal society where
children’s purpose is to serve somewhat remote father. Also,
would project a works oriented religion.
II.. Problem of Evil: Why do bad things happen, esp. to good people?
1. That this is a “problem” reveals some truths we DO hold. Where do we
get the expectation that bad things shouldn’t happen? We do have a
standard of Perfect Goodness implicit in our judgment.
2. Original Sin / Falleness of man: We inherit more than genes—we also
inherit sins (i.e. Bosnia, the South for years, etc.). Much of what is
evil is the result of choices we or our ancestors have made. We do have
free will. Also, we are psycho-somatic unities—as most psychologists
believe, what are minds and hearts are affect our bodies. It would make
sense if we choose to alienate ourselves from God, we also alienate
ourselves from health, life, goodness which is found in God. Image of
magnet and rings. (soul-ring loses touch w/ magnet, body-ring also suffers,
falls apart).
Evidence for the fall: Nearly every tribe, nation and religion
share similar conception of innocence lost, a time w/out evil.
This is impt. cause it shows that God was good in orig.
creation. Also, all desire happiness, completel certainty,
perfect wisdom. No one has those things. Why do we still seek
the. We are like kings and queens dressed in rags who wander
searching for thrones. If we had never reigned, why would we
seek a throne. If we had always been beggars, why would we be
discontent.
Free will (we chose sin): If no free will, all moral meaning
disappears. We do not praise, blame, command, exhort robots,
they are not morally responsible ‘cause they do not have free
will. Why did God give us free will if He knew we would misuse
it? Misleading ‘cause he could not refuse free will to human
beings and not be meaningless: you cannot refuse to give three
sides to a triangle. Nonsense does not cease to be nonsense
when we add the words ‘God can’ before it. Free will is part of
our essence. A world w/out free will would be w/out hate, but
also w/out love.
3. Redemptive nature of suffering: goodness not same as desire for pain
free existence. Evil can work for a greater good in us and in history.
God draws straight w/ crooked lines. Example of Jesus’s death and purpose.
4. This earth is not the final story. There will be a heaven which the
innocent suffering is made right and a judgment in hell which the evil is
accounted for. (Note that the people who have problem w/ Why does God
allow evil to flourish also refuse his answer in that He will finally put
an end to evil.).
III. Uniqueness of Jesus
Buddha, Confucius, Muhammad performed no miracles and did not rise from the
dead. Did not claim to save us from sin and death in own person (as opp.
to teaching). He invited crucifixtion by claiming to be God. No one ever
deserved to be crucified more than Jesus by Jewish law if He was not who he
said he was.
Arguments for Christ’s Divinity:
Trustworthiness of Jesus: Why would people believe Jesus’
incredible claim unless he gave them good reason (stories of
Gospel). To deny it would be deny him. Liar, lunatic, Lord.
Why not liar? Liars lie for selfish reason yet Jesus gave up
life for it. Why not lunatic? Psych profile of messianic
complex are opposite of what we see in jesus.
Testimony: Why did thousands suffer torture and death for this
lie if they knew it was lie. What lie ever started the
greatest movement of all time. This would be a myth or
halluciantion that esp. Jewish people would seek to avoid
because of sanctions.
Textual evidence: Most reliable ancient document. We have 500
diff. copies earlier than 500 AD. The next most reliable is
Iliad which we only have 50. We have only one of Tacitus which
everyone treats as history. They are mutually reinforicing and
consisent. If text was invented by later generations, must
have been invented 2 or 3 generations—otherwise eyewitnesses
would have refuted. But no competent scholar denies 1st cent.
dating. We also find no evidence (which would be expected) of
a mythical layer. Style of Gospel is not style of myth but
that of real eyewitness description (authors would have
invented modern realistic fantasy 19 centuries before most
people believe invented). The only inconsistencies in 4
gospels are in chronology (only Luke claims to be in order) and
accidetnals like numers (i.e. did women see one angel or two)
which actually gives credence to testimony.
IV. Arguments for Ressuurrection: 5 possible theories – Christianity,
swoon, cospiracy, hallucination, myth.
Swoon: Jesus could not have survived crucifixion; Roman law
laid death penalty on any soldier who let a capital prisoner
escape, inc. bungling crucifxion. Soldier didn’t break JC legs
cause certain he was dead. John, eyewitness, certified he saw
blood and water come from JC peirced heart which demonstrates
his lungs had collapsed.
Post res. appearance convinced disciples, even Thomas
which would’ve been psych. impossible if JC was struggling out
of a swoon, half dead staggering sick man. Hardly the type
that would inspire fearless faith.
How would a swooning half dead man overpower Roman armed
guards, move the stone tomb?
Moreover, where would he go. If he wasn’t taken into
heaven, where did he go? No account of his after res. life, a
man with past like that would’ve left traces.
If disciples did it—w/ guards sleeping as Jewish auth.
claim—how could they have moved stone so quietly, would’ve
req. crowd. That they would fall asleep is unlikely w/
penalty of death. Must move into grand conspiracy.
Conspiracy: No Xian even under great duress and torture ever
confessed to that conspiracy. 12 men would’ve been very
susceptible to change, promise, bribery. Would’ve gained much.
Disciples were simple honest common folk. Not cunning or
conniving. Not that creative since this would’ve been one of
the most elaborate convincing life changing and enduring fish
stories. The change in their life testifies to a great event:
from weak and afraid to bold and fearless.
Disciples would not gotten away from such a pronouncement.
Why wasn’t body produced. Why weren’t there eyewitnesses
produced for such a conspiracy unearthed by enemies.
Hallucination: Too many witnesses. Hallucin. are private and
individual not w/ 500 witnesses. Witnesses were qualified and
saw Christ together. The only other equiv. would be Mary of
Fatima (70,000) and that was of a vision, not a body.
Hallucin. usually last few seconds or minutes. This one
hung around for 40 days. Or hapen only once, not many times.
Hallucin. usually correspond to psychological
expecatations, this one astounded disciples. Disicples even
touched and spoke with him and they spoke back. Figments of
imagin. do not hold profound extended conv. w/ you unless you
have a isolating mental disorder, but this hallucin. conversed
w/ 11 people.
Why wasn’t body produced or disc. by disciples to dispel
hallucination.
Myth: Style of Gospel is radically diff. that style of myth.
Psych. depth is a t maximum as opp to myths where spectacular
external events are center. Myths are verbose, Gospels laonic.
See Kreeft, Handbook, pg. 189.
Not enough type for myth. 2 or 3 generations must occur
(i.e. Buddha, Lao tzu, and Muhammed. Every empirical
manuscript disc. pushes it w/int one generation. One cannot
imagine how such a series of legends could arise in a
historical age, obtain univ. respect, and supplant the
historical recollection of the true character. There would be
no historical example of something like this happening. There
is no “mythical” layer in the orig. chain of texts.
First witnesses were women. This would be a studpid part
of myth if you were trying to make it believable since women’s
testimony not valid.
Other internal arguments for Gospels’ trustworthiness: Style is
simple and alive (what we would expect); show a intimate
knowledge of Jer. prior to destruction in 70AD w/ proper names,
cultural details, customs, opinions that might’ve gotten lost
in time and w/ destruction; stories of disciples faults; no
attempt at harmonization yet would’ve been impossible for 4
diffty guys in time and place to make a consistently harmonious
account.
Other external evidence for trustworthiness: Makes sense
disciples would leave some writings; there wer many
eyewitnesses who could testfy whether books came from purported
authors or not and whether they got it right. Even Christi.
opponents concede trad. authors wrote those books: Celsus,
Porphyry, Emp. Julian. No evidence for any inauthentic gGospel
existing in 1st century.
Evidentce for trustworthy transmission: Copied many times which
increase preservation. No other ancient work avail. in so many
copies and languages and yet agree in content. Quotations of
later early church Fathers coincide. No one could have
corrupted ALL the manuscripts.
Evidence for Jesus raising from dead better than for Ceasar
crossing Rubicon!!!!!
V. Creation vs. Evolution: Distinguish 3 meanings that “evolution” can
have: 1) What happened (more complex species appeared on earth) and when
happened. 2) How happened (natural selection 3) Philosophical theory of
absecnce of God (vs. God using nat’l selection). One can accept 1 and 2
and the Bible, but 3 is not science but philosophy. There are serious
problems w/ evolution in terms of #2 like absecne of transitional forms in
fossil record, the suddennes of the appearance of new species, and total
absence of any empirical evidence for inheritance of environmentally acq.
charact., except W/IN a species. No convicning evidence for one species
into another.
Science is like the study of the inner ecology of the fishbowl, the Bible
is like a letter from the person who set up and maintains fishbowl.
VI. Heaven Heaven a place where we lose self consciousness and
preoccupation—like feeling we have of losing ourselves in dancing or
having really helped someone.
Won’t we mourn over people in Hell? Somehow God manages to do so w/
people he created and loved and he will teach us. Moreover, there is a
sense in which those people are no longer very real. Heaven is the
standard of reality: closer to Heaven, closer to reality, farther from
Heaven, farther from realness. People in Hell are like ashes, no longer
really wood so you do not mourn over something that is no longer really
there?
VII. Hell:
Issues at stake: It means Scripture, church and Jesus lie if no hell.
Means we can drop doctrines that become uncomfortable.
Life’s choices no longer make a difference: drama, esp. tragedy is
something the West has excelled in as opp. to the East because it has roots
in doctrine of hell, “If a game is to be taken seriously, it must be
possible to lose it.” Also you have no free will: MUST have heaven, canot
choose otherwise (doesn’t make sense of observation that people choose
unhealth all the time). It is no accident that Eastern relgiouns that do
not each about hell also do not teach about free will or individuality
(i.e,. w/ reincarnation you are fated to eventual enlightenment) Free will
and hell go together.
The same Eastern religions also teach there is no absolute morality,
since there is no absolute judgment. If everything is God and desteined
for God, there can be nothing else, nothing anti-God, no evil.
If no hell, then no belife that God is love (which is why most people
reject hell). How do we come to believe that God is love: not by logic,
experiment, or history. We know God is love only thru Jesus, who also
assures us that there is a hell. Indeed, a loving beautiful God is not
incompatible w/ hell: Love threatens and tortures the egotism that the
damned insist on and cling to. A small child in a fit of rage, sulking and
hating his parents, may feel their hughs andkisses at taht moment as
torutre… the massive beauty of an opera may be torture to someone blindly
jealous of its composer… the fires of hell are made of the love of God.”
Also, love must intrinsically be a freely given gift, freely received.
Love must include freedom to reject love. (If God is omnipotent, couldn’t
he make everyone love him? No, omnipotent means more powerful than anyone
else, but not self-contradictory!)
What hell is:
Intrinsic punishment: i.e. waterfall analogy. Another way to put it
is that hell is not like a prison sentence for a crime committed, rather it
is like a building for a foundation constructed. Hell is not just more
foreover time, it is another dimension.
Inability to love or be loved;) highest joy and love is to give of
self—what happens then to people who refuse to give of themselves to
othes and to God? Intrinisic result.
Deprived of God (like above, there is pain because God is source of
joy and love)
Why believe in hell?
Revelation: Scriptures, Jesus, Church all teach it clearly—refuse
hell, refuse all three
Justice demands punishment for evil; mercy can override it, but not
obliterate justice; justice still must discriminate between those who
choose to receive vs. those who reject.
Free will argument: see above
VIII. Salvation
Not just an issue of sincerity: Can be sincerely wrong—would you trust a
doctor to heal you solely based on his sincerity? At issue is if there is
truth, not just our subjective perceptions. You have to be sincere to find
the truth, but it is not enough—you really must find truth in end.
What about pagans who’ve never heard? Only Jesus saves, but Jesus is not
just the human figure of 2000 years ago but he also is the 2nd person of
Trinity. Scripture makes clear that people have been saved BY Jesus
without ever knowing Jesus of Nazareth. Acc. to scripture, to be saved one
must seek God, repent of sin, believe (accept by faith God’s grace). Jesus
promises that all who seek truly will find. It was possible for Socrates
to do all three conceivably. Why bother? Because seekers desire truth,
and JC is that truth. Also since we don’t know exactly who will or won’t,
should’nt we try to tell all?
Doesn’t seem so narrow and arrogant that only JC save? Reality is narrow.
There is only one answer to equation, one path out of may forests, one
formula that gets you Pepsi (you’ll get something else otherwise).
Christ ells us to love god; Hindus tell us we are God. Christ tells us to
love our neighbor; buddha tells us we are our neighbor. To think we could
change that truth, and change JC’s words WOULD be arrogant. We are not
teaching ourselves (arrogance) we are simply carrying the message—it is
not via Christians or Christianity that people will be saved, but by
Christ.
IX. OBJECTIVE TRUTH
Objective truth is critical for the usual response, “What you say may be
true for you, but not for me, etc.” “Objective truth” does nto mean
impersonal, known by all, or publicly proved. It means truth that is
indepedent of the knower and his consciousness.
Rival notions of truth
Pragmatism: “its what works”: But what is true is not always
practical (i.e. death) and what is practical is not always true (a
“successful” lie). Chesterton: “Man’s most pragmatic need is to be
something more than a pragmatist.” W/out an end, how can you tell what
works as means. Without a more than pragmatic end, no one can be
pragmatic. Pragmatism doesn’t work, its impractical.
Empiricist: “its what we can sense”: But what we sense is not necess.
true (mirages, hyptnotic images), some things taht we know are true are not
sensed (i.e. 13*13=139). Empiricist eliminates soul, spirit, God,
miracles, heaven, moral law from the realm of objective trusts based on a
priori ideological doctrine. Its not truly empirical.
Rationalist: “its what can be proved by reason.” But you can’t prove
that ruth is only what can be proved. And all truth is not perfectly clear
i.e. law of noncontradiction.
Emotive “its what I feel”: Many feelings are false (i.e.
infautations); many truths have nothing to do w/ feelings (you are 6 feet
tall.
Universal skepticism: no truth is knowable. This contradicts itself
since you are claiming a universal truth. If you claim its only probable
that you can’t know truth, is that certain or probable. If probable then
no statement is made because no statement is ever finished: probablism is
aying that its is probable that it is probable, etc.
Universal subjectivism: all truth is really in the knower
“objectively”. Three strands: 1) Kantian “Copernican revolution” which
truth is not photography but movie projector; its what the observer
projects out on to world. 2) Hegel’s historicism which is that truth
changes with history, with its dialectic. 3) Pantheism: all is truth.
In the end, each theory of truth claims to be objective truth and rests on
notion of objective truth: namely, that their theory corresponds to reality
and that the othersw are really false.
Click to see HTML preview
