Dr. Hugh Ross of Reasons to Believe has just published a new book entitled Always Be Ready, which provides personal stories and practical advice on how to share your faith with others. I recently had the opportunity to sit down with Hugh and discuss his story of how he came to Christ and how he overcame the double difficulties of witnessing in a scientific community while also being on the autistic spectrum.
Click below to watch the entire interview. You can get your copy of the book at Amazon here.
Home > Apologetics-Notes Blog
Blog Archive
Followers
Come Reason's Apologetics Notes blog will highlight various news stories or current events and seek to explore them from a thoughtful Christian perspective. Less formal and shorter than the www.comereason.org Web site articles, we hope to give readers points to reflect on concerning topics of the day.
Powered by Blogger.
Monday, October 15, 2018
Wednesday, August 15, 2018
Holding up Irrationality as a Virtue When Kid's Lives Are at Stake
Recently through my social media channels, I linked to this article on how assisted suicide laws in Belgium were leveraged to allow kids as young as nine and eleven to take their own lives. It's dangerous that children who don't have either the experience or the maturity to know the true value of life are given the opportunity to end it, even though they may be sick. I said so in my post, But that isn't the point of this article.
When I posted the piece on the Come Reason Facebook page, I received a response from Scott Womack pushing back against my statement that the news was disturbing. Never before have I had a conversation where it ended with my interlocutor telling me I was wrong for being logical and consistent! I've reproduced the conversation below, but you may always read the original here.
Scott W: It’s Belgium. The children all suffered from debilitating conditions.
“The eldest of the three was a 17-year-old suffering from muscular dystrophy; the other two were 9 and 11. The 9-year-old had a brain tumor and the 11-year-old had cystic fibrosis.”
Human rights > cultural sensitivities.
“The eldest of the three was a 17-year-old suffering from muscular dystrophy; the other two were 9 and 11. The 9-year-old had a brain tumor and the 11-year-old had cystic fibrosis.”
Human rights > cultural sensitivities.
Come Reason Ministries: Right. But we don't know if their conditions were terminal or
not. Can a nine year old really make an informed decision about such grave
matters? We recognize they are too inexperienced when it comes to alcohol or
sex. Suicide?
Scott W: Can you make an informed decision concerning someone else’s quality
of life? Isn’t that overreaching?
Come Reason Ministries: Not when it's protective. "First do no
harm" state the
Hippocratic oath.
Scott W: The Hippocratic oath also swears by Apollo the physician.
Come Reason Ministries: So what?
Scott W: So it’s a bit dated for our century.
The oath has also been updated, also the oath is ceremonial not obligatory.
The oath has also been updated, also the oath is ceremonial not obligatory.
Come Reason Ministries: But that principle is neither dated nor irrelevant. It answers
your objection.
Scott W: Attached is a link to the modern successor of the oath.
BIOEDGE.ORG BioEdge: New Hippocratic Oath for doctors approved
BIOEDGE.ORG BioEdge: New Hippocratic Oath for doctors approved
Come Reason Ministries: Again, you're arguing beside the point. You asked, "Can you make
an informed decision concerning someone else’s quality of life? Isn’t that
overreaching?" My answer is "Yes, I can." Look at the transgender push for
transitioning prepubescent children. Study after study shows that given time
these kids will accept their biological sex over time AND that transitioning
offers no improvement for risk of suicide. Therefore, I can safely say that even
though the 9 and 11 year olds FEEL that their quality of life is bad and they
WANT to transition, it would be the wrong course of action.
Suicide has no take-backs.
Suicide has no take-backs.
Scott W: Luckily you’re not in charge and No you don’t have the right or
ability to make those decisions for other people.
Suicide is other peoples business not yours.
Suicide is other peoples business not yours.
Come Reason Ministries: "Suicide is other peoples business not yours." You could say that
about abortion or child sex trafficking.
Scott W: No, in your warped view you drew an equivalence I never drew.
In addition child sex trafficking is illegal.
In addition child sex trafficking is illegal.
Come Reason
Ministries: Why is child sex trafficking illegal?
Scott W: Because secular law says so.
Come Reason Ministries: If that's all you have, it's a terrible reason. Laws are wrong
all the time. Even MLK recognized this. I think you know there's more to those
laws than "because the government says so."
Scott W: There’s more to the secular laws because secular authorities have the
ability to back it up.
Certainly isn’t religious law that prevents child trafficking from happening.
Indeed Religious law Often serves as justification
Certainly isn’t religious law that prevents child trafficking from happening.
Indeed Religious law Often serves as justification
Come Reason Ministries: So your answer is argumentum ad baculum? Might makes right in
this case?
Scott W: What is your answer, religious law prevents child sex trafficking?
Scott W: Of course Law doesn’t stop anyone. The law simply lays out the
consequences if your caught.
So yes might (The ability to cage monsters) does to the best of its ability make right.
Whereas you offer salvation to convicts convicted of horrible things, in order to make things right.
So yes might (The ability to cage monsters) does to the best of its ability make right.
Whereas you offer salvation to convicts convicted of horrible things, in order to make things right.
Come Reason Ministries: Might makes right. If one follows your stance consistently, then
because the government has the might to separate families at the border, it is
OK to do so.
You can either base your laws on power or on principle. Totalitarian regimes do the former.
Reasonable people do the latter. Pointing to fallacies is by definition unreasonable.
BTW, on the salvation comment, that's the second time you've yelled "Squirrel!" during our discussion. Red herrings are just as much of a logical fallacy as argumentum ad baculum.
You can either base your laws on power or on principle. Totalitarian regimes do the former.
Reasonable people do the latter. Pointing to fallacies is by definition unreasonable.
BTW, on the salvation comment, that's the second time you've yelled "Squirrel!" during our discussion. Red herrings are just as much of a logical fallacy as argumentum ad baculum.
Scott W: You seem to place a value on mental consistency that I don’t share or
believe is possible.
You are just as irrational a capable of biases as I am.
Matter fact I’ve come to guard against people who are always consistent. GK Chesterton said that consistent people in lunatic asylum‘s.
I believe consistent people watch themselves too closely and likely suffer from a impairment in seeing and judging reality.
In this case the reality of human rights which were given by constitutional law not God.
Yours irrationality is performing mental gymnastics in order for your total worldview to make sense.
There’s a world of people you’ve missed in your equations between your totalitarian regimes and “rational” people.
You are just as irrational a capable of biases as I am.
Matter fact I’ve come to guard against people who are always consistent. GK Chesterton said that consistent people in lunatic asylum‘s.
I believe consistent people watch themselves too closely and likely suffer from a impairment in seeing and judging reality.
In this case the reality of human rights which were given by constitutional law not God.
Yours irrationality is performing mental gymnastics in order for your total worldview to make sense.
There’s a world of people you’ve missed in your equations between your totalitarian regimes and “rational” people.
Come Reason Ministries: I think we can leave it at that. Thanks so much for the
discussion, Scott!
I must say, at least Scott is honest! Of course, he's completely misunderstood Chesterton (that would be for another post), but to think that if 100% complete mental consistency isn't possible we should give upon the endeavor altogether is, well, breath-taking. What do you think? Let me know in the comments below.
Labels:
debate,
euthanasia,
morality,
reason,
social media
Thursday, July 05, 2018
Displaying a God of Beauty Draws Youth to Christianity
In my latest series of articles, I've been looking at leveraging beauty in our evangelism and our defense of the faith. We've already established that beauty is one of the primary virtues, and how we can know that beauty is not simply "in the eye of the beholder" as we've been led to believe. There is in fact an objective nature to beauty.
In an interesting post, Travis Dickenson pointed to an article in the U.K.'s The Telegraph entitled "One in six young people are Christian as visits to church buildings inspire them to convert." The article goes on to offer statistics of how more than one in five young people between 11 and 18 describe themselves as "active followers of Jesus" while 13% categorize themselves as practicing Christians. In 2006, a study showed that number as only 6%, which means the number of young people in the UK coming to faith may have more than doubled in just over a decade.1
What has driven this trend? The architecture of the church may have something to do with it, according to the article:
Around 13 per cent of teenagers said that they decided to become a Christian after a visit to a church or cathedral, according to the figures.
The influence of a church building was more significant than attending a youth group, going to a wedding, or speaking to other Christians about their faith.
…
The study suggests that new methods invested in by the Church, such as youth groups and courses such as Youth Alpha, are less effective than prayer or visiting a church building in attracting children to the church.
One in five said reading the Bible had been important, 17 per cent said going to a religious school had had an impact and 14 per cent said a spiritual experience was behind their Christianity.2
Leaving Out Beauty Leaves out the Full Picture of God
Dickenson notes all this and offers that there is something more powerful about experiencing God in a beautiful building than in a functional box:We build church buildings today almost exclusively for function. Function is of course not unimportant. If there's no door to get into the building, then this is a problem. But we seem almost completely unconcerned about the kind of experience a building will give. There are some incredibly beautiful doors out there!I think Dickenson's right in this. We are inspired by beauty in music, in architecture, and in form. We serve a God who values beauty, and we should properly represent Him this way as much as we do a God who values truth and reason. How do we know God values beauty? I'll offer that argument next time.
Does it sound strange to talk about beauty affecting our experience?
Consider what it would be like to read a book (even a really good book) sitting in a single chair with bright fluorescent lights in a high school gymnasium. Then consider what it would be like to read the same book [in an exquisitely crafted and detailed library.]
Or in a great coffee shop or out in nature.
The point is that the experiences depend in part on our environment. Being surrounded by beauty importantly changes and greatly enhances the experience. When we are surrounded by beauty, it more fully engages our souls. We are not just rationally engaged, but we are engaged in deep parts of our souls.
If this is right, then why wouldn't we include beautiful aspects in our worship environments? When the experience is only rote and rational, then we have not presented the full picture of who God is. 3
References
1. Olivia Rudgard. "One in Six Young People Are
Christian as Visits to Church Buildings Inspire Them to Convert." The Telegraph,
Telegraph Media Group, 17 June 2017,
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/17/one-six-young-people-christian-visits-church-buildings-inspire/.
Accessed 5 July 2018.
2. Ibid.
3. Travis Dickenson. "Want to Reach Youth? Build a Beautiful Building!" The Benefit of the Doubt, 23 June 2017, www.travisdickinson.com/want-reach-youth-build-beautiful-building/. Accessed 5 July 2018.
2. Ibid.
3. Travis Dickenson. "Want to Reach Youth? Build a Beautiful Building!" The Benefit of the Doubt, 23 June 2017, www.travisdickinson.com/want-reach-youth-build-beautiful-building/. Accessed 5 July 2018.
Labels:
argument from beauty,
beauty,
evangelism,
good true beautiful,
youth
Tuesday, July 03, 2018
The Objective Nature of Beauty
In my last article, I said that we live in a beauty-starved culture and one overlooked aspect of sharing our faith is appealing to the beauty of God and the beauty of the Christian story. Beauty is one of the three primary virtues, along with Goodness and Truth. Each of these is grounded in God's existence. When we talk about what is moral or immoral, we necessarily assert an objective starting point. As C.S. Lewis pointed out, one cannot call something crooked unless one knows what a straight line is.
Is beauty something objective like morality or truth? Most people have been taught to think it isn't. We've heard phrases like "beauty is in the eye of the beholder," and assumed that it means there is no objective standard, no "Straight line" against which to judge something as beautiful. We've assumed that the statement "that is beautiful" is the same as "I derive pleasure from experiencing that."
Nothing could be further from the truth. There is an objective nature to beauty and it is common to all humanity. Can you even picture anyone across time who would gaze at a prismatic sunset and be revolted? Is anyone of the people who come from around the world to take in the vistas of the Grand Canyon repulsed at the sight? All cultures have approached pattern, color, and art to beautify their lives in common ways.
Disinterested Interest
The primary difference between personal pleasure and beauty is that the beauty of a thing lies in the existence of beauty in itself, instead of just what we can get out of that thing. Roger Scruton makes this distinction well. He points to Immanuel Kant's use of the idea of an "interested approach" versus a "disinterested approach." An "interested approach" is when we are interested in a thing when we use that thing to satisfy our own desires. For example, we are interested in a roller coaster because of the thrill it conveys when we ride in it.But a disinterested interest is something different. That's when we are interested in the thing for nothing more than the thing itself. Scruton explains:
Animals have only 'interested' attitudes: in everything they are driven by their desires, needs and appetites, and treat objects and other animals as instruments to fulfill those things. We, however, make a distinction in our thinking and behavior, between those things that means to us, and those things that are ends in themselves. Towards some things we take an interest that is not governed by interest but which is, so to speak, entirely devoted to the object. (Emphasis in original).1No one looks to a sunset as a means to another end. To experience a glorious sunset is to experience the beautiful. Even though the experience itself gives one pleasure, it isn't the fact that looking at the sunset is pleasurable that makes it beautiful. Imagine a man who has just been fired from his job. His wife calls him outside to look at the beautiful sunset and he obliges, even though he doesn't feel like doing so. Staring at the sky, he doesn't experience the joy that she does. He's too depressed. However, no one in such a position could honestly define the sunset as ugly. One may not be able to experience the transcendence of beauty because of one's emotional state, but even in this situation, one recognizes that it is a beautiful site.
That's what I mean when I say there is a disinterested interest in beauty. The beauty of the sunset didn't change subjective to the man's experience of it; the man simply missed the joy that comes with appreciating the beautiful, just has if he stayed inside. If pressed, he would admit the sunset is beautiful but he can't "get into" it right now.
Beauty is objective. It is not a means to an end; it is to be enjoyed for its own sake. That makes the pursuit of the beautiful, like the pursuit of the good and the true valuable. As human beings, we know this intuitively, which is why beauty permeates all cultures.
In my next article, I will show how the fact that beauty is objectively real points to the existence of God.
References
1. Roger Scruton. Beauty:
A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2011. 22. Print.
Labels:
argument from beauty,
beauty,
existence of God,
philosophy
Monday, July 02, 2018
Arguing for the Beauty of God in an Ugly World
Beauty matters. Along with the Good and the True, the Beautiful was understood to be one of the fundamental aspects of ideal human existence. From the earliest societies, people sought to surround themselves with what is beautiful. It is a part of how people shape their culture and how they interact with one another. Greek columns and Roman mosaics are iconic representations of the heights of their cultural achievements. We seek to adorn ourselves with the beautiful.
Yet we live in a time where function has overtaken form and pragmatism overrides aesthetics. Cold concrete boxes and black asphalt has replaced the Greek column and the Roman mosaic. The West emphasizes the laboratory over the Louvre, rapidness over reflection, and efficiency over elegance. Philosopher Roger Scruton presented some clarifying remarks on the relation of beauty to culture. He writes:
Unlike science, culture is not a repository of factual information or theoretical truth, nor is it a kind of training in skills, whether rhetorical or practical. Yet it is a source of knowledge: emotional knowledge, concerning what to do and what to feel. We transmit this knowledge through ideals and examples, through images, narratives, and symbols. We transmit it through the forms and rhythms of music, and through the orders and patterns of our built environment. Such cultural expressions come about as a response to the perceived fragility of human life, and embody a collective recognition that we depend on things outside our control. Every culture therefore has its root in religion, and from this root the sap of moral knowledge spreads through all the branches of speculation and art. Our civilization has been uprooted. But when a tree is uprooted it does not always die. Sap may find its way to the branches, which break into leaf each spring with the perennial hope of living things. Such is our condition, and it is for this reason that culture has become not just precious to us, but a genuine political cause, the primary way of conserving our moral heritage and of standing firm in the face of a clouded future. 1Beauty matters a lot, perhaps a lot more than the place we give it in modern Western culture. Yet, there is still a longing for beauty in the human soul, perhaps even more so now that beauty isn't integrated into our everyday experiences. As I speak to young people today, they long to find the beautiful in life.
Because Christians live in the milieu of Western pragmatism, we can lose sight of the power of appealing to the Beautiful as an argument for God. Apologists tend to argue about facts of science, as being for or against “X,” or tackling objection it thrown at them. These are all worthwhile pursuits, but I think there's a huge untapped potential in appealing to the Christian God and the Christian story as ways of finding the beautiful isn't considered enough. Scruton continues:
At the same time, the decline in religious faith means that many people, both skeptics and vacillators, begin to repudiate their cultural inheritance. The burden of this inheritance, without the consolations on offer to the believer, becomes intolerable, and creates the motive to scoff at those who seek to hand it on.2We live in a world where nothing seems concrete. The beautiful has been obfuscated, but every human being still longs for it. I think the attractiveness of God is harder for atheists to argue against than some of the traditional proofs for His existence—or at least harder to misinterpret.
In upcoming posts, I'll be presenting ways how you may integrate arguments for beauty into your discussions about God. For we don't worship a God who is merely practical. We worship the God of Beauty.
References
1. Roger Scruton. Culture
Counts: Faith and Feeling in a World Besieged. New York: Encounter, 2007. Print.
V.
2. Ibid.
2. Ibid.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
© 1999 – 2014 Come Reason Ministries. All rights reserved.