Category: Christianity (Page 1 of 2)

Faith and Reason

December 17, 2024 / rampinelli / 0 Comments

Introduction

This paper examines the relationship between faith and reason. It takes as its starting point Dr. Rich Holland’s three-fold categorization of the relationships:[1]

Faith and reason in conflict
Faith and reason independent of each other
Faith and reason working together

The paper describes and analyzes each of these general relationships. It concludes that faith and reason should work together for the glory of God. Christians should use reason to serve faith by illuminating the meaning of Scripture, ensuring the coherence of Christian teaching, defending the faith, and preparing unbelievers to hear the Gospel.

Definitions

Reason

J.P. Moreland defines reason as “all our faculties relevant to gaining knowledge and justifying our beliefs about different things.”[2] This is a broad definition, but “knowledge” is at its core. J.P. Moreland and William Lane Craig write that the standard definition of “knowledge” is “justified true belief.”[3] Craig Boyd offers three definitions of reason.[4] In his first definition, reason is how people use science and logic to understand the world. In the second definition, reason is “the sinful attempt of human creatures to demand that reality conforms to their prior expectations.”[5] His third definition, which he prefers, is that reason is how one comes “to understand, process and decide how to live one’s life given the multiform ways in which reality can be apprehended.”[6]

As will be discussed below under “Faith and Reason in Conflict,” many Christians believe that “reason” is opposed to faith or, in Martin Luther’s famous words, “reason is the devil’s whore.” It should be noted that the Bible praises proper use of the mind. For example, Paul writes that we should be transformed “by the renewing of your mind” (Rom 12:2 NIV). Jesus tells us we should love God “with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind” (Matt 22:27). The mind is expressly included. Peter told his readers to be prepared “to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have” (1 Peter 3:15). Peter here is telling Christians to use reason to explain why they believe. Since reason is needed to gain knowledge, that is, to discern truth, it should be a tool that Christians use to “speak the truth in love” (Eph 4:15). The Bible clearly teaches that faith and reason should work together, but Christians must not place reason above faith.

Faith

J.P. Moreland defines faith as “trust in what we have reason to believe is true.”[7] The author of Hebrews writes, “Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see” (Heb:11:1). Craig Boyd defines faith as “a commitment to belief based upon the testimony of God.”[8] He divides faith into three components: faith as content, faith as act, faith as habit.[9] The first of these components is relevant for this paper. Carl Raschke, on the other hand, emphasizes that faith is a personal relationship with God.[10] Similarly, Randolph Richards and Brandon O’Brien argue that the words grace and faith – charis and pistis in Greek – were used to describe the patron-client relationship. The patron or benefactor offered unearned gifts to the client – grace – and the client or servant responded with faithfulness and loyalty – faith.[11] Faith involves believing the truth of propositions, but it is also a relationship with the living God.

What do Christians believe? While there is a wide variety of beliefs among Christians, the core of the faith is described in the Nicene Creed, adopted at the First Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. This creed proclaims that God is triune (One God in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit); that the Son, eternally begotten of the Father, became incarnate by the power of the Holy Spirit through the Virgin Mary); He did this for us and our salvation (atonement); He was crucified, but rose again on the third day, as foretold by the Scriptures; He ascended to heaven, but will come again to judge the living and the dead; the holy Spirit, who spoke through the prophets, gives life; there is one apostolic Church, one baptism, and Christians await the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come (eternal life).

Faith and Reason: Three Main Relationships

Faith and reason in conflict

Many people believe that faith and reason are in conflict and cannot be reconciled. If this is true, people must choose between faith and reason. Atheists believe that there is no evidence for the existence of any god, and so religious faith is irrational. In the 19^th Century, William K. Clifford argued that “it is wrong always, everywhere, and for any one, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.”[12] He then argues that we are not justified in believing “the truth of any statement which is contrary to, or outside of, the uniformity of nature.”[13] Since Christianity is based on the bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ, which violates the uniformity of nature, Clifford implied that one is not justified in believing it. Similarly, critics of Christianity have argued that the fundamental doctrines of the incarnation and the Trinity are logically contradictory.[14]

Some self-professed Christians accept that there is conflict between faith and science or reason, and so faith must be altered to conform to reason. For example, James Robinson as well as the Jesus Seminar have denied the historicity of most of what the Gospel writers wrote about Jesus, because the events and sayings attributed to Him did not meet their very rigid criteria. Moreover, the many miracles attributed to Him were declared inauthentic, since miracles cannot occur.[15]

Many more orthodox Christians, adherents of fideism, believe there is conflict between faith and reason, and so they rely on faith and ignore reason. Kenneth Boa and Robert Bowman define “fideism” as “an approach to apologetics that argues that the truths of faith cannot and should not be justified rationally. Or, to look at it another way, fideists contend that the truths of Christianity are properly apprehended by faith alone.”[16] Fideists argue that, because of the fall, the human capacity to use reason is woefully inadequate to discover the truth about God. They argue that “some truths of Christianity are beyond our capacity to understand or express in a logically definitive fashion.”[17]

This perspective has a long pedigree, going back to Tertullian (AD 160-220) and running through Martin Luther (16^th century), Blaise Pascal (17^th century), Søren Kierkegaard (19^th century), and Karl Barth (20^th century).[18] Reformed apologists, such as Cornelius Van Til and Alvin Plantinga have also been called fideists, but Boa and Bowman disagree because Reformed apologists make truth claims that are rationally consistent within a Christian system of thought.[19] The anti-intellectualism that took over evangelical churches in the U.S. during the 19^th century, which Moreland decries, is consistent with fideism.[20]

Fideists can point to numerous Scripture passages. For example, Paul quotes Isaiah that God will destroy the wisdom of the wise (1 Cor 1:19). Paul continues, “Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?” (1 Cor 1:20). God saves those who believe “through the foolishness of what was preached” (1 Cor 1:21). Similarly, Paul warns the church to make sure they are not captured through “hollow and deceptive philosophy” that depends on “human tradition and the elemental spiritual forces of this world rather than on Christ” (Col 2:8). The list could be continued.

Carl Raschke, writing from a Christian postmodernist perspective, makes similar arguments, although he claims not to be a fideist “in the stereotypical sense.”[21] He argues that faith is “in the final analysis not rational but relational. What does this contention imply philosophically? There is no such thing as a ‘relational proposition,’ unless one of course is talking about a marriage proposal.” This indicates that reason is not adequate to explain faith. Further, faith as a relationship with God “opens our understanding to things we cannot necessarily anticipate or understand from the propositional perspective.”[22] This does not mean that philosophy is useless, however. If it accepts its subordinate role, it “can serve its own ‘apostolic’ role in dealing with the ‘Gentiles,’ as Paul conceived it.”[23] This opens the door for the use of reason in evangelism and apologetics, but not in formulating Christian doctrine. Moreover, even Martin Luther, who called reason “the devil’s whore,” saw reason as a useful “tool or source of understanding when grounded in Christ and the gospel,” according to Allan G. Padgett.[24] Ultimately, then, Martin Luther, Carl Raschke, and others who focus on conflict between reason and faith probably accept the “faith and reason working together” perspective as long as reason is subordinate to faith.

Faith and reason independent of each other

In this view, reason and science are useful for understanding the world of the senses, and faith and theology are in separate spheres. They cannot conflict with each other, since they refer to entirely different things. Writing from a secular perspective, American paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould argued that “science and religion were ‘non-overlapping magisteria’: distinct fields of human activity that need not – should not – encroach on each other’s territory.”[25] According to this view, the natural world is the province of science. Religion, on the other hand, focuses on morals and spiritual meaning. It was an attempt to disarm the conflict between faith and science over the theory of evolution. The “New Atheists,” such as Richard Dawkins, have clearly rejected Gould’s approach.

The views regarding “non-overlapping magisteria” among Christians are mixed. Some fideists accept the value of reason and science in understanding the natural world but reject their use in the realm of theology. Carl Raschke’s views could be characterized in this way. J.P. Moreland decries the withdrawal of many Christians from the life of the intellect. This began in the 19^th century in response to Enlightenment philosophers, such as Hume and Kant, and “German higher criticism” of the Bible.[26] As a result, “fewer and fewer people regarded the Bible as a body of divinely revealed, true propositions about various topics that requires a devoted intellect to grasp and study systematically. Instead, the Bible increasingly was sought solely as a practical guide for ethical guidance and spiritual growth.”[27] Similarly, he argues, “There has emerged a secular/sacred separation in our understanding of the Christian life with the result that Christian teaching and practice are privatized and placed in a separate compartment from the public or so-called secular activities of life.”[28] This is a very good description of the “non-overlapping magisterial” perspective, which is very common in American churches today. The Pew Research Center reported that 63% of U.S. Christians said in a survey from 2015-2016 that science and religion do not conflict.[29] This does not mean, however, that all of them believe that faith and science are separate realms. Some of them likely believe that science confirms the truths of Christianity.

A useful test case for the non-overlapping magisteria approach is acceptance of neo-Darwinism, which conflicts with a literalistic understanding of Genesis 1-11. A book edited by J. B. Stump and Stanley N. Gundry presents four views common among evangelical Christians regarding evolution. Young Earth Creationists reject neo-Darwinism and argue for a literalistic understanding of Genesis 1-11. Progressive creationists accept what science says about an old earth and “evolution” of living things over time but reject common descent from a single ancestor and so reject a fundamental tenet of neo-Darwinism.[30] Instead, they argue, God intervened to create various kinds of flora and fauna at appropriate times in earth’s history.

Evolutionary Creationists, as exemplified by BioLogos, accept neo-Darwinism as how God created the variety of living things that we find in the world. Deborah Haarsma, for example, argues that God wrote two books: the book of Scripture, which tells of theological and moral matters, and the book of nature, which science reads to tell us about the natural world.[31] There can be no conflict between the two, since God is the author of both. Intelligent Design, on the other hand, avoids discussing faith at all. This viewpoint uses scientific evidence, such as the information content of DNA, to argue against neo-Darwinism and for a designer. Stephen Meyer emphasizes that it is “not based upon religious belief.”[32] It does, however, “affirm a key tenant of a biblical worldview – namely, that life and the universe are the products of a designing intelligence.”[33]

Young Earth Creationists clearly reject the concept of “non-overlapping magisteria.” They believe there is a conflict between faith and the modern scientific consensus, and they choose faith, although they use the tools of science to argue against the scientific consensus, Progressive Creationists acknowledge no conflict between Genesis 1 and the results of science and so might be in the “non-overlapping magisterial” category. On the other hand, they do reject a fundamental tenet of neo-Darwinism, common descent, and so one can argue that they use science and reason to support their theological beliefs. In that case, they would fall under the category of “faith and reason working together.” Evolutionary Creationists best exemplify the “non-overlapping magisteria” perspective. They fully accept what mainstream science says about evolution. If there is a connection between faith and reason, they use science (reason) to help them interpret Scripture. The fourth group, Intelligent Design, stays within the realm of reason, but its adherents use it to argue for the truth of theism, and so it might best be described as belonging to the “faith and reason working together” category.

Faith and reason working together

Catholic apologists Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli write, “Faith and reason can never contradict each other.”[34] This statement sums up this third category. Of the three categories discussed, this is probably the one most Christian apologists prefer. In this view, faith and reason work together to discover truth.

One approach in this category is exemplified by Alan G. Padgett’s “Faith Seeking Understanding.” Padgett argues that “right reason, grounded in Scripture and Christian faith, plays an essential role in critical reflection upon Christian faith and life for individuals and communities of faith.”[35] Moreover, both faith and reason are “essential to full discipleship and mature Christian wisdom.”[36] Reason must, however, have its “foundation in Christian, biblical faith, which then leads to a discipleship of the mind, seeking greater wisdom and understanding of God, ourselves and creation.”[37] Padgett contrasts this with “classical Thomism or natural theology,” which he says moves “from human understanding of the world to faith in God.”[38] Padgett cites numerous Scripture passages to support his view. For example, Proverbs 1:7 states “fools despise wisdom and instruction,” which suggests an appreciation of wisdom. Paul writes that he speaks “a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age” (1 Cor 2:6). This passage sums up Padgett’s position well: Christians should pursue and speak wisdom, but not subordinate it to the preferences of secular society.”

In “The Synthesis of Reason and Faith,” Craig A. Boyd argues for the perspective of Thomas Aquinas, often called the Thomistic synthesis. Boyd writes, “God has endowed human beings with rational capacities, and these capacities can, and do, lead us to truth. However, these rational capacities do not, and cannot, by themselves offer us salvation.”[39] In the “synthesis” view, human nature retains some continuity with its original state before the Fall, “because it reflects the goodness of God. It has been damaged by sin, but it retains its created integrity.”[40] Human nature can be healed by divine grace. Hence, for Christians, reason “discovers basic moral truths and facilitates the understanding of Christian faith.”[41] Reason can, of course, also be misused to “come up with reasons for rejecting God as well as rationalizations for our immoral behavior.”[42] Boyd, too, quotes scripture to support his perspective. He focuses heavily on John 1, which introduces Jesus as the “logos,” the divine Word. This “true light” gives “light to everyone” (John 1:9). “Word” and “light” can also refer to wisdom, which the early church recognized. For example, the Church of Hagia Sophia in Constantinople (now Istanbul) is the Church of Holy Wisdom.

Analysis

While there are enormous differences between atheists and orthodox Christians, the differences in perspectives on faith and reason between orthodox Christians are relatively minor. Those who represent the “faith and reason in conflict” perspective argue that, while reason in fallen humans is adequate to understand the natural world, it is woefully inadequate if unaided to understand the things of God. But Allan Padgett, who represents the “faith and reason working together” perspective, would heartily agree. We understand the things of God through revelation, not reason. Even the Christians who view reason most favorably, such as Craig Boyd, would agree. Unaided human reason could never discover the Trinity or atonement, for example. Similarly, Carl Raschke, who represents the most skeptical view of reason in fallen humanity, agrees that reason can be useful in apologetics and evangelism if it accepts its subordinate status to faith.

The perspectives are also blurred on specific issues, such as neo-Darwinian evolution. Young Earth Creationists completely reject an old earth and neo-Darwinism, and so represent the “faith and reason in conflict” perspective. Yet even they try to muster evidence from nature to argue their position. Progressive Creationists, such as Hugh Ross, and Intelligent Design advocates, such as Stephen C. Meyer, attempt to reconcile faith and reason without sacrificing faith. The Evolutionary Creation perspective of BioLogos could be characterized as “Faith and reason independent of each other,” as they accept the scientific consensus on evolution as well as God’s revelation in Scripture. Even they, however, do not subject Christian doctrines, such as the Trinity, atonement, and resurrection, to the dictates of reason.

A more pragmatic way to understand the relationship of reason and faith is to ask how Christians can use reason to support faith. Here the advantages of a faith-directed use of reason are readily apparent. Christians can use reason to examine doctrinal statements for coherence. Are they self-refuting, and hence false, or are they merely paradoxical, such as the doctrine of the Trinity? Reason can also be used to illuminate the meaning of Scripture. While this seems at first to place faith under reason, which orthodox Christians do not advocate, that is not the case. For example, in Isaiah 55:12, it says “the mountains and hills will burst into song before you, and all the trees of the field will clap their hands.” Reason makes it clear that mountains and hills do not literally sing, and trees have no hands with which to clap. The author of Isaiah 55:12 certainly knew this, and so one can conclude, through reason, that he meant it metaphorically.

Reason can also be used in apologetics and evangelism. Faith comes from the Holy Spirit working through the Word of God. But to hear the word of God, people must first be willing to listen. They will not listen to God’s Word without first being convinced it is worth hearing. If they believe that Christian faith is irrational, as many people do, they will not give the Word a fair hearing, and so will not come to faith. Apologetics, which uses reason to argue for the reasonableness of Christian faith, can open people’s ears so they listen to the Word, permitting the Holy Spirit to work. Reason is also useful in a defensive role to reinforce Christians confronted with arguments against the faith.

Conclusion

The paper examined the relationship between faith and reason from three different perspectives:

Faith and reason in conflict
Faith and reason independent of each other
Faith and reason working together

The paper discussed various perspectives among Christians and non-Christians. The differences between Christians and non-Christians cannot be reconciled, but the differences between Christians can. For Christians, faith should never be subordinate to reason, but reason can be a useful tool to help Christians correctly understand the Christian faith and argue for its veracity. For Christians, faith and reason can work together for the glory of God. Christians should use reason to serve faith by illuminating the meaning of Scripture, ensuring the coherence of Christian teaching, defending the faith, and preparing unbelievers to hear the Gospel.

Bibliography

Boa, Kenneth, and Robert Bowman. Faith Has Its Reasons: Integrative Approaches to Defending the Christian Faith. Second edition. Downers Grove, Ill: IVP Books, 2005.

Boyd, Craig A, Alan G Padgett, Carl A Raschke. Faith and Reason: Three Views. Edited by Steve Wilkens. Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP Academic, 2014.

Clifford, William K. “The Ethics of Belief” in Lectures and Essays by the Late William Kingdom Clifford. 2^nd ed. London, UK: Macmillan and Co. 1886, pp. 339-363.

Craig, William Lane. Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics. 3rd ed. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2008

Ham, Ken, Hugh Ross, Deborah B Haarsma, and Stephen C Meyer. Four Views on Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design. Edited by J. B. Stump and Stanley N. Gundry. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2017.

Holland, Rich. “Faith & Reason,” https://canvas.liberty.edu/courses/643171/pages/watch-faith-and-reason?module_item_id=69959347, course video, accessed July 27, 2024.

Kreeft, Peter, Ronald K. (Ronald Keith) Tacelli, and Peter Kreeft. Pocket Handbook of Christian Apologetics. Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity Press, 2003.

Moreland, J. P. Love Your God with All Your Mind: The Role of Reason in the Life of the Soul. Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2012.

Moreland, J. P. and William Lane Craig. Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview, 2nd Edition. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2017.

Pew Research Center, “On the Intersection of Science and Religion,” https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2020/08/26/on-the-intersection-of-science-and-religion/, accessed August 11, 2023, 5:30 p.m. CEST.

Richards, E. Randolph and Brandon J. O’Brien. Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes: Removing Cultural Blinders to Better Understand the Bible. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Books, 2012.

Senor, Thomas D. “The Incarnation and the Trinity” in Reason for the Hope Within, ed. Michael J. Murray, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999), 238-260

Spencer, Nick. Magisteria: The Entangled Histories of Science and Religion. London, England: Oneworld Publications, 2023.

[1] Rich Holland, “Faith & Reason,” https://canvas.liberty.edu/courses/643171/pages/watch-faith-and-reason?module_item_id=69959347, course video, accessed July 27, 2024.

[2] J. P. Moreland, Love Your God with All Your Mind: The Role of Reason in the Life of the Soul, (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2012), 44.

[3] J. P. Moreland und William Lane Craig, Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview, 2nd Edition. (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2017), 63.

[4] Craig A. Boyd, “Chapter 3: The Synthesis of Reason and Faith”, in Faith and Reason: Three Views, ed. Steve Wilkens, Spectrum Multiview Books (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2014), 137.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Moreland, Love Your God with All Your Mind, 19.

[8] Boyd in “Faith and Reason” 150.

[9] Ibid., 138.

[10] Carl A. Raschke in Boyd, Craig A, Alan G Padgett, Carl A Raschke. Faith and Reason: Three Views. Edited by Steve Wilkens. (Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP Academic, 2014), 64.

[11] E. Randolph Richards and Brandon J. O’Brien, Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes: Removing Cultural Blinders to Better Understand the Bible, (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Books, 2012), 71-72.

[12] Clifford, William K. “The Ethics of Belief” in Lectures and Essays by the Late William Kingdom Clifford, 2^nd ed. (London: Macmillan and Co; 1886), 346.

[13] Ibid., 363.

[14] Thomas D. Senor, “The Incarnation and the Trinity” in Reason for the Hope Within, ed. Michael J. Murray, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999), 238.

[15] William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, 3rd ed. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2008), 292-294.

[16] Kenneth Boa and Robert Bowman. Faith Has Its Reasons: Integrative Approaches to Defending the Christian Faith, (Second edition. Downers Grove, Ill: IVP Books, 2005), 390.

[17] Ibid., 390.

[18] Ibid., 392-414.

[19] Ibid., 391.

[20] Moreland, Love Your God with All Your Mind, 15ff.

[21] Carl A. Raschke in Boyd et al. Faith and Reason: Three Views, 160.

[22] Ibid., 66.

[23] Ibid., 67.

[24] Allen G. Padgett in Boyd et al. Faith and Reason: Three Views, 160.

[25] Spencer, Nick. Magisteria: The Entangled Histories of Science and Religion, (London, England: Oneworld Publications, 2023), 17.

[26] Moreland, Love Your God with All Your Mind, 17.

[27] Ibid.

[28] Ibid., 21.

[29] Pew Research Center, “On the Intersection of Science and Religion,” https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2020/08/26/on-the-intersection-of-science-and-religion/, accessed August 11, 2023, 5:30 p.m. CEST.

[30] Hugh Ross in Ham, Ken, Hugh Ross, Deborah B Haarsma, and Stephen C Meyer. Four Views on Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design. Edited by J. B. Stump and Stanley N. Gundry, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2017), 72.

[31] Deborah B. Haarsma in Four Views on Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design, 126.

[32] Stephen C. Meyer in Four Views on Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design, 207.

[33] Ibid.

[34] Peter Kreeft, Ronald K. Tacelli, Pocket Handbook of Christian Apologetics, (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003.

[35] Allen G. Padgett in Boyd et al. Faith and Reason: Three Views, 87.

[36] Ibid.

[37] Ibid., 86.

[38] Ibid.

[39] Craig A. Boyd in Boyd et al. Faith and Reason: Three Views, 133.

[40] Ibid., 135.

[41] Ibid., 147.

[42] Ibid., 159.

God never promised us a rose garden

November 18, 2024 / rampinelli

Church of St. Augustine of Canterbury, Wiesbaden, Germany November 17, 2024 Twenty-sixth Sunday after Pentecost

Daniel 12:1-3; Psalm 16; Hebrews 10:11-14 (15-18) 19-25; Mark 13:1-8

Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of our hearts be acceptable in your sight, O Lord. Amen.

Please be seated.

Some of us are old enough to remember a song by Lynn Anderson, “I Never Promised You a Rose Garden.” When we look around at the state of the world, many of us don’t see a rose garden. We just went through a pandemic that killed millions throughout the world and disrupted our lives. This was followed by a nasty bout of high inflation. There are horrific wars going on in Ukraine and the Middle East, and many in Western Europe might be worried about them spreading to our still-safe countries. Of course, even here, we live with more and more uncertainty. Germany’s government has collapsed, and new elections are on the horizon. The elections in the U.S. have just taken place, and some of us are worried about the outcome. Elections are a time of change, which can be frightening.

The Lord has also never promised us a rose garden on earth in this age, before His second coming. He does, however, encourage us to start planting and caring for one! This is what N.T. Wright calls, “building for the kingdom.”

In our Gospel reading, Jesus is with His disciples in Jerusalem, in what we now call Holy Week just before His crucifixion. When they marvel at the massive stones of the Temple, Jesus tells them that the Temple will be destroyed and “Not one stone will be left upon another.”

Christ’s prophecy was fulfilled in 70 AD, less than 40 years after His death and resurrection. The First Jewish-Roman War began in 66 AD, when the Roman governor seized money from the Temple treasury and arrested numerous Jewish leaders. The Jews revolted and won some initial successes, but were ultimately defeated by the Romans, who set fire to Jerusalem and destroyed the Temple. The war ended in 73 AD, when the Romans took the last Jewish fortress of Masala. The aftermath of the war was catastrophic for the Jews: an estimated one-third of the population was killed or enslaved. The Romans later built a pagan colony, Aelia Capitolina, on the ruins of Jerusalem and erected a shrine for worship of their god Jupiter on the Temple Mount.

In the Gospel reading, Jesus tells the disciples about other problems: wars and rumors of wars, earthquakes, famines. We see these troubles today everywhere in the world around us. Just as an aside, I’m not predicting the imminent end of the world; we’ve had these troubles throughout history. And Jesus said this was just the beginning of the birth pangs, not that the end was imminent. Christ’s return will be like a thief in the night, when no one is expecting it. Anyway, back to the passage. Jesus also tells us there will be many who come in His name “and say, ‘I am he!’ and they will lead many astray.” There have been many false prophets throughout history, and some who have falsely claimed to be the Messiah. Bar Kochba, for example, led a revolt in 132 AD with initial success. Much of the populace hailed him as the Messiah, who would reestablish King David’s rule. Bar Kochba was killed in 135 AD, and the revolt was completely crushed a year later. The Jews suffered an even worse demographic catastrophe than the destruction of Jerusalem brought, with most Jews in Judea killed or sold into slavery. The Romans renamed Judea Syria Palaestina, in an effort to erase all memory of the region’s connection to the Jewish people.

Imagine that you were a Jew or Jewish Christian in 70 AD, when the Temple was destroyed. Imagine that you were a Jew in the diaspora, who heard about the slaughter of your people in Judea at the end of the Bar Kochba revolt. It would seem like the end of the world. But the world did not end. We today can learn from this. No matter how bad things look, it’s not the end of the world. Or if it is, it’s because Jesus has returned to establish His visible reign over the new heaven and new earth.

I’m not saying that we should just keep smiling because everything will be OK. History shows us that countries can grow and flourish but also decline and fall. This includes Christian countries. The Roman Empire officially became Christian in 380 AD under Emperor Theodosius. A century later, the Western Roman Empire fell to Aryan Germanic tribes. In the seventh century, invading Muslim Arab armies wrested historic Christian lands – Palestine, Syria, Egypt, North Africa – from the Eastern Roman Empire, and ultimately went on to conquer Spain. In the 13^th century, Mongols vanquished the Christian Kievan Rus, today’s Russia and Ukraine, and in the 15^th century, the Ottoman Turks occupied Constantinople and reigned over much of the Christian Balkans. In the 20th century, Communism took over the Russian Empire and then subjugated Eastern Europe, brutally suppressing Christianity. And here in Christian Germany, the atheist-pagan Hitler seized power in 1933. Hitler’s Thousand Year Reich fell 12 years after it began, leaving Christian Germany devastated and divided and millions of innocent people dead.

Almost two thousand years after the destruction of Jerusalem, a Jewish state has reappeared in Judea and Galilee. But the Jewish Temple has not been rebuilt, even though Israel controls Jerusalem. There is an important Moslem Mosque, the Dome of the Rock, on Temple Mount, and destroying it to make room for a Jewish Temple would mean war with the entire Moslem world. The reading from Hebrews tells us that the Temple is no longer needed anyway. The primary purpose of the Temple was to offer sacrifices to God for the sins of the people. Hebrews 10:12 tells us, Jesus Christ offered “for all time a single sacrifice for sins” and so made any further sacrifices superfluous. According to Psalm 51:17, the sacrifice God wants from us is “a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart,” that is, repentance, which God, will not despise.

God never promised us a rose garden. But in John 16:33, Jesus tells His disciples, “I have told you these things, so that in me you may have peace. In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world.” Paul writes, “We know that all things work together for good for those who love God, who are called according to his purpose” (Rom 8:28). When Jesus gave Simon the name Peter, meaning rock, He told him the gates of Hades would not prevail against His church (Matt 16:18). Roman emperors like Nero and Diocletian tried to destroy the church but failed. Shortly after Diocletian’s terrible persecution at the end of the third century, the Emperor Constantine I issued the Edict of Milan, which legalized Christianity. Later, in 380 AD, the Roman Empire officially became Christian. The Empire that had crucified Jesus and destroyed Jerusalem now bowed the knee to Him. Closer to home, under the Nazis, the so-called German Christians accepted Hitler’s anti-Semitism and made it their own. Some even rejected the Old Testament and the “Rabbi Paul” as too Jewish. The German Christians won the church elections in 1933 and so dominated the Protestant church. The Nazis persecuted the faithful remnant, the Confessing Church, which included Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Martin Niemöller. But when World War II ended, the Confessing Church took the reins of the new Protestant church. Here, too, the gates of Hell did not prevail.

Someday, according to today’s Old Testament reading, God’s people will be delivered, everyone who is found written in the book. The saints who have already died will not be forgotten: “Many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. Those who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the sky, and those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars forever and ever” Daniel’s prophecy is that we will receive eternal life, and Jesus promises it anew in John 3:16.

So, no matter how bad things get, let us persevere in faith. Jesus tells us, “Be faithful until death, and I will give you the crown of life” (Rev 2:10). We have our orders, the Great Commission. Shortly before His ascension, Jesus told the eleven remaining apostles, “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” (Matt 28:19-20). All authority in heaven and earth has been given to Jesus (Matt 28:18). Christ is Lord, and Caesar isn’t. His victory over the powers of evil is assured, and if we remain faithful, we, too, will share in His victory. There really is a rose garden in our future after all. Amen.

Paradox

August 27, 2024 / rampinelli

September 1, 2024 Fifteenth Sunday after Pentecost

Deut 4:1-2, 6-9; Psalm 15; James 1:17-27; Mark 7:1-8, 14-15, 21-23

Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of our hearts be acceptable in your sight, O Lord. Amen.

Please be seated.

The Cambridge Online Dictionary defines paradox as “a statement or situation that may be true but seems impossible or difficult to understand because it contains two opposite facts or characteristics.” Now, this does not include direct contradictions, such as “1 plus 1 equals 2 AND, simultaneously, 1 plus 1 equals 3.” That is a contradiction, and both statements can’t be true. But if I say, “Last Sunday was a sunny day” AND “Last Sunday was a rainy day,” both statements might be true. For example, last Sunday was a sunny day in Wiesbaden, which made our picnic memorable. But in Hawaii, not only did it rain, but the big island got hit by the edges of Hurricane Hone. When I was a schoolchild, we read a story about a spoiled prince who wanted a dessert that was both hot and cold. A contradiction? Well, he was served a hot fudge sundae, which was both hot and cold, so it was a paradox, not a contradiction. For contradictions, we talk about “either-or.” For paradoxes, we talk about “both-and.”

Christians are familiar with paradox. The nature of God, the Holy Trinity, has a paradox at its core. In the Godhead, there are three distinct persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. But the three persons share the same Being or essence, hence God is one. Similarly, the nature of Jesus appears at first glance to be a contradiction: How can Jesus simultaneously be both truly God and truly human? God and humans are of two very different natures, yet Jesus combined both natures in Himself. Christian theologians have struggled with these paradoxes for centuries but have been unable to find simple answers that satisfy the human intellect. That’s because God is so much greater than our finite human intellects can comprehend.

Today’s readings present a similar paradox when it comes to our salvation, although this is not immediately apparent. The Old Testament reading tells us that we should not add or subtract from God’s commands and must observe them diligently. A bit later, in Deuteronomy 6:5, we are told to Love the Lord our God with all our heart and with all our soul and with all our strength. Jesus repeats this later in Mark 12:30. He then adds, quoting Leviticus 19:18, that we should love our neighbor as ourselves.

Today’s Psalm tells us, “Whoever leads a blameless life and does what is right, who speaks the truth from his heart” may abide on God’s holy hill. In the epistle, James tells us we must rid ourselves of all sordidness and wickedness. Religion, he continues, consists of caring for orphans and widows in their distress and keeping ourselves unstained by the world. In the Gospel reading, the Pharisees confront Jesus, because some of His disciples were eating without washing their hands, which contradicted the tradition of the elders. Jesus replied that it is what comes out of our hearts that defiles us, not what comes from outside. Simply following rules is not enough: Our hearts must be righteous.

So far, you might wonder, “Where’s the paradox?” God is telling us we need to obey His commands, put Him first, love our neighbor as ourselves, lead a blameless life, and have a righteous heart. That sounds clear enough! Here’s the problem: we can’t do it! The first of the Ten Commandments tells us, we should have no other gods before Him. Well, we don’t worship Baal or any other deity. But if a “god” is whatever we put first in our lives, do we worship money, success, power, fame, social status? If so, we’ve broken the first Commandment. Let’s not even talk about the other nine! Have we observed God’s commands diligently? Have we led blameless lives? If we’re honest, I think the answer must be “no.” Have we done enough for the needy and kept ourselves unstained by the world? For most of us, very much including myself, the answer again is “no.”

Do I love the Lord my God with all my heart and with all my soul and with all my strength? Realistically, no. I might ask, is half of my heart and soul and strength enough? The answer should be obvious. Why should my Creator settle for half? Do I really love my neighbor as myself? No, not even close. I might comfort myself and point to someone who is even worse than I am. But does God grade on a curve? In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus tells us to be perfect, just as our heavenly Father is perfect (Matt 5:48). Perfection is God’s standard, so He doesn’t grade on a curve. We might also comfort ourselves by saying there are some terrible sins we have never committed, such as murder. But God’s standards are higher than ours. Jesus tells us, “You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment” (Matt 5:21-22). Have I ever been angry with a brother or sister? The answer is obvious. And James writes, “whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it” (Jas 2:10, NIV).

So, to sum up the problem: we can’t meet God’s standards. And realistically, there’s nothing we can do to meet them. That’s what God’s Law and today’s readings teach us.

Here’s the paradox: God demands that we obey his Law perfectly, but we can’t do it. But God loves us and wants everyone to be saved and spend eternity with Him. Jesus tells us, “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16). So, even though I don’t come close to meeting God’s standard, I can still “abide on God’s holy hill,” in the words of the Psalmist. I have been promised everlasting life. Why? Because God loves me, so He offers me the gift of salvation if I believe in His one and only Son. That’s it. Paul writes, “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast” (Eph 2:8-9, NIV).

Now it’s important to be clear: faith is more than just intellectually accepting some propositions, although that’s part of it. To have faith means to enter a relationship with Jesus, in which we accept Him as Both Savior and Lord. Accepting Him as Savior is critically important but not enough. It’s not enough to just receive the gift of salvation that Jesus earned for us on the cross. We need to follow Him as Lord. What does this mean? Jesus tells us, “If you love me, keep my commands” (John 14:15). His commands can be summarized in the Law of Love, mentioned above: Love God with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength, and our neighbor as ourselves. Gospel singer Amy Grant recorded a song called “Fat Baby,” in which a man “knelt at the altar and that was the end, he’s saved and that’s all that matters to him.” He accepted Jesus as Savior, but as Lord? No. Is he really saved? I don’t know.

And so now we return to today’s readings. In these passages, and many others, God lays out His standards, which we can’t meet. God offers us a way out: He sends His only son, Jesus, to bear the consequences for our sins in our place, and so offers us the gift of salvation. But God expects us to make progress to meet His standards. That’s what accepting Jesus as Lord means. We should strive to follow Him and do what He wants us to do.

And so, our salvation and God’s standards are a paradox. Salvation is a free gift that Jesus offers to sinners: We can do nothing to earn it, and we need do nothing to earn it. God accepts us as sinners but still expects us to meet His standards, which we can’t do on our own. The good news is that God doesn’t leave us helpless in our efforts to meet His standards. The Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the Trinity, helps us not only to believe but to move along the path of sanctification.

In Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis writes, “God is easy to please, but hard to satisfy.” God is “delighted with the first feeble, stumbling effort you make tomorrow to do the simplest duty. … On the other hand, you must realise from the outset that the goal to which He is beginning to guide you is absolute perfection; and no power in the universe, except you yourself, can prevent Him from taking you to that goal.” [1]

May God work in us to make us more like the people He wants us to be: People who love Him with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength, and our neighbor as ourselves. Amen.

[1] C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, (London: William Collins, 2012), 203

A Critique of Scientific Naturalism

August 2, 2024 / rampinelli

Introduction

This paper argues that scientific naturalism makes inaccurate predictions regarding the origin and fine-tuning of the universe, the origin and development of life, and miracles and that Christianity makes correct ones.

Analysis of Scientific Naturalism

Scientific naturalism, or ontological naturalism, assumes that the natural realm is a closed system and that all physical effects have physical causes. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, David Papineau, writes about ontological naturalism: “The ontological component is concerned with the contents of reality, asserting that reality has no place for “supernatural” or other “spooky” kinds of entity.”[1] This view is sometimes called physicalism or materialism. Ontological naturalism differs from methodological naturalism, which assumes that to do science, one must look for physical or natural causes of phenomena but does not deny the possibility of the supernatural.

Michael Shermer, founding publisher of Skeptic magazine, defines scientific naturalism this way: “Scientific naturalism is the principle that the world is governed by natural laws and forces that can be understood, and that all phenomena are part of nature and can be explained by natural causes, including human cognitive, moral and social phenomena.” [2] Shermer includes methodological naturalism in the category of scientific naturalism, but this is controversial, as theist scientists may also apply methodological naturalism in their research but accept its limitations.

More specifically, ontological naturalism asserts that there is no God and no supernatural. The following specific assumptions follow from this:

The universe has always existed and/or is the result of purely natural processes, and its apparent fine-tuning can, in principle, be explained by natural processes.
Life on earth arose through natural processes or was planted by an advanced alien civilization, which in turn arose through purely natural processes.
Unguided Darwinian Evolution (mutations and natural selection) explains the appearance of design among living creatures.[3]
Miracles are impossible, since supernatural intervention cannot occur (no supernatural, no intervention) and natural laws are immutable.
Scientific naturalism assumes that there is no purpose (no teleology) in the universe.

Critique of Scientific Naturalism

Description of Theist’s God

Let us begin with an understanding of what the theist’s God is. Stated simply, God is a mind, consciousness, one that has always existed (eternal), is very powerful (omnipotent), and can make decisions (personal). Such a being would not be subject to the laws that govern matter and energy. In fact, such a being would establish those laws. Since the universe as we know it is contingent, that is, it could have been very different, philosopher Keith Ward argues that the simplest reason for our universe to exist as it does is that an immaterial, eternal, powerful, and personal being willed it into existence. All other explanations add a great deal of complexity. And so, it is highly probable that God exists.[4]

Origin of the Universe: the Kalam Cosmological Argument

But let us get more specific. The Kalam Cosmological Argument[5] uses two premises and a conclusion:

(premise) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
(premise) The universe began to exist.
(conclusion) Therefore, the universe had a cause.

The nature of the cause had to be external to the universe, that is, it had to transcend space and time. This means it had to be timeless (eternal) and not material. It must be exceedingly powerful to create a universe. It must also be personal, that is, capable of deciding to create a universe. All this is a good description of the theistic God.[6]

A naturalist counterargument is that the universe has always existed. This was the belief that many philosophers and scientists held from the time of Aristotle. But in the 20^th century, the Big Bang model established itself as the Standard Model of cosmology. In this model, our universe began about 14 billion years ago. The evidence for this is very strong: our universe is expanding, which means it had to have been much smaller in the distant past. Also, background microwave radiation, a remnant of the Big Bang, was discovered in the 1960s. Since then, the Big Bang has been almost universally accepted.

But naturalists have not given up. One proposal is the oscillating universe, in which the universe expands up to a point, but then, due to gravity, collapses in on itself. This is followed by a new Big Bang, then another Big Crunch, forever. But there are two big problems with this. The expansion of the universe appears to be accelerating, in which case it will not collapse. Also, the second law of thermodynamics states that, in a closed system (such as the universe), entropy (disorder) will increase. What level of entropy would have been necessary at the “beginning” (and there would have been no beginning!) of the process?

A more recent theory is that the universe has always existed in the form of a quantum vacuum. In this vacuum, particles randomly come into existence and then disappear again. The theory is that these random fluctuations would somehow be pulled together by “quantum gravity” (which is not well understood) to form the precursor of the Big Bang. But is this a reasonable argument? The amount of matter and energy in our universe is huge. How could enough random fluctuations occur for quantum gravity to pull together and cause the Big Bang? Moreover, why do we not observe new universes popping randomly into existence?

Fine-Tuning of the Universe

Another problem from a naturalist perspective is that the universe appears to be designed – fine-tuned – to permit life. Cosmologist Paul Davies calls this the “Goldilocks Factor”.[7] Physics tells us four fundamental forces govern matter and energy: the strong force, which binds quarks into protons and neutrons and holds the nucleus together; the weak force, which governs radioactive decay and, more specifically, governs the fusion of hydrogen into helium; the electromagnetic force, which governs the attraction between differently charged particles (such as protons and electrons) and the repulsion between same-charged particles (e.g. electrons and electrons); and gravitational force, which governs the attraction between particles and larger objects. All of these consist of variables and a constant. For example, the gravitational force is described as F = G(m₁m₂)/R², where m1 is the mass of object 1, m2 is the mass of object 2, R is the distance between them, and G is the gravitational constant. These constants are critical values, and we do not yet understand why they have the values that they do.

John Lennox notes that if the ratio of the strong force constant to the electromagnetic force constant had been different by 1 part in 10¹⁶, no stars could have formed.[8] If the ratio of the electromagnetic force constant to the gravitational force constant had been greater by 1 part in 10⁴⁰, only small stars could exist.[9] Decrease the ratio by the same amount, and only large stars can exist. But both types of stars are essential for life: large stars produce the elements that the universe needs, and only small ones burn long enough to permit life to develop. There are other critical ratios as well, such as the ratio of the expansion forces and contraction forces at the Planck time (10^-43 seconds after the origin). If the ratio of the expansion forces to the contraction forces had been greater by 1 part in 10⁵⁵, the early universe would have expanded too quickly, and no stars or galaxies would have formed. If the ratio had been smaller by 1 part in 10⁵⁵, the early universe would have immediately collapsed. These improbabilities, as great as they are, are dwarfed by the entropy calculation. Sir Roger Penrose, a Nobel laureate mathematical physicist, has estimated that the probability of the universe having a sufficiently high entropy at its origin to explain its current entropy is 1 part in 10 to the power of 10¹²³.

There are, of course, naturalistic counterarguments. One is that these constants are somehow determined by more fundamental principles, such as may someday be discovered in M Theory or String Theory. That, of course, cannot be ruled out. But it seems to be the mirror of the well-worn “God of the gaps” argument. Here, it would be a “naturalism of the gaps” – even if we do not understand it, there must be a naturalistic explanation. This is circular reasoning, not logical inference. Another possibility trumpeted more recently is the multiverse. If there are an infinite number of universes, there will have to be at least one in which the variables fall within the necessary range to support life. And sentient life would have to be in that universe. There is no evidence for a multiverse, but it is theoretically possible. Still, there are problems with this theory. A major objection is that a universe with just the right conditions for intelligent life would be far more probable if it was very small, even as small as can be filled by a single brain (the Boltzmann brain objection).[10]

Origin of Life on Earth

Naturalism assumes that life on Earth arose through natural processes. Inorganic molecules formed by chance into organic molecules, such as amino acids, which then formed into living cells with RNA (a different type of molecule altogether) and DNA. Scientists have been conducting origin-of-life research for many decades. They have not yet succeeded in creating even a very simple form of life. Philosopher of science Stephen C. Meyer has calculated the odds of getting a single functional protein of 150 amino acids by chance alone at one chance in 10¹⁶⁴.[11] And one functional protein is a far cry from a living cell. DNA (and its companion RNA) are information storage molecules that form the genetic code of living cells. Meyer asks how the functionally specified information in DNA could arise. Our uniform experience is that functionally specified information comes from intelligent beings, not from chance.

Some naturalists propose that life on earth was “planted” from outer space. Indeed, some meteorites have been found to contain organic (that is, carbon-based) compounds, but no functional proteins. Still, even if life on earth originated from meteors or aliens, that would raise the question of how life arose on their planet of origin, so it would only push the question backward. Philosopher and former atheist Antony Flew credits his conversion to deism to the immense unlikelihood of life arising strictly by chance.[12]

The Design of Living Creatures

Naturalists, such as Richard Dawkins, admit that living creatures have the appearance of design. But, he argues, this appearance is fallacious.[13] Instead, natural selection guides purely natural processes, such as random mutations, to create living beings with apparent design. The deleterious mutations are weeded out and the beneficial ones are kept. We see this process at work in the natural world – at least at the sub-species level. Bacteria, for example, develop resistance to antibiotics through random variation and natural selection. It is, of course, a massive extrapolation to conclude that this alone explains how living creatures went from simple one-celled organisms to complex human beings. Still, the fossil record shows conclusively that the world of plants and animals today is very different from what it was millions of years ago. If we define “evolution” as change in characteristics of living things over time, then evolution clearly has occurred.

But is the Darwinian model of natural selection working on random mutations sufficient to explain this change? Mathematical analysis suggests it is not, according to Stephen C. Meyer. He cites David Axe as having estimated that, for every short functional protein fold of just 150 amino acids, there are 10⁷⁷nonfunctional combinations. Over the course of life on the earth, there have been an estimated 10⁴⁰ individual organisms. If we take the number of individual organisms as the number of trials and divide it by the number of possible sequences, we still have 1 chance in 10³⁷. Those are very low odds! And, of course, one functional protein is not enough to create a living cell: we still have the problem of information. It is highly improbable that the functionally specified information present in the DNA of even the simplest single-celled organism could have arisen by chance.[14] Meyer also discusses the Cambrian explosion of animal life, in which new forms of animals appeared over a relatively short period of time. This would have required a simultaneous explosion of information. A fair conclusion is that unguided evolution, defined as natural selection working on random mutations, is inadequate to explain the apparent design of living creatures.

A further problem for the Darwinian model is irreducible complexity. The Darwinian model is based on numerous small changes that accumulate over time to make large changes (changes in species and higher taxonomic classifications). But numerous organs display irreducible complexity. These consist of multiple components that have no function except in combination with other components. Michael J. Behe explains the concept with the example of a mousetrap, which has only five components: a platform, a spring, a hold-down bar, a hammer, and a catch. Each of these components is useless by itself, but working together, the components form an effective system.[15] Behe identifies some systems that display this kind of complexity: the cilium, bacterial flagellum, and blood clotting cascades.[16] The human eye is also often cited as an example of irreducible complexity. The concept of irreducible complexity is not universally accepted. Darwinists have launched severe counterattacks on it as well as on the entire field of Intelligent Design, of which it is a part. This is unfortunate. Science advances when scientists challenge existing dogma. The sharpness of Darwinists’ attacks on Intelligent Design reminds one of the Roman Catholic Church’s attacks on Galileo in the 17^th century (it has now admitted that Galileo was right).

Miracles

Since David Hume made his famous argument in the Enlightenment, naturalists have been confident that miracles are so unlikely that ANY alternative explanation is more credible than an account of a miracle. Hume defined a miracle as a violation of a natural law, and argued that our uniform experience is that natural laws are never violated. Accordingly, no account of a miracle can be credible. But C.S. Lewis disagrees. “I use the word Miracle to mean an interference with Nature by supernatural power.”[17] Even if we assume that natural laws cannot be violated, this broader definition allows for miracles to occur. A simple example should suffice. The law of gravity predicts that, if I drop a coin, it will fall to the ground. I drop a coin and it lands in my outstretched hand. Did the coin violate the law of gravity? No, I simply intervened in the process. God, if he exists, can certainly intervene in the process of natural laws, which then absorb and continue with the intervention. For example, when Jesus turned the water into wine, that was a divine intervention. But if people then drank too much of it, they would have gotten drunk, as the laws of nature would predict.

There is good reason to believe that miracles can and still do occur. New Testament scholar Craig Keener has written a two-volume scholarly work on miracles and a one volume follow-on book for the general public. Both works are carefully documented. This does not mean that all reports represent real examples of divine intervention – readers should come to their own conclusions. Perhaps the most convincing accounts are those of miraculous healings that contain the testimony of medical records before the healing and after. Some of these healings might have been spontaneous (cancer remission) or the healing of psychosomatic illnesses in response to prayer. But some are simply hard to explain.

One example is the story of Brielle Bratun, who was born with abnormally short arms. In church, her mother prayed, and Brielle’s arms grew. This case is medically documented.[18] Another case is that of Jeremiah Wiederhold. While in his mother’s womb in the third trimester, an ultrasound revealed a tumor in his heart, which would likely cause mental problems and multiple seizures daily. His parents prayed fervently. When Jeremiah was born, the doctors found no tumor, even though the ultrasound clearly showed it had existed. This case, too, is medically documented.[19] Dalia Knox was injured in a car accident and was confined to a wheelchair for more than 22 years. Her healing in a revival service was captured on video.[20] Church leaders and members vouch for her paralysis and healing.[21]

Purpose

The discussion so far does not cover all criticisms of scientific naturalism. Many could be added, such as the nature of human consciousness, morality, rationality, and the Ontological Argument. Nor has direct evidence of God and the supernatural been discussed, except for miracles. This evidence includes spiritual experiences, near death experiences,[22] demonic possession, and parapsychological phenomena, many of which have been scientifically investigated and documented. But one final, more personal critique of naturalism seems appropriate here: it assumes that there is no purpose in the universe. If the universe has no purpose, life is meaningless and absurd. Our lives will end at death, and even the universe will eventually end. It is hard to understand how anyone can find this attractive.

Defense of Christianity

The defense of Christianity has already been implied in the critique of scientific naturalism, as theism in general, and Christianity in particular, is the only reasonable alternative to it.[23] Christianity has no difficulty with the objections to naturalism raised in the critique. At the core of Christianity is the claim that God and the supernatural exist, and that God is active in the affairs of the world. This God is eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, and personal and can easily have created the universe. Likewise, Christianity predicts that the universe would be fine-tuned to permit life, as the creation of life, and of human beings in particular, would be at the core of God’s purpose. God would not have chosen to make a universe that could not support life.[24] Similarly, the God of Christianity would have no difficulty creating life on earth, by whatever process he chose, without being constrained by random processes. Similarly, Christianity easily and directly explains the design of living creatures. God could, of course, have used mutations and natural selection to develop life, especially to ensure that all creatures fit together well in the environment. But God would not be constrained by Darwinism’s limited processes. Regarding miracles, Christianity records them in the Bible and predicts that miracles can occur if God chooses to do them.[25]

Finally, with Christianity, life has meaning, because a benevolent God has created the universe with a purpose. Our purpose as human beings is to know, love, and serve God and love our neighbor as ourselves. If Christianity is true, believers survive physical death and enjoy eternal life. Could anything be more meaningful?

Bibliography

Behe, Michael J. Darwin’s Black Box : the Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. New York: Free Press, 1996.

Craig, William Lane. Reasonable Faith : Christian Truth and Apologetics. Third edition. Wheaton, Ill: Crossway Books, 2008.

Dawkins, Richard. Outgrowing God : a Beginner’s Guide. First U.S edition. New York: Random House, 2019.

Flew, Antony, and Roy Abraham. Varghese. There Is a God : How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind. 1st ed. New York: HarperOne, 2007.

Habermas, Gary R., and James Porter Moreland. Immortality: the Other Side of Death. Nashville: T. Nelson, 1992.

Keener, Craig S. Miracles Today : the Supernatural Work of God in the Modern World. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, a division of Baker Publishing Group, 2021.

Lennox, John C. Cosmic Chemistry: Do God and Science Mix? London: Lion Hudson, 2021

Lewis, C. S. (Clive Staples). Miracles : a Preliminary Study. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1996.

Meyer, Stephen C. Return of the God Hypothesis : Three Scientific Discoveries That Reveal the Mind Behind the Universe. First edition. New York, NY: HarperOne, an imprint of HaperCollinsPublishers, 2021.

Papineau, David. “Naturalism”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2021 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)

Shermer, Michael (2017) “Scientific Naturalism: A Manifesto for Enlightenment Humanism”, Theology and Science, 15:3, 220-230

Ward, Keith, Why There Almost Certainly Is a God : Doubting Dawkins. 1st ed. Oxford: Lion Hudson, 2008.

[1] David Papineau, “Naturalism”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2021 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)

[2] Michael Shermer (2017) “Scientific Naturalism: A Manifesto for Enlightenment Humanism”, Theology and Science, 15:3, 220-230

[3] Dawkins, Richard. Outgrowing God : a Beginner’s Guide. First U.S edition. New York: Random House, 2019.

[4] Keith Ward, Why There Almost Certainly Is a God : Doubting Dawkins. 1st ed. Oxford: Lion Hudson, 2008.

[5] William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith : Christian Truth and Apologetics. Third edition. Wheaton, Ill: Crossway Books, 2008. p. 111 ff.

[6] Craig, ibid. 152

[7] Paul Davies, The Goldilocks Enigma: Why is the Universe Just Right for Life? Mariner Books, Houghton Mifflin Company, 2008, e-book. Note, this book is catalogued in the U.S. as Cosmic Jackpot.

[8] John C. Lennox, Cosmic Chemistry: Do God and Science Mix? London: Lion Hudson, 2021 p. 149

[9] Lennox, ibid. p. 149

[10] Craig, ibid. p. 150

[11] Meyer, Stephen C. Return of the God Hypothesis : Three Scientific Discoveries That Reveal the Mind Behind the Universe. First edition. New York, NY: HarperOne, an imprint of HaperCollinsPublishers, 2021 p. 175

[12] Antony Flew and Roy Abraham. Varghese. There Is a God : How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind. 1st ed. New York: HarperOne, 2007.

[13] Dawkins, ibid.

[14] Meyer, ibid.

[15] Michael J. Behe, Darwin’s Black Box : the Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. New York: Free Press, 1996.

[16] Behe, ibid.

[17] C.S. Lewis, Miracles: a Preliminary Study. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1996. p. 5.

[18] Keener, Craig S. Miracles Today : the Supernatural Work of God in the Modern World. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, a division of Baker Publishing Group, 2021. P. 46

[19] Keener, ibid. p. 41

[20] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNg7GWnXV_c&t=580s Accessed on Sep. 9, 2023, 2:30 p.m. (CET)

[21] Keener, ibid. pp. 51-54

[22] Habermas, Gary R., and James Porter Moreland. Immortality: the Other Side of Death. Nashville: T. Nelson, 1992.

[23] A discussion of why Christianity is superior to other theistic worldviews, such as Zoroastrianism and Islam, would focus on the Resurrection of Jesus, but that is outside the scope of this paper.

[24] Craig, ibid.

[25] Lewis, ibid.

Minimal Facts Case for the Resurrection

August 2, 2024 / rampinelli

Introduction

Catholic apologists Peter J. Kreeft and Ronald K. Tacelli write: “We believe Christ’s Resurrection can be proved with at least as much certainty as any universally believed and well-documented event in ancient history.”[1] This paper will introduce Habermas’ and Licona’s Minimal Facts Approach to the resurrection of Jesus. It will briefly address the core naturalist objection, that the Resurrection would be a miracle and miracles cannot occur, and will examine naturalist objections to Jesus’ appearances, the hallucination or vision theory. The paper shows that this theory fails to adequately account for the historical facts. Finally, it concludes from the Minimal Facts Approach that Jesus’ Resurrection was likely a historical fact.

Miracles

The Resurrection was a miracle. If one is an atheist or a deist, as most skeptics are, then a God who performs miracles is not possible. But the argument for God’s existence is very strong: the creation of the universe (see William L. Craig’s Kalam Cosmological Argument), its fine-tuning, the origin of life on earth, and the inadequacy of the neo-Darwinian model to fully explain the information content of living creatures, as well as many other arguments. If there is a God who is active in his creation, miracles are possible. Even today, there are credible, documented accounts of miracles.[2]

Historical Principles for Determining Credibility

The arguments for the historicity of the Resurrection rely on the credibility of the accounts of this event, which took place about 2000 years ago. Theologians Gary Habermas and Mike Licona lay out five widely accepted historical principles that are relevant to the case for the Resurrection:

Multiple, independent sources support historical claims.
Attestation by an enemy supports historical claims.
Embarrassing situations support historical claims.
Eyewitness testimony supports historical claims.
Early testimony supports historical claims.

If one or more of these principles can be applied to the evidence for an event, one can conclude that the event likely happened. On the other hand, the absence of these principles does not disprove the historicity of an event, but simply makes it less certain.

Minimal Facts Approach

Gary Habermas and Michael Licona have developed a Minimal Facts Approach to argue for the historicity of Jesus’ bodily resurrection. The first four facts are almost universally accepted by New Testament scholars, even by those who deny the resurrection. Scholars also widely, but not universally, accept the fifth fact. These facts are:[3]

Fact 1: Jesus died by crucifixion.
Fact 2: Jesus’ disciples believed that he rose and appeared to them.
Fact 3: The church persecutor Paul was suddenly changed.
Fact 4: The skeptic James, brother of Jesus, was suddenly changed.
Fact 5: The tomb was empty.

Some scholars reject Fact 5, that the tomb was empty, but this is a minority view. Gary Habermas has estimated that “75 percent of scholars on the subject accept the empty tomb as historical fact.”[4]

Fact 1: Jesus Died by Crucifixion

John Dominic Crossan of the Jesus Seminar, a skeptical scholar, writes: “That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be.”[5] It is attested to by multiple independent sources, including some who were hostile to Christianity.[6] It also satisfies the principle of embarrassment. Crucifixion in the Roman Empire was a shameful as well as painful way to die. If early Christians had decided to make up a story, they would have chosen a more dignified mode of execution. That Jesus died on the cross is attested to in all four Gospels, which were either written by an eyewitness or relied on eyewitness testimony.[7]

The Swoon Theory

The main argument skeptics provide here is not that the crucifixion did not happen, but that Jesus did not die. This is called the apparent death theory or, more frequently, the swoon theory. According to this argument, Jesus did not really die, but revived in the cold tomb. Keeft and Tacelli provide nine arguments to refute this theory.[8] Basically, Jesus could not have survived crucifixion at the hands of the Romans, who were experts at it. But if He had somehow survived it, in His very weakened state, He could not have unwrapped Himself, rolled away the stone, overpowered the guards, walked to the disciples, and convinced them that He had risen from the dead.

Fact 2: The Disciples Believed that He Appeared to Them

Almost all scholars agree that “something happened” to cause the disciples to believe that Jesus rose from the dead. The disciples claimed that they had seen him resurrected and were transformed from “fearful, cowering individuals who denied and abandoned him at his arrest and execution into bold proclaimers of the risen Lord.”[9] They began preaching the resurrection on Pentecost, fifty days after it occurred. All of them faced persecution for their beliefs, and many of them were martyred. People are not willing to die for what they know is a lie. If the disciples had not sincerely believed that Jesus rose from the dead, they would not have paid the very heavy price for their proclamation. Moreover, multiple eyewitness attested to seeing Him alive after the crucifixion, including all of the original Eleven (Judas was dead) and both James and Paul (Facts 3 and 4). The three main objections are the fraud or conspiracy, legend or myth, and hallucination or vision theories.

Fraud or Conspiracy Theory

One theory is that, after the crucifixion, the disciples conspired to lie that they had seen Jesus appear to them in bodily form. This would also require them to steal His body from the tomb, as otherwise their opponents could have brought it out and paraded it in the streets. Kreeft and Tacelli list seven arguments against this theory.[10] What advantage would the disciples have had from spreading this lie? Most of them were martyred for their faith. As Keeft and Tacelli write, “Nothing proves sincerity like martyrdom.”[11] Habermas and Licona make the same argument and add that even if the disciples lied about the Resurrection, it would not explain the conversion of Paul and James (Facts 3 and 4).

Legend or Myth Theory

Another theory holds that accounts of the Resurrection were myths or legends. According to this theory, the historical Jesus was a religious teacher, possibly a healer of psychosomatic illnesses, but not a miracle worker and certainly not one who rose from the dead. As time went on, the legend developed that He worked miracles and rose from the dead. Embellishments and legends can certainly develop given enough time. The Gospel of Peter, for example, written in about AD 125, added fanciful elements to the Resurrection story, including men descending from heaven and a talking cross.[12] Kreeft and Tacelli list six arguments against this theory.[13] First, the style of the Gospels is devoid of such fanciful elements as found in the Gospel of Peter. A second argument is that there simply was not enough time for such fanciful embellishments. Most scholars believe that the Synoptics were written in the first century AD, when some of the eyewitnesses were probably still alive. Some scholars argue that Luke was written before Paul died in about AD 64, which would make Mark even earlier. In 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, Paul recites a creed that includes Christ’s death and Resurrection. The letter was probably written in AD 53-54, but the creed is much earlier. Paul Gould, Travis Dickinson, and Keith Loftin write, “Most scholars, critical and conservative, date this creed within just a few years after Jesus’s crucifixion. Even Gerd Lüdemann, himself no friend of the resurrection theory, grants ‘that all the elements in the tradition are to be dated to the first two years after the crucifixion of Jesus . . . not later than three years after the death of Jesus.’”[14]

Another problem for the legend theory is that the first eyewitnesses to the Resurrection were women. In first -century Palestine, women were not considered credible witnesses. If the accounts were legendary, they would not have women as the first eyewitnesses. Moreover, the apostles would not have been willing to endure persecution and martyrdom for what they knew was a legend. Nor would a legend have been able to convince Paul and James that Jesus had risen from the dead. Another argument against the legend theory is that first-century Jews did not expect that anyone would rise from the dead before the Last Day. As N.T. Wright says, “Nobody in Judaism had expected the Messiah to die, and therefore naturally nobody had imagined the Messiah rising from the dead.”[15] It is therefore unlikely that a legend about Jesus’ bodily resurrection would have developed.

The Hallucination or Vision Theory

Another naturalist attempt to explain the post-resurrection appearances is the hallucination theory. This theory goes back to the critical New Testament scholar David Strauss, who developed it in the 19^th century, and is continued today by Gerd Lüdemann.[16] People often have grief hallucinations in which they think they see the loved one in the distance. This is particularly common if they use alcohol or drugs to numb the pain.[17] The disciples were, of course, grieving over their dead leader. But there are problems with this theory. The above-mentioned creed in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 (NASB) says He “appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. After that He appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also.” In other words, the appearances were shared by numerous people at the same time: the apostles in the locked room, the two on the road to Emmaus, the apostles again in Galilee, and the five hundred. But hallucinations are individual experiences – they are not shared. Gould, Dickinson, and Loftin quote clinical psychologist Gary Sibcy, who performed an exhaustive review of the professional literature over two decades. He stated that he had “yet to find a single documented case of a group hallucination, that is, an event for which more than one person purportedly shared in a visual or other sensory perception where there was no external referent.”[18]

The hallucination theory also fails to account for the empty tomb. If the disciples merely hallucinated the appearances, the tomb would not be empty. If it were not empty, Tom Wright argues, sooner or later his Jewish followers would have had to collect and rebury his bones, in accordance with Jewish tradition.[19] The theory also fails to account for Facts 3 and 4: It is unlikely that James, the brother of Jesus, would have had a grief-induced hallucination. He might have grieved over the loss of his older brother, but he was a skeptic and did not expect a resurrection. Paul, of course, was a fervent opponent of Christianity and would hardly have grieved over the crucifixion. Moreover, the Gospels recount physical appearances, including the resurrected Jesus’ eating and drinking. The women at the tomb most likely even touched him, as did Thomas.

In the vision theory, the disciples really did see something, but it was a heavenly vision, not a physical body. Jesus’ soul or spirit was raised to heaven and appeared spiritually to them.[20] This is possible in the case of Paul, who saw a brilliant light. But it does not do justice to the very physical appearances described above, nor does it explain the empty tomb. Wright argues that, without the empty tomb, the disciples would have dismissed the appearances as sightings of a ghost.[21] Some skeptics try to equate the appearance to Paul and the appearance to the disciples. But Jesus’ appearance to Paul came AFTER the Ascension, whereas the disciples saw him while he was still on earth. Moreover, Paul clearly taught that Jesus had a body in the risen state.[22]

Fact 3: The Church Persecutor Paul Was Suddenly Changed.

Paul was a zealous Pharisee who considered the early Christ-followers heretics and a threat. He participated in the stoning of Stephen, the first martyr, in Jerusalem (Acts 8:1). He was on the road to Damascus to bring Christ-followers back to Jerusalem as prisoners when he saw a bright light and heard Jesus say to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” (Acts 9:4). He was blinded and led to Damascus, where his eyes were opened by the Christ-follower Ananias (Acts 9:17). Saul, who was also called by the Greek name Paul, began to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ. He soon became the apostle to the Gentiles and wrote many of the books in the New Testament. Paul clearly states that the risen Christ “appeared to me also” (Gk. “He was seen by me also”) (1 Cor 15:8). Paul was beheaded for his testimony in Rome in AD 64. It is highly unlikely that Paul would have turned his back on his previous life just based on the testimony of “heretics.” He really thought he had seen the risen Christ.

Fact 4: The Skeptic James, Brother of Jesus, Was Suddenly Changed

James, one of Jesus’ brothers (Mark 6:3), did not believe that Jesus was the Messiah. Mark 3:21 says, “When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, ‘He is out of his mind.’” John 7:5 says, “For even his brothers did not believe in him.” In the creed recited by Paul, Jesus appeared to James (1 Cor 15:7). He became a leader in the church at Jerusalem (Acts 15:13) and was martyred.[23] This is another example of a skeptic being converted as a result of seeing the risen Christ.

Fact 5: The Tomb Was Empty

All four Gospels report that, after the crucifixion, Jesus’ body was placed in a tomb. All three report that, on the third day, the women found the tomb empty. This fifth fact is widely, but not universally, accepted among scholars. Bart Ehrman, for example, argues that Jesus’ body was thrown into an open pit, as Romans often did after a crucifixion. But Josh and Sean McDowell point out that the Romans sometimes did permit burial of crucifixion victims in Palestine to avoid defiling the land under Jewish law.[24] Since it was the Sanhedrin that initiated the crucifixion, it was responsible for burying the body. There is also archaeological evidence from Palestine of bones in ossuaries with nails from crucifixion.

Some skeptics argue that Jesus’ body was placed in a tomb, but the body was stolen, either by the disciples or by someone else. If the disciples had stolen it, they would have known the Resurrection was a lie and would not have accepted martyrdom. As for someone else stealing the body, who would have an interest in doing it? This, of course, would not explain the sightings of the resurrected Christ. Another proposed explanation is that the women mistakenly went to the wrong tomb. Jesus body is still in the tomb, but not the one that was empty. First, the women had seen where the body was placed, and it is unlikely that they would have forgotten where it was. Also, Peter (Luke 24:12) or Peter and the “other disciple” (John 20:6-7) ran to the tomb and found strips of linen used for burial. Another problem with this explanation is that the authorities could have produced the body in response to the events at Pentecost. That would have shut down talk of the Resurrection. Instead, they claimed that Jesus’ disciples stole the body (Matt 28:13).

If the tomb was not empty, Jesus did not rise bodily from the dead. It would mean that the sightings of the “resurrected” Jesus would have been visions at most. The empty tomb itself does not prove the Resurrection, but it corroborates the sightings and experience of the disciples that Jesus truly did rise bodily from the dead.

Other Objections (Not Minimal Facts)

Discrepancies Between Resurrection Accounts

One objection often made is that the four Gospels give differing accounts of the Resurrection.[25] For example, how many women went to the tomb on the third day and how many angels were there? Did Jesus appear to the disciples at Jerusalem, as Luke writes, in Galilee, as Matthew writes, or first in Jerusalem and then in Galilee, as John writes? If these differences cannot be reconciled, at worst this would be a blow to the doctrine of biblical inerrancy, which does not lie at the center of the Christian faith. Still, Gleason Archer writes, “A careful examination of these four records in comparison with one another demonstrates that they are not in any way contradictory, despite the charges leveled by some critics. It is helpful to synthesize all four accounts in order to arrive at a full picture of what took place on Easter itself and during the weeks that intervened until the ascension of Christ.”[26]

One should keep in mind that none of the Gospels pretend to be a complete account of the life, death, Resurrection, and Ascension of Jesus. Books in the first century AD had to be short, as they were written by hand on expensive papyrus or parchment and then had to be copied laboriously by hand to pass them on to others. The authors of the Gospels, therefore, were very selective about which details to include and which to leave out. John only mentions Mary Magdalene at the tomb, but he does not write that she was the only one at the tomb. Matthew (Matt 28:2-7) and Mark (Mark 16:5) write about one angel at the tomb while Luke (Luke 24:4) and John (John 20:12) write about two angels. But Matthew and Mark do not write that there was only one angel at the tomb. Likewise, the apparent problem about where the appearances took place goes away if John’s account is accepted: Jesus appeared to the disciples in both places.

The alleged discrepancies suggest that the Gospel writers are relying on different traditions. This indicates the use of multiple independent sources, which would buttress claims that the Resurrection really did occur.

Other Religions Make Similar Claims

The argument is that other religions make the same claims as Christianity. If these claims are myths, is not the Resurrection also a myth? Note that tis line of argument does not address the evidence laid out in the Minimal Facts approach.

It is not true that other religions make the same claims. Hinduism has no known founder. Buddhism has a founder, Siddhartha Gautama, but he made no claims to divinity, and Buddhism does not speak of a resurrection. The Buddha achieved “enlightenment” and taught that people could escape the cycle of rebirth by following the “eightfold path.” The founder of Islam, the prophet Muhammad, did not claim divine status nor did he rise from the dead. His tomb in Medina is a pilgrimage site for pious Muslims. He claimed to receive the Koran orally from the angel Gabriel over a period of time. The first revelation was in AD 609 in a cave on Mount Hira. Besides himself, there were no witnesses to his receipt of the Koran. The founder of Mormonism, Joseph Smith, claimed he received the golden plates from the angel Moroni, which he deciphered using a “seer stone.” Once deciphered, he returned the plates to Moroni. Mormons say there were 11 witnesses to the deciphering process (not to the receipt of the plates), but this does not withstand scrutiny well. One should note that Mormons claim to be Christians, and Muslims count Jesus as one of their prophets.

Contrast the accounts of Muhammad and Joseph Smith to the Resurrection, to which there were numerous eyewitnesses, including up to 500 at one time (1 Cor 15:6). Another notable difference is that many of the Christian eyewitnesses suffered martyrdom for their testimony. Muhammad was a powerful military leader and not martyred. Joseph Smith was killed when he tried to defend himself in a local jail using a smuggled pistol. Both Muhammad and Joseph Smith also benefited from their stories with power and multiple wives. There is nothing like that in the early Christian church.

Among world religions, Christianity’s claims are unique. They should be evaluated on the evidence.

The Gospel’s Authors Were Biased

The argument is that the Gospel authors were followers of Jesus Christ, and so were biased. Can we trust biased sources?

Of course they were biased! They believed in the Resurrection. If you believe in the Resurrection, you would be a fool not to follow Christ! Who else besides a believer would write an account about someone that most people had never heard of? But biased does not mean untrustworthy. Perhaps everything we know about ancient personalities comes from sources that were biased either for or against that person. Even modern historians, who endeavor to be “objective,” have a point of view. If we disqualify all sources that have a bias, we would know very little about anything. That the writers of the Gospels were biased does not mean they were not honest or objective.

Minimal Facts Conclusion

The most controversial of the five minimal facts are the empty tomb and the nature of the appearances to the disciples. Fact 1, the crucifixion, is not questioned by serious scholars – it is confirmed by multiple sources, including non-Christian ones such as Josephus, and the criterion of embarrassment makes it extremely unlikely that early Christians would have invented such a shameful death for their leader.[27] Fact 3 – that Paul suddenly changed due to a claimed appearance – is well known. Paul was a fierce opponent of the Christian faith, and only a dramatic event could have explained his conversion. Fact 4 – that James, the brother of Jesus, converted – also requires an explanation. The gospels record that James rejected his brother’s claims, but suddenly in Acts he is a leader of the church in Jerusalem. Paul reports that Jesus appeared to James after the Resurrection, which would explain his conversion.

The naturalist explanations of Fact 5, the empty tomb – theft of the body, the swoon theory, wrong tomb – are questionable and fail to address the other four facts. In particular, the suggestion that the disciples might have stolen the body does not work. If they had stolen the body, they would have known that the resurrection was a lie and would not have been willing to suffer and die for proclaiming it. This contradicts fact 2 – the disciples believed Jesus appeared to them. The case is very strong that his appearances were real, bodily ones and not hallucinations or mere visions.

The Minimal Facts, taken together, make a powerful case for the bodily resurrection of Jesus. It is the best explanation for all five facts looked at individually and taken together. Each of the naturalist theories at best explains one of the facts taken in isolation. Combining the naturalist theories together to explain all the facts decreases their likelihood immensely.[28]

If you would like a Word document of this article, please send me an email at rampinelli@aol.com.

Bibliography

Archer, Gleason L., Jr. New International Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2001.

Bauckham, Richard. Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2006.

Craig, William Lane. Reasonable Faith : Christian Truth and Apologetics. Third edition. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2008.

Gould, Paul M., Travis Dickinson, and R. Keith Loftin. Stand Firm: Apologetics and the Brilliance of the Gospel. Nashville, TN: B & H Academic, 2018.

Habermas, Gary R., and Mike Licona. The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2004.

Keener, Craig S. Miracles Today: the Supernatural Work of God in the Modern World. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2021.

Kreeft, Peter J. and Ronald T. Tacelli, Handbook of Catholic Apologetics: Reasoned Answers to Questions of Faith. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2009.

McDowell, Josh and Sean McDowell, Evidence that Demands a Verdict: Life-Changing Truth for a Skeptical World, 4^th ed. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2017.

Moreland, James Porter, and Tim Muehlhoff. The God Conversation : Using Stories and Illustrations to Explain Your Faith. Revised and expanded 2^nd ed. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Books, 2017.

Wright, N. T. (Nicholas Thomas). Surprised by Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission of the Church. New York: HarperOne, 2008.

[1] Peter J. Kreeft and Ronald T. Tacelli, Handbook of Catholic Apologetics: Reasoned Answers to Questions of Faith, (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2009), 192.

[2] See Craig S. Keener, Miracles Today: The Supernatural Work of God in the Modern World, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2021).

[3] Gary R. Habermas, and Mike Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2004), 48-77

[4] Habermas and Licona, 70.

[5] Habermas and Licona, 49. They quote from John Dominic Crossan, Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1991), 145.

[6] Habermas and Licona, 49.

[7] See Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2006), 6.

[8] Kreeft and Tacelli, Handbook of Catholic Apologetics, 193-195.

[9] Habermas and Licona, 50.

[10] Kreeft and Tacelli, Handbook of Catholic Apologetics, 195-197.

[11] Kreeft and Tacelli, Handbook of Catholic Apologetics, 196.

[12] Ibid., 201.

[13] Ibid., 200.

[14] Paul Gould, Travis Dickinson, and Keith Loftin, Stand Firm: Apologetics and the Brilliance of the Gospel, Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2018), 71.

[15] N.T. Wright, Surprised by Hope (London: SPCK, 2007), 59.

[16] William Lane Craig. Reasonable Faith : Christian Truth and Apologetics. Third edition. Wheaton, Ill: Crossway Books, 2008. p. 384

[17] Habermas and Licona, 105-6

[18] Paul Gould, Travis Dickinson, und Keith Loftin, Stand Firm: Apologetics and the Brilliance of the Gospel, Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2018), 122.

[19] Tom Wright. Surprised by Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission of the Church, (New York: HarperOne, 2008), 69-70.

[20] Habermas and Licona, 154-155.

[21] Wright, Surprised by Hope, 70.

[22] Habermas and Licona, p. 155

[23] Habermas and Licona, 68.

[24] Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell, Evidence that Demands a Verdict: Life-Changing Truth for a Skeptical World, 4^th ed. (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2017), 251.

[25] Habermas and Licona, 122-123.

[26] Gleason L. Archer, Jr. New International Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2001), 420.

[27] Habermas and Licona, 48-49.

[28] Habermas and Licona, p. 120-121

Miracles Book Discussion Group

October 16, 2022 / rampinelli

Are you interested in theological questions? Would you like to practice your English?

St. Augustine’s of Canterbury (“The English Church”) in Wiesbaden offers a group discussion of C.S. Lewis’s Miracles, supplemented by examples from Craig Keener’s Miracles Today. The introductory session already took place on October 11, but the actual first discussion will take place on Wednesday, October 26. The group will meet every second Wednesday evening starting at 7 p.m. The sessions will be held in hybrid mode (undercroft of the church on Frankfurter Straße in Wiesbaden and simultaneously by Zoom) and normally last for 60 to 90 minutes.

If you would like to join the group, please contact me, Greg Rampinelli, at rampinelli@aol.com or rampyfhw@aol.com. I will send you the first set of slides as well as the Zoom link. The discussion group is open to anyone, not just members of our church.

Miracles is a philosophical/theological book that argues that miracles can and do occur. We will supplement it with accounts of modern-day miracles collected by Prof. Craig Keener and published in his recent book Miracles Today.

Clives Staples Lewis (1898-1963) was a British writer, academic, and lay theologian. He taught literature at Oxford University, then at Cambridge. C.S. Lewis lost his mother when he was young and became an atheist at 15. His atheism was reinforced by the suffering he experienced as an officer in World War I. Thanks to the influence of writers George MacDonald and G.K. Chesterton as well as his friend J.R.R. Tolkien, he slowly and reluctantly began to believe in God. He became a theist in 1929 and a Christian in 1931. Baptized as a child in the Church of Ireland, he returned to the Anglican Church.

C.S. Lewis is famous for his works of fiction, such as the Chronicles of Narnia, The Screwtape Letters, and The Great Divorce, as well as his Christian apologetics works, such as Surprised by Joy, The Problem of Pain, Miracles, and Mere Christianity.

P.S. We will also form a discussion group for C.S. Lewis’s The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, from the Chronicles of Narnia starting (tentatively) on November 13. It will be held after church.

God’s Empathy

December 26, 2021 / rampinelli

Christmas 2021

We’re approaching the end of the Covid-19 pandemic’s second year. Last summer, thanks to vaccinations, many of us believed it would be over by now, and our lives would get back to normal. But with vaccine hesitancy and the rise of the Delta variant, and now Omicron, our hopes were soon dashed. The restrictions this Christmas are less intrusive than last year – we had a Christmas market in Wiesbaden – but the unvaccinated were barred from stores and restaurants, even with tests.

The split in German society is worse now than last year. Many of the vaccinated point their fingers at the unvaccinated and blame them for the continuing pandemic. Many of the unvaccinated, in turn, argue that the vaccinated have a lack of empathy. And the reality is that vaccines provide a lot of protection but don’t prevent someone from contracting and spreading the disease.

Sympathy, compassion, empathy

Christians are called to love their neighbors as themselves. If our neighbor is suffering, we should understand and care for his or her suffering. That’s sympathy. We should go further and put this understanding and caring into action. That’s compassion. Empathy goes further: here we share someone else’s feelings or experiences by imagining what it would be like to be in that person’s situation. That’s hard to do.

Some Christians even argue that empathy is wrong. In the conservative evangelical website Desiring God, for example, Joe Rigney writes that empathy is a sin. Adopting the persona of Wormwood in C.S. Lewis’ The Screwtape Letters, he argues that empathy means losing yourself in the other’s feelings, giving up your own identity and judgment. Rigney compares it to seeing someone flailing in quicksand and jumping in with both feet. The result is that both go under. In contrast, compassion means keeping one foot on solid ground while reaching out to the other.

If Rigney’s definition of empathy is correct, then he’s right: when showing compassion, we must remain grounded in Christ. If we see a drug addict shooting up heroin, we must not inject it ourselves to be “empathetic”. But who describes empathy that way?

God’s empathy

God in the person of Jesus Christ gives us a different example of empathy. All people were lost in sin, falling short of the glory of God. There was a gulf, unbridgeable for us, between God’s holiness and our reality. But God loved us greatly and decided to cross over that gap. God’s eternal Word, His only begotten Son, was born to a virgin. Jesus began as an embryo, then a fetus, and finally was born in a stall. The Lord of the Universe had become a baby, whose first bed was a feeding trough for farm animals. C.S. Lewis picturesquely wrote, “If you want to get the hang of it, think how you would like to become a slug or a crab.”

Jesus lived a simple life as a carpenter’s son in a small village in Galilee. He taught and worked miracles as an itinerant preacher. His family thought He was crazy. He ran afoul of the religious and political authorities. Betrayed and abandoned by His friends, He was tortured to death on the cross, the most humiliating form of execution the Roman Empire knew.

Jesus had empathy with us. In His human nature, He felt the same things we do – cold, hunger, thirst, pain. Jesus went through this for many reasons. The Lord of the Universe lived as a poor man to elevate the poor, making the last first. He suffered betrayal and death as our representative to redeem us and the world. He didn’t have to go through any of that – but He did because He loved us.

Jesus felt the same things we did. He truly had empathy. But without sin. Rigney’s definition of empathy is wrong, I believe, but he’s right that in showing compassion, we must keep our allegiance to Christ and the truth. If we try to pull someone out of the quicksand, we still must keep one foot on solid ground. Our relationship with God gives us that ground.

Empathy for the unvaccinated

Those of us who are vaccinated must not demonize the unvaccinated. We should understand that many of them are truly afraid of the side effects of the vaccine, including those that are still unknown. And if an unvaccinated person gets seriously sick, we should reject any sense that it “serves them right”. Nor should we exclude them unnecessarily from participation in public life.

But we also have an obligation to others, including those who can’t be vaccinated or are at risk due to weakened immune systems. We should insist on frequent testing of the unvaccinated – and maybe of the vaccinated as well – as a condition for participation in public life. Masks in public spaces indoors should remain mandatory, and we should maintain social distancing.

Empathy, combined with truth, can heal our broken society. Jesus Christ showed us the way. As we celebrate His birth, we should ponder that His life, death, and resurrection served to reconcile us to God and each other. Let’s go about this work of reconciliation.

photo of constellation — Photo by Felix Mittermeier on Pexels.com

The Fine-Tuning Argument

September 28, 2021 / rampinelli

Greg Rampinelli

The famous neo-Atheist biologist Richard Dawkins writes in The Blind Watchmaker, “The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.”[i]

The evidence from physics shows that the universe is fine-tuned for life, which strongly suggests design and purpose. This is widely accepted among physicists, including prominent atheists like the late Stephen Hawking, who attempt to explain it through naturalist means. This article discusses some examples of fine-tuning in physics as well as its implications.

Examples of Fine-Tuning

The Hoyle Resonance

The idea of fine-tuning may have originated with astrophysicist Fred Hoyle, who was trying to discover why stars were able to create carbon. After the young universe cooled off enough for atoms to form, there were only two elements in the universe: hydrogen and helium. These atoms came together through gravity to form young stars. As these elements came closer together, the young stars heated up, and the resulting fusion process created the heavier elements, atoms with more protons and neutrons. Hoyle was puzzled because the fusion of beryllium (4 protons and 4 neutrons) with helium (2 protons and 2 neutrons) to create carbon (6 protons and 6 neutrons) was energetically unlikely: beryllium and helium together have a higher energy state than carbon. To produce enough carbon for the universe, there had to be a carbon excitation state with at least 7.596 and 7.716 megaelectron volts more than in the carbon ground energy state, which is a small range. He later discovered that this precise carbon excitation state existed, which is good because otherwise there would be no carbon in the universe (and hence no life).

Hoyle was impressed by the precision required. In 1981 he wrote:

“Some super-calculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be utterly minuscule. A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”[i]

Fundamental Particles

The fundamental particles in the universe include electrons and the up and down quarks, as well as a few other quarks, leptons (electrons, muons, tauons, and neutrinos), and force carriers (photons, gravitons, etc.). Up quarks have a charge of +2/3, down quarks have a charge of –1/3, and electrons have a charge of -1. Protons are made of two up quarks and one down quark, so they have a charge of +1. Neutrons consist of one up quark and two down quarks, so they have a charge of 0. Antiparticles, with opposite charges, also exist. The masses of these particles are important. The up quark has a mass of 2.3MeV, which is 4.5 times that of the electron, which has a mass of 0.511 MeV, while the down quark’s mass is 4.8 MeV, which is 9.4 times that of the electron. That means neutrons are heavier than protons. Since protons are lighter than neutrons, they are inherently stable. As neutrons are heavier, they will decay into a proton, an electron, and an antineutrino within about 15 minutes, unless they are captured in an atom’s nucleus.[ii]

Examples of Fine-Tuning of Particles

The masses of the particles are very important and appear to be fine-tuned. If the mass of the down quark were increased by a factor of 3, the only element in the universe would be hydrogen, as neutrons would decay even in a nucleus. If the mass of the up quark were increased by a factor of 6, protons would fall apart and decay into neutrons, positrons, and neutrinos. There would be no atoms, just a universe filled with neutrons. On the other hand, if the mass of the down quark declined by 8 percent, protons would capture electrons and form neutrons, creating a neutron universe. The same would happen if the mass of electrons increased by a factor of 2.5.[iii]

Are these different values for the quark masses and electrons theoretically possible? As far as we know, yes. An absolute upper boundary for the mass of particles is the Planck mass, at which the particle would become its own black hole. This mass is 1.2 x 10²² MeV, which is astronomically higher than the mass of the up quarks, down quarks, and electrons. The largest quark ever observed (the top quark) had a mass of 1.73 x 10⁵ MeV, which is over 37,000 times larger than the down quark and over 78,000 times larger than the up quark. Even if we take this value as an upper boundary instead of the Planck mass, the likelihood of the up quark and down quark falling in a life-permitting range is very small. As for the electron, the muon and tauon, also leptons, are 206 and 3477 times heavier than the electron’s mass. While there might be reasons why the range of possible values would be less, we don’t know what they are. In conclusion, if the masses of the up quarks and down quarks were determined by chance alone, we would probably not have any elements besides helium.

Neutrinos are extremely common particles, numbering about 340 million per cubic meter in the universe, compared to two hydrogen atoms per cubic meter. They are leptons like electrons but have very little mass, only about one-millionth of the electron’s mass. If the neutrino’s mass increased by a factor of 2, the additional mass in the universe would have prevented galaxy formation.[iv]

Fundamental Forces

Physicists recognize four fundamental forces: the gravitational force, the electromagnetic force, the strong nuclear force, and the weak nuclear force. The gravitational force is familiar to us in everyday life: If you drop a ball, it will fall to the ground. We experience the electromagnetic force through electricity and magnetism, but its importance goes far beyond that. For example, the light we see results from this force. With the electromagnetic force, particles with opposite charges (e.g. protons and electrons) attract each other, while particles with the same charge repel each other. The strong force holds the nucleus of an atom together, while the weak force governs radiation but can also convert up quarks into down quarks, and vice versa. These forces can be described through equations. For example, Newton’s gravitational force equation is F = G(M₁M₂)/d², where M₁is the mass of the first object, M₂ is the mass of the second object, d² is the square of the distance between them, and G is the gravitational constant. All forces have constants in their equations. But physics can’t explain why the constants have the values that they do.

Examples of Fine-Tuning of Forces

If the strong force were twice as strong, the early universe would have turned more than 90 percent of the hydrogen formed into helium, instead of the actual 25 percent. In this hydrogen-poor universe, stars would burn very poorly and probably not create more complex elements. Similarly, if gravity were stronger, the universe would have cooled more slowly and protons would have been locked away in helium, so the universe would not have enough hydrogen to make efficient stars or complex elements.[v] But if gravity were much weaker, stars and galaxies would not have formed at all. As for electromagnetism, if it were much weaker, there would be no chemical reactions. If the strong force were much weaker, nuclei larger than hydrogen would not exist. Likewise, if the weak force were weaker, we’d have more neutrons, and all hydrogen would be transformed into helium.

As an example, let’s look at gravity. The strongest of the fundamental forces, the strong force, is 10⁴⁰ times stronger than gravity. If we take that as an upper bound, the range that gravity could fall in while still permitting life is quite small. If gravity’s force were increased by 3×10³, planets could not last for more than a billion years, which would not be enough time for life to develop. Divided by the maximum range of 10⁴⁰, the probability that gravity would be consistent with life would be a minuscule 3×10^-37. That’s 3 divided by 10 followed by 37 zeros. In contrast, 3 chances in a billion would be 3 divided by 10 followed by 9 zeros. If gravity increased by a factor of a billion (10⁹), any land animals larger than insects would be crushed, or the earth would have to be reduced to a diameter of about 13 meters. But the probability that gravity would fall by chance even within this range is 10³¹, still minuscule.[vi]

The ratios of the fundamental forces are also important. The ratio of the gravitational force to the electromagnetic force could not vary much from its current value, or there would be no stable stars. The range of ratios consistent with stable stars is about 1 in 10³⁵of all possible ratios.[vii] The ratio of the strong force to the electromagnetic force must likewise be similar to its current value. If the ratio were significantly different (0.4 percent), stars would not create carbon (if the strong force were stronger), or the carbon created would all turn into oxygen (if the strong force were weaker).[viii] Furthermore, many elements would not be stable if the ratio of the strong force to the weak force were significantly lower.[ix]

The Cosmological Constant

Einstein originally introduced the cosmological constant, Λ, into his field equations of general relativity to offset the effect of gravity, which would otherwise cause the universe to collapse into itself. He later removed it, but physicists found that it was necessary and so added it back in. Cosmologists today interpret it as “dark energy”, the energy associated with the quantum vacuum. This energy causes the universe’s expansion to accelerate, which is what we observe. The problem is, if we add up the energies in the vacuum, we get a much larger number – by a factor of 10¹²⁰ – than the actual observed constant. In other words, there must be something that offsets this and does so to an exquisite degree of precision. One possibility might be negative dark energy, which would offset the positive dark energy. If this is the correct interpretation, the ratio of positive and negative dark energy appears to be very precise, since the cosmological constant is 2.888×10^-122 l_P^-2.[x] This is very close to zero, but not quite. If the cosmological constant were strongly negative, the universe would collapse since it would not offset gravity.[xi] If it were slightly more positive, the universe’s expansion would accelerate even more, and galaxies and stars would not have formed.[xii]

The Density of the Universe

The parameter Ω, commonly known as the density parameter, is the mean density of the universe divided by the “critical density”, which is the density at which the universe is flat and Euclidean geometry applies. The density parameter is very close to 1. At the time of the Big Bang, the universe needed to expand at just the right rate. If the expansion rate had been too small, the density would have been much larger than the critical value, and the universe would have recollapsed before galaxies and stars could form. If the expansion rate had been too large, the density would have been much smaller than the critical mass, and regions of small excess density (inhomogeneities) would have been too small for gravity to condense into galaxies. To avoid both cases, Ω at one second after the Big Bang would have to be equal to 1 to within an error of 10^‑15.[xiii] Put another way, the density of the universe one nanosecond after the Big Bang was around 10²⁴ kg/m³. If it had been just one kg/m³ higher, the universe would have collapsed by now. If it had been one kg/m³ lower, the universe would have expanded too rapidly to form stars and galaxies.[xiv]

Entropy

Entropy means disorder. According to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, a closed system over time will increase in entropy. That means, the energy it has available to do useful work will decline over time since its energy will be transformed into heat, which will dissipate. Eventually, our universe will die a heat death, with no useful energy available and all matter dispersed throughout space. That we obviously have not reached a state of total entropy means the universe is not infinitely old (which we already know from the Big Bang). It also means that the amount of entropy was less in the past as the universe was younger. The closer we are to the Big Bang, the lower the entropy. If the universe were organized simply by chance, high entropy universes would be far more likely than the low entropy universe we have. Oxford physicist Roger Penrose estimated the likelihood that our universe would have such low entropy as it has at 1 chance in 10^10(123). That’s 10¹²³⁰. In comparison, the known universe has “only” about 10⁸⁰ particles.

There are other examples of fine-tuning in the universe. These are just some of the most prominent ones. There are also arguments that our planet is fine-tuned for life and that the origin of life required a high degree of fine-tuning as well, but these will be the subject of other articles.

Explanations

Explanation 1: There is no real fine-tuning

Physicist Victor Stenger argued that the laws of physics had to be as they were, and no other self-consistent laws were possible. Furthermore, science can explain the apparent fine-tuning. A variant of this argument is, since we haven’t observed any other values for these constants of nature (since we haven’t observed any alternative universes), we simply can’t say whether there’s fine-tuning or not. This is a minority view. Most physicists, including prominent atheists like Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose, recognized the reality of fine-tuning. Now, perhaps some of these examples of fine-tuning could not be otherwise, given the laws of science. And some physicists hope that a “theory of everything” will someday explain the apparent fine-tuning. There’s clearly some wishful thinking here.

Explanation 2: The Weak Anthropic Principle

The weak anthropic principle argues that any universe we observe would have to be fine-tuned for life since otherwise, we couldn’t observe it – we wouldn’t exist. This explanation is not satisfying. It’s like saying that a man facing a firing squad survives, but there’s no need to explain why, since if he hadn’t survived, he wouldn’t know that he did. The argument is circular. If a man facing a firing squad survives, the most logical explanation is that the shooters intentionally missed. The weak anthropic principle combined with the multiverse is discussed below.

Explanation 3: The Strong Anthropic Principle

As argued by John Barrow and Frank Tipler, the strong anthropic principle argues that “the Universe must have those properties which allow life to develop within it at some stage in its history.” [i] One view of quantum mechanics argues that everything is in the form of potential particles until collapsed when observed. In other words, observers determine reality from potential reality by observing it. This is not as far-fetched as it sounds. Experiments show that light can be in the form of waves or particles, depending on how it is observed. Still, this is a minority position.

Explanation 4: The Multiverse, Combined with the Weak Anthropic Principle

The idea of the Multiverse is consistent with some “theories of everything”. One theory is that the quantum vacuum generates “island universes” eternally. The field of island universes expands (inflation) so that these universes are completely independent of each other. Each would have its own set of physical laws and constants. If an infinite number of universes are generated, sooner or later there will be one (or more) that would permit life. Then the weak anthropic principle applies: if we observe a universe, it must be one that supports life. This theory cannot be proved or disproved.

An argument against this is based on “Boltzmann brains”. Named after 19^th-century physicist Ludwig Boltzmann, a Boltzmann brain is a fully formed brain with memories of past events that didn’t exist. The argument is, it’s far more likely that random fluctuations in the quantum vacuum would create a small universe observed by a Boltzmann brain than a huge universe like ours. While the argument might sound ludicrous, is it any less realistic than the Multiverse theory?

The Multiverse theory is currently the most popular one among physicists attempting to explain fine-tuning without a designer. But if the Multiverse theory is true and the quantum vacuum is everywhere, why don’t we observe new universes popping into existence?

Explanation 5: Aliens from outside the Universe

Elon Musk and others argue that an advanced civilization from outside the universe might have created a computer game that mimics a universe. This simulation is so realistic that we think we are real, even though we’re only part of the simulation. This begs the question of how the aliens’ own universe came into being.

Explanation 6: God

Theists, such as Christians, Jews, and Muslims, believe in a God who created the universe. God is omnipotent, omniscient, and transcendent, outside space and time. Such a God could certainly create a finely tuned universe and would do so if He wanted life to exist.

The principle of Occam’s Razor says we should prefer the simplest explanation. Assuming that fine-tuning is real, which it certainly seems to be, the best competing explanations are the Multiverse and God. While committed atheists reject God as an impossible explanation and so embrace the Multiverse, the Multiverse is a complex cause that requires an infinite number of universes to explain fine-tuning. Theists argue there’s also other evidence for God (such as revelation and experience), so it’s hardly surprising that God created a life-permitting universe. While not denying the possibility of a Multiverse (God could make one if He wanted), theists claim that Occam’s Razor favors a designer God.

[i] Dawkins, Richard The Blind Watchmaker, p. 133

[i] Fred Hoyle, “The Universe: Past and Present Reflections.” Engineering and Science, November 1981. pp. 8–12 Quoted in Wikipedia

[ii] Lewis and Barnes A Fortunate Universe p. 47

[iii] Lewis and Barnes A Fortunate Universe pp. 50-53

[iv] Lewis and Barnes A Fortunate Universe pp. 173-177

[v] Lewis and Barnes A Fortunate Universe p. 78

[vi] Holder, Big Bang, Big God pp. 96-97

[vii] Lewis and Barnes A Fortunate Universe p. 111

[viii] Holder, Big Bang, Big God p. 91, Lewis and Barnes A Fortunate Universe p. 118

[ix] Lewis and Barnes A Fortunate Universe pp. 72-75

[x] Wikipedia Cosmological Constant, retrieved Sep. 29, 2021

[xi] Lewis and Barnes A Fortunate Universe p. 158-159

[xii] Wikipedia Fine-Tuned Universe, retrieved Sep. 29, 2021

[xiii] Holder, Big Bang, Big God p. 88

[xiv] Lewis and Barnes A Fortunate Universe p. 167

[i] Dawkins, Richard The Blind Watchmaker, p. 133

Kalam Cosmological Argument

June 5, 2021 / rampinelli

Greg Rampinelli

God is spirit, and so we can’t see Him directly. Some people argue that it’s irrational to believe in something that you can’t see. But rational people believe in atoms, and magnetism, even though they can’t see them. We believe in these invisible forces and particles because we observe their effects. We observe God’s effects, too. The biggest one is the universe, which comprises all matter and energy in existence.

One of the most important questions that philosophers ask is, “Why is there something rather than nothing?” The Christian answer is, because God created the universe ex nihilo, from nothing. Atheists, of course, reject that. There are numerous philosophical arguments that make the case that God created the universe. One of the simplest is the Kalam Cosmological Argument, which originated with the Persian Muslim scholar Al-Ghazali and was developed recently by Christian philosopher William Lane Craig. It takes the form of a classic syllogism:

Major premise: “Whatever begins to exist has a cause.”

Minor premise: “The universe began to exist.”

Conclusion: “Therefore, the universe has a cause.”

(William L. Craig, Reasonable Faith, p. 111)

Theists argue that the cause is God.

Whatever begins to exist has a cause

Regarding the major premise, “Whatever begins to exist has a cause”, some atheist philosophers argue against it. Philosopher J.L. Mackie, for example, argued that there was no compelling reason to insist on it. He further argued that, if God created the universe, who created God? But our universal experience is that all contingent things (things that do not necessarily have to exist, which is almost everything) have a cause. As for who created God, that doesn’t contradict the major premise, which states that “Whatever BEGINS to exist has a cause”. God did not begin to exist, and so does not have a cause (that is, God is a necessary being, not a contingent being). Another argument against the major premise comes from quantum mechanics, in which random fluctuations in a quantum vacuum might cause a universe to pop into being. This will be discussed later, since a quantum vacuum isn’t nothing.

The universe began to exist

The minor premise, “The universe began to exist”, has solid support. It’s true that, until recently, many philosophers, including Aristotle, believed that the universe was eternal. In contrast, the Kalam Cosmological Argument denies that the universe could have arisen at some infinitely earlier time in the past, since we would otherwise not reach the present (this is admittedly a difficult argument to follow). Moreover, the Second Law of Thermodynamics argues that entropy (disorder) increases in a closed system (such as the universe). The Law predicts that the universe will eventually reach a state in which no celestial bodies exist, but only widely distributed atoms. If the universe were eternal, we would have reached this state already. Hence, the universe cannot be eternal, and so it began to exist. Further, the evidence is overwhelming that the universe is expanding. An expanding eternal universe would have already reached the end state predicted by the Second Law of Thermodynamics – no stars, no planets, just isolated atoms.

The widespread acceptance of the Standard Model (“Big Bang” Theory), which states that the universe began from a singularity about 14 billion years ago, would seem to have settled the question. But other explanations have been touted. The Steady State Theory, for example, argued that the space left open by the expanding universe is filled by newly created matter. No evidence was ever provided, and the theory never explained how the light elements, such as helium and deuterium, could have been created without the “Big Bang”.

Another theory, or set of theories, that argue for an eternal universe is the oscillating universe. According to this theory, the universe has expanded since the “Big Bang”, but it will eventually stop expanding and then fall back into itself in a “Big Crunch”. When the universe collapses to a single point, a new “Big Bang” will occur, followed eventually by a “Big Crunch”, followed by a “Big Bang”, and the cycle repeats itself for eternity. There is no evidence for this theory – but any evidence would have been destroyed in the Big Bang. This means that the theory is not falsifiable, and so should be considered a metaphysical theory, not a scientific one, even if scientists promote it. More seriously, the universe seems to be expanding at an accelerating rate, which makes it unlikely that the universe will collapse again. On the other hand, in Conformal Cyclic Cosmology, the renowned cosmologist Roger Penrose argues that this ultimate “heat death” would be equivalent to the singularity at the start of the “Big Bang”, and so the next cycle would begin. This seems fanciful.

Stephen Hawking and James Hartle argued that the universe didn’t develop from a single point, like the apex of a cone, but rather had a rounded shape, like a shuttlecock. Prior to that, there was no time, and so, Hawking argued, the universe had no real beginning. In fact, near the bottom of the shuttlecock, time ceases to exist and becomes pure space. So that theory, for which there is no real evidence, would mean the universe didn’t come into being at a given time, but wasn’t eternal either. I admit, I don’t understand the argument (which is a modest way of saying it makes no sense to me). This model isn’t universally accepted among cosmologists, to say the least. It’s based on the use of “imaginary time”: when real numbers for time are plugged into Einstein’s general relativity equation, a singularity results. That means, if real numbers are used, the universe had a beginning in time.

The universe has a cause

The conclusion, “The universe has a cause” follows necessarily from the major and the minor premise. So, what is the cause?

The cause of the universe must be outside the universe, because something cannot cause itself. Since the universe consists of all matter and energy, the cause cannot be matter and energy. Further, the cause must exist prior to the universe. Since time presumably began with the universe, the cause must be eternal or timeless. And the cause must be exceedingly powerful to create something from nothing. There are two types of causal explanations: impersonal explanations, that is, the workings of natural laws, and personal explanations, that is, the will of someone or something that can choose to do something. Since no matter or energy existed prior to the universe, there was nothing that an impersonal, natural law could work on. Therefore, the cause must be personal. A non-material (i.e. spiritual), timeless, powerful, and personal cause is what we mean by God.

Of course, atheists reject this conclusion. Otherwise, they wouldn’t be atheists. The strongest non-theistic explanation for the cause of the universe comes from quantum mechanics. Both Villenkin and Hartle-Hawking argue that random fluctuations in a quantum vacuum can fleetingly create particles. If these particles are close enough to each other, gravity (assuming it exists in the pre-universe state) can collapse them into a point. This can result in the “Big Bang”, and the universe is created. So, the universe is created from nothing! Except, of course, the quantum vacuum is not nothing (pardon the double negative!). It has fleeting electromagnetic waves and particles that pop into and out of the quantum field.

So, an argument is that the quantum vacuum existed eternally, and the random fluctuations in the vacuum created enough particles – fleetingly – which gravity then attracted into one point. Voila! The universe was born! No one has proved it yet, but no one can disprove it, either, since any evidence would have been obliterated by the big bang itself. The observable universe has a mass of 10⁵³ kg. Could so much mass really be created randomly through fleeting fluctuations? If so, why don’t we see new universes popping into existence, maybe between Saturn and Uranus?

Conclusion

Ultimately, it comes down to inference to the best solution. As a theist, I’m convinced by the Kalam Cosmological Argument that the universe was created by God. To an atheist, though, the idea of a creator God is impossible, or unacceptable, and ANY other possible solution is preferable. And so atheists are forced to accept arguments for which there is no evidence and that seem absurd.

A bit of irony: Stephen Hawking once wrote that philosophy is dead. His models for the origin of the universe are, strictly speaking, not scientific. According to Karl Popper, the influential philosopher of science, falsifiability lies at the heart of science. If a theory can’t be proved wrong, it’s not a scientific theory, strictly speaking, even if based on science. How could Hawking’s model for the beginning of the universe be tested? If it cannot, it really belongs to metaphysics, a branch of philosophy.

To conclude, I’m convinced that the Kalam Cosmological Argument is a powerful tool to show that God created the universe. It has its detractors. There are many other powerful arguments for the existence of God and the truth of Christianity. The next one I’ll discuss is the “Fine-tuning argument”.

A final note, this on language. I apologize for writing so much in the passive voice. That makes it harder to understand. But if we’re discussing atheist views on the origin of the universe, I see no way to use the active voice. Theists can say, “God created the universe”. Atheists can only say, “The universe came into being”, since they deny the existence of a personal agent (God). Perhaps linguists could develop an argument for the existence of God based on language style.

For a more complete discussion of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, see William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, 3^rd edition, Crossway, Wheaton IL, 2008 or William Lane Craig, On Guard, David C. Cook, Colorado Springs, CO, 2010

Introduction to Apologetics Series

June 5, 2021 / rampinelli

Greg Rampinelli

We Christians have faith in Christ because the Holy Spirit worked in us. No one comes to Christ through logic and reason alone, but that doesn’t mean our faith is irrational. We live in a skeptical world, in which some of our friends and neighbors reject Christianity as a bunch of fairy tales, similar to belief in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. Despite this prejudice, there are strong, rational reasons to believe in Christ, and it will strengthen our faith and witness if we’re familiar with them.

Let’s start by ridding ourselves of a common prejudice: Christians have “blind faith” while atheists are strictly rational, following the evidence where it leads. Malarkey! As a rule, atheists are as committed to their worldview as we Christians are to ours. That should not surprise us. A worldview provides assurance and makes us think we understand reality. A threat to our worldview is a serious threat to our identity. Nobody wants to give up their core beliefs, and atheists are no exception. When confronted with strong arguments for theism, they will resist and search for responses that confirm their beliefs.

There are many strong arguments for Christianity. In this series of articles, I will briefly discuss some of them and defend against some of the arguments against our faith.

Definitions

Reason

Faith

Faith and Reason: Three Main Relationships

Faith and reason in conflict

Faith and reason independent of each other

Faith and reason working together

Analysis

Conclusion

Bibliography

Introduction

Analysis of Scientific Naturalism

Critique of Scientific Naturalism

Description of Theist’s God

Origin of the Universe: the Kalam Cosmological Argument

Fine-Tuning of the Universe

Origin of Life on Earth

The Design of Living Creatures

Miracles

Purpose

Defense of Christianity

Bibliography

Sympathy, compassion, empathy

God’s empathy

Empathy for the unvaccinated

Examples of Fine-Tuning

Explanations

Whatever begins to exist has a cause

The universe began to exist

The universe has a cause

Conclusion

Categories

Categories