Dialogue with an Atheist (video)

A couple of years ago I was invited onto a local television show entitled "That's so Chratheist!" The host, Truman Ardent Smith, is an atheist but wanted to show how Christians and atheists can discuss their differences in an amicable spirit. In this discussion/debate we covered a lot of ground, discussing evolution, morality, and some of the arguments for God's existence. I think you'll enjoy the exchange.

   

Top Five Apologetics Posts for November

November came in with a bang, as the blog continues to draw over 20,000 readers a month. They found several topics engaging, with a lot of shares for the eight part series Tips for Sharing Your Faith. Most posts finished just under the top five, but advice to "Slow Down" was quite popular. However, our top post this month shot to the #3 all time position within 10 days of it being published. Glad to see our readers are thinking!

Here then are the Top Five Apologetics Posts for November:

1. Christianity is a Thinking-Man's Faith
2. Morality Relies Upon God's Character, Not Simply His Commands
3. One Reason Why Jesus Cannot be Mythical
4. Tips for Sharing Your Faith: #1 - Slow Down!
5. What If You Can't Be Reasonable Without Faith?

History Testifies that Jesus Worked Miracles

It's becoming more and more popular to cast doubt on the existence of the biblical Jesus as a person of history and claim that he was more likely a mythical invention of Christians. However, those claims are not made by even the skeptical experts who study the Gospel accounts of Jesus. Craig Keener, a noted scholar and historian provides the detail:

Most scholars today working on the subject accept the claim that Jesus was a healer and exorcist. The evidence is stronger for this claim than for most other specific historical claims that we could make about Jesus or earliest Christianity. Scholars often note that miracles characterized Jesus's historical activity no less than his teaching and prophetic activities did. So central are miracle reports to the Gospels that one could remove them only if one regarded the Gospels as preserving barely any genuine information about Jesus. Indeed, it is estimated that more than 31 percent of the verses in Mark's Gospel involve miracles in some way, or some 40 percent of his narrative! Very few critics would deny the presence of any miracles in the earliest material about Jesus.

If followers would preserve Jesus's teachings, how much more might they, and especially those who experienced recoveries, spread reports about his extraordinary acts of power? Because miracle claims attach to a relatively small number of figures in antiquity (itinerant or not), there is little reason to suppose that Jesus would have developed a reputation as a wonder worker if he did not engage in such activities. Jesus's ministry to the afflicted also coheres with his care for the marginalized in contrast to his frequent conflicts with the elite." As historical Jesus scholars Gerd Theissen and Annette Merz put it, "Just as the kingdom of God stands at the centre of Jesus's preaching, so healings and exorcisms form the centre of his activity."

Among non-Christian sources, the rabbis and Celsus are clear that Jesus performed miracles, although both sources are hostile to these miracles. (Many of these later non-Christian sources attribute the miraculous works to sorcery, which probably constitutes the earliest anti-Christian explanation for Christian miracles.) This unanimity is striking given the conversely unanimous silence in Christian, Jewish, and even Mandean tradition concerning any miracles of respected prophetic figures like John the Baptist. None of the ancient sources respond to claims of Jesus's miracles by trying to deny them.

More important, the first-century Jewish historian Josephus apparently claims that Jesus was a miracle worker. Jewish historian Geza Vermes, a noted expert on Jesus's era, has argued that this miracle claim in Josephus is authentic, based on Joshephus's style. In this report Josephus calls Jesus a wise man who also "worked startling deeds, “ a designation that Josephus also applies to miracles associated with the prophet Elisha.

It is thus not surprising that most scholars publishing historical research about Jesus today grant that Jesus was a miracle worker, regardless of their varying philosophic assumptions about divine activity in miracle claims.1 (Emphasis added.)

—Craig Keener

References

Keener, Craig S. Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts.
Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2011. Print. 23-25.

Atheists, Your Values Are Showing

The news report was startling. A group of children at Oakbrook Elementary School in wanted to do some good for those in their community who had little to nothing. So they raised some money to buy some groceries, planning on delivering them to the local food pantry, which is run by that giving food to the local food pantry, which happens to be run by Old Fort Baptist Church.

That's when the atheist group stepped in and put a halt to the whole thing.1 Representatives from the American Humanist Association (AHA) claim that the project is unconstitutional since the school is raising funds that will "the proceeds of which will go directly to an evangelical Christian Church" according to the letter AHA attorneys sent to the school district (emphasis in the original).2 They halted the project and the accompanying food drive by threatening legal action. The school is holding both the food and the funds for fear of litigation, so the local poor get nothing.

What's the real story here? Are the atheists so heartless that they would quash an attempt by school children to do good because it conflicts with their agenda? It seems so on the face of it. However, the AHA claims that they are not seeking to squash individual children from doing good, but that "there are innumerable ways in which the school can assist those in need that do not involve using public resources to promote a specifically religious agenda." They also claim "the fundraisers serve no secular purpose and constitute state-sponsorship of religion."3

Feeding the Poor Serves No Secular Purpose?

How is it that providing food for those struggling in the local community "serves no secular purpose"? While the church runs the food pantry under the larger umbrella of its missions budget, it is the only pantry in the area and the only one serving the poor of that community. There is no atheist food pantry in the area. In fact, I know of no atheist food pantry anywhere.

The problem highlights how different worldviews can create different values.  Christianity has a deep and rich history of helping the poor, weak, and sick. Since the very beginning of the church, believers have sought to provide relief to those who could not do so for themselves, as exemplified by Jesus’ parable of the Good Samaritan among other teachings. Christians have covered the globe in reaching out with relief efforts while seeking to raise the literacy and living standard of the poor. Such actions have clearly proven to bear substantial fruit,, creating more stable, healthier, and better educated nations. Secularists like those who belong to the AHA share in these benefits jst as much as others from the results of Christian altruism. Certainly the public interest is served by such actions.

Atheism Values Secularism over Compassion

Representatives of the AHA have shown that their values center on blocking any act or effort at relieving suffering if that act or effort encompasses any public institution and any religious organization. Basically, they feel no amount of good that results from an action trumps the fact that public institutions and religious organizations may both be involved. What are the fruits of valuing secularism above compassion? Hurting people are not helped, food is not distributed, and school children are bullied into doing nothing.

Anyone who has argued with an atheist about the impossibility of moral values without God has probably heard the retort, “Are you saying atheists are immoral?” Of course, that isn’t the claim at all. Christians argue that objective moral values and duties exist, a fact that is easily discerned by a majority of people, and that without God, such values would be meaningless. I’m quite confident that there are many morally upright atheists living today. However, because atheism undermines the grounding of morality, it shouldn’t be a surprise when atheists place a premium on their absolute separation from historically Christian activities, such as feeding the poor. Jesus said “Every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit.” What kind of fruit is the AHA bearing here?

References

1. Kreber, Monica. "Oakbrook Elementary Faces Lawsuit over Church Food Pantry." Summerville Journal Scene. Summerville Journal Scene, 25 Nov. 2014. Web. 04 Dec. 2014.
2. Miller, Monica. "RE: Constitutional Violation." Letter to Joe Pye, Superintendent;Monica O'Dea, Principal;. 20 Nov. 2014. MS. Appignani Humanist Legal Center, Washington, D.C. Web. http://americanhumanist.org/system/storage/2/5b/b/5398/Oakbrook_Elementary_SC_Letter_11-20-14.pdf
3. "Public Elementary School Can't Fundraise for Church, Says Humanist Group." American Humanist Association. American Humanist Association, 20 Nov. 2014. Web. 04 Dec. 2014. http://americanhumanist.org/news/details/2014-11-public-elementary-school-cant-fundraise-for-church-s
Image courtesy Tony Fischer Photography and licensed by the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license.

Why Recognizing Right and Wrong Points to God's Existence

Here's an interesting question that many people have asked: if you can't see, taste, hear, smell or touch something, then how do you know it exists? How can you logically know that a something is there when there's no way to test for it? Don't you have to just accept the existence of that something on blind faith?

Of course, in the context of religious discussion, this question is often asked by the skeptic regarding the existence of God. Can anyone really say that they know God exists by some means other than personal "feelings" or pure faith? Well, actually, the answer is yes. There are several different ways one can show God's existence is more probable than not,and you might be surprised from where these ideas came. One way is to look at how God must exist in order for people to be moral.

Ethics or morality is the idea that certain actions or motivations by people are good or right and other actions or motivations are evil or wrong. The idea of judging another's actions as right and wrong really only apply to people. Nature is not said to be "wrong" when a hurricane destroys property and causes death. Nor are animals judged as right or wrong when they hunt another beast for food. Even when they kill another in their own social group - such as two lions fighting to establish dominance -we don't categorize them as doing the "wrong" thing. So, why are people uniquely thought of in this way?

This question is at the basis of one of the arguments for the existence of God. Philosophers generally refer to this as "the Moral Argument."  the idea that if God doesn't exist, ideas of morality are nonsense and they are "non-binding". In other words, if God doesn't exist, morals are just made up laws by man and there is no logical reason to adhere to them.

In contrast to animals, when we look at the actions of people we understand that people have an ability to make decisions and understand the consequences of those actions. Further, we expect people to be accountable for their actions. But therein lies the rub. If God doesn't exist, to whom are people accountable? Who is going to judge those who break moral laws?

The only way right and wrong can exist at all is if a God who's nature is intrinsically moral created us to live in accordance with that nature and His laws, and this God holds each person accountable for his or her ethical decisions. In other words, morality stems from God's nature because it is who He is. We as humans are considered to do moral acts when we are acting in accord with his nature and we are immoral when we are acting outside of it.

Romans 2:14,15 says "[W]hen Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves [their] thoughts accusing or else excusing them." (NKJV) Now, Paul argues in this passage that all mankind has a kind of universal understanding of basic rights and wrongs in terms of actions and intents.

Everyone on earth understands that things like duplicity or torture for fun are just plain wrong. In other words, people understand ethics or morality. We are supposed to act ethically and upright, and not behave in a way that is morally repugnant. The question that I raise here is why should we act in such a way? Who says that being morally strong is better than being selfish and self-indulgent? And if society sets the rules, who says their rules are right?

Only if God exists can there be things such as right and wrong. And only if God exists does it make any sense at all to try to adhere to those distinctions. Otherwise, even asking the question doesn't make any sense.