CT Article: God Is Not Dead Yet
In light of the philosophical nature of my recent posts (each of which was the product of my personal, hard-copy journal), and thanks to the reminder of a friend, I'm compelled to draw your attention to a fine article by apologist William Lane Craig published in the latest volume of Christianity Today, entitled "God Is Not Dead Yet" (It's the cover story). I read it (hard-copy) a few days ago and found it compelling and invigorating. Not because it was the last straw in the theistic debate, but because theism--and Christian theism, in particular--carries substantial weight today amongst the ranks of even the most reputed philosophers.
Just yesterday I finished another written work that really bolstered my faith in Christ: Craig Blomberg's The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, another academic heavy-hitter, but very readable by most anyone with a high-school reading competency. Through this book, and the article read just a few days prior, my confidence in defending the Gospel has soared to new heights. Here's why. First, those who argue against God's existence are arguing an impossible argument, because it can't be proven. Therefore His existence is at least possible. And because it is possible, all of the arguments for its probability (there are many highly convincing ones) must be entertained. That leaves the skeptic with at least two faith choices. I believe Christianity shows itself the supreme choice.
Secondly, those who argue against the historical reliability of the canonical Gospels are arguing an impossible argument, because that can't be proven either. For every potential discrepancy, there is a possible, if not probable, viable "solution". The burden of proof lies with the skeptic, who must prove that any given "problem" is unsolvable, or at least more improbable than probable. From a historical perspective, the Gospels stand up stoutly to rigorous scrutiny, from every angle, and not only from Christians. I could go into all the reasons why, but you'd be better off reading the book. It won't change your mind if you're committed to keeping it closed. But it may very well help you see the light of hope, if you're looking for it.
Just yesterday I finished another written work that really bolstered my faith in Christ: Craig Blomberg's The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, another academic heavy-hitter, but very readable by most anyone with a high-school reading competency. Through this book, and the article read just a few days prior, my confidence in defending the Gospel has soared to new heights. Here's why. First, those who argue against God's existence are arguing an impossible argument, because it can't be proven. Therefore His existence is at least possible. And because it is possible, all of the arguments for its probability (there are many highly convincing ones) must be entertained. That leaves the skeptic with at least two faith choices. I believe Christianity shows itself the supreme choice.
Secondly, those who argue against the historical reliability of the canonical Gospels are arguing an impossible argument, because that can't be proven either. For every potential discrepancy, there is a possible, if not probable, viable "solution". The burden of proof lies with the skeptic, who must prove that any given "problem" is unsolvable, or at least more improbable than probable. From a historical perspective, the Gospels stand up stoutly to rigorous scrutiny, from every angle, and not only from Christians. I could go into all the reasons why, but you'd be better off reading the book. It won't change your mind if you're committed to keeping it closed. But it may very well help you see the light of hope, if you're looking for it.
A couple of questions/comments:
ReplyDeleteWhat do you mean by "First, those who argue against God's existence are arguing an impossible argument, because it can't be proven"? There is the sense that it is impossible to prove God's nonexistence because He does actually exist, and so can't be proven to not exist. However, all your quote would be saying then would be that we disagree with atheists; hardly a novel conclusion. So I'd assume you mean more than that?
Also, be careful with Craig's article. He really glances over the weak points of the arguments; there are pretty good reasons for finding the teleological and moral arguments to be bad arguments, and the philosophical reasoning behind the kalam argument is highly flawed. Further, the reasoning behind these critiques can come from solid Christian sources as much as atheists. Also, using the New Atheism as a foil is a bit disingenuous; they don't have a clue about matters of theology, and aren't the most pressing concern when it comes to intellectual verification. In general, Craig has interesting ideas, but his rigour usually is a bit off, so he isn't the best place to go to find the finished versions of the proofs which you could actually show to your atheist friends (assuming there are any).
Also, there is always the question of "What God comes out of these proofs?" None of them really gets you the Christian God; they may not even get you anything like what we would consider to be a personal, creator God (it is perfectly consistent to have an impersonal, but unified, force emanating the universe from the cosmological argument, for example). There are many monotheist (and related) options, and the debates between these are probably more important than that between theism and atheism.
Finally, be careful with saying that "there are many highly convincing [arguments]." They may be convincing to you in your own existential circumstances, and so what you need given your previous commitment to the truth of Christianity. However, they often are lacking when it comes to given evidence for Christianity to an astute unbeliever. More or less, you don't know how good an argument is until you've taken the time to read the best that the other sides have to say, and been brutally self-critical in the process.
Michael,
ReplyDeleteI'll have to divide my response between this comment and a new blog post, because you've struck a chord in me that merits putting into a song. Read this comment and then the following post as connected sequentially.
Re: your first question, take my comments at face value. Even if God weren't to exist, and were assumed not to, it still is impossible to prove it, this side of death's gate. Also, just for clarification, I'm not--here or anywhere--making any attempts at proving Christianity true. I'm simply calling out those who speak of the Christian faith as if it's nonsense, i.e. unbelievable (that is, virtually impossible). I'm only reiterating Craig's conviction that Christianity is reasonable, i.e. it cannot be dismissed at whim but must be reckoned with. That's all. But that's a lot, I think. If people see Christianity as practically impossible, then the likelihood of their taking a serious look at the raw data on which our faith is built is slim to none. If, however, they're persuaded of the need to investigate the faith openly, engaging with the original sources, that is, The Bible (!) and extra-biblical, corroborating historical documents, as well as secondary works (such as Blomberg's book) that analyze these documents, then they will begin to have a foundation on which to make informed judgments.