A Review of In God We Trust by Steve Ham
Authority matters. That is the central theme of the new book by Steve Ham entitled, In God We Trust.
In Chapter One, Mr. Ham opens by discussing the lack of authority in the thinking of many Christians. He desires for this book to help Christians hang their faith on God’s authority. This matters not only for apologetics and evangelism, but for our personal relationship with our Heavenly Father.
Chapter Two discusses the “narrow” message of the Gospel and why many do not embrace it. They have turned to a false authority, whether it be science or personal feelings, or some type of religious leader. However, the gospel should be believed since it comes from the highest authority, God. We need to demonstrate this in our evangelism.
Chapter Three continues the train of thought from Chapter Two and discusses false authorities. Mr. Ham critiques several false authorities including human reason/philosophy, science, experience, government, and culture/tradition. His use of presuppositional apologetics is to be commended and studied. For example, he points out that “Betrand Russell was certain there is no God, but based on his own definition of philosophy he could not authoritatively say so.” (34). This is a fine example of a presuppositional critique.
Chapter Four then points the reader to the ultimate and true authority, God as He has revealed Himself in the Bible. “The Bible claims absolute authority.” (44). The Bible declares itself to be authoritative and it is so because it is the Word of God, and God is the final authority. This authority cannot be proven by a higher authority since there is no proof higher than God. This is called “self-authentication.” Mr. Ham does an excellent job of explaining this concept in simple terms.
Chapter Five discusses the authority of Scripture and how it needs to be the starting point for all of our thinking. Ham states, “The Bible is the final authority in every single matter in which it deals, for it is the Word of God.” (62). We must presuppose the truth of the Bible and not use the “evidential” approach which purports to be “neutral.” Mr. Ham points out that there is no neutrality since we can only serve one master, God or man. The use of the scholarly work of Cornelius Van Til and Greg Bahnsen is very helpful in driving some important points home to the reader.
Chapters Six, Seven, and Eight discuss the authority of God – Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Mr. Ham describes some of God’s attributes and discusses the authority of the Father. He then turns to the authority of the Son. Mr. Ham makes an important point in that all of the Bible is the teaching of Jesus; He is the Word. The Holy Spirit converts the hearts of sinners and He does not require us to water down the Gospel message. To do so would undermine the authority of the Spirit.
The last section of the book focuses on practical application. Chapter Nine deals with God’s authority and our everyday living. Ham says, “The authority of God in the Christian life can be summed up this way: our lives are completely transformed when we are saved by Christ through faith in Him.” (143). Chapter Ten deals with worship. Our response to our authoritative God should be one of praise and adoration. I very much appreciated Chapter Eleven’s discussion of authority and the Christian family. His discussion of authority in the teaching of our children was refreshing. Mr Ham warns us, “If we don’t indoctrinate them [our children] with an axiom of biblical authority in our homes, Christian schools, and churches, the world will indoctrinate them with anti-God humanism.” (179). This teaching is the responsibility of Christian parents. Chapter Twelve discusses authority and the church. Mr. Ham has many helpful things to say here. But I must disagree with some of the statements made on the use of modern ministry methods. I believe the Scriptures give all the ministry methods that are needed for all time – preaching, prayer, sacraments, fellowship, love, accountability, etc. There is also an appendix that discusses how God’s Word makes accurate sense of the world. However, there is no proof needed for the Bible. It is true. But as Mr. Ham says, “I thank God that His Word allows me to confirm the confirmable.” (225).
Overall, I would recommend this book. It has many strong qualities that will challenge the reader to think about how God’s authority should affect our worldview and daily living. Mr. Ham does an excellent job of discussing God’s authority in a Biblical and reverent way and at the same time discussing some very practical topics for everyday Christian living.
In God We Trust is available at Amazon and from Master Books.
This sort of “reasoning” is hard for me to understand. I guess because it is not reasoning at all.
For example: “The Bible claims absolute authority.” (44). The Bible declares itself to be authoritative and it is so because it is the Word of God, and God is the final authority. This authority cannot be proven since there is no proof higher than God. This is called “self-authentication.”
With such an approach any revelational religion can do the same. Islam can use the same argument for their faith. Then on what basis does someone who is not of either faith judge which is true and which is not?
Remember you have already given up reason, philosophy, and science. You are now left with feelings and emotions, which while important to consider, are not the best determinants in matters of belief.
This just seems a rather stretched and almost desperate effort to avoid the fact that Mr. Ham’s particular set of beliefs does not hold up to evidence and rational critiques.
Befuddled2
@Befuddled2
Thank you for your comment. I hope I can give some clarity on Mr. Ham’s position.
1. For the Christian, God is the supreme authority. We cannot appeal to anything higher than God, for He is the highest. To appeal to anything or anyone else as a standard for which to judge God by would be unfaithful to Him and contrary to the Christian faith and worldview.
2. Other religions may claim that their faith or god is the supreme authority and therefore that particular religion is to be believed. So how do we evaluate which one is true? We must look at the worldview of each religion and internally examine it. Does the religion account for laws of logic, science, ethics, the uniformity of nature, etc.? Does it account for the universe as we know it? It is self-contradictory? I would argue that only the Christian faith and worldview accounts for the preconditions of intelligibility. Let me quote Greg Bahnsen, a Christian apologist (taken from http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pa099.htm).
“If the way in which people reason and interpret evidence is determined by their presupposed worldviews, and if the worldviews of the believer and unbeliever are in principle completely at odds with each other, how can the disagreement between them over the justification of Biblical claims be resolved? It might seem that all rational argumentation is precluded since appeals to evidence and logic will be controlled by the respective, conflicting worldviews of the believer and unbeliever. However this is not the case.
Differing worldviews can be compared to each other in terms of the important philosophical question about the “preconditions of intelligibility” for such important assumptions as the universality of logical laws, the uniformity of nature, and the reality of moral absolutes. We can examine a worldview and ask whether its portrayal of nature, man, knowledge, etc. provide an outlook in terms of which logic, science and ethics can make sense. It does not comport with the practices of natural science to believe that all events are random and unpredictable, for instance. It does not comport with the demand for honesty in scientific research, if no moral principle expresses anything but a personal preference or feeling. Moreover, if there are internal contradictions in a person’s worldview, it does not provide the preconditions for making sense out of man’s experience. For instance, if one’s political dogmas respect the dignity of men to make their own choices, while one’s psychological theories reject the free will of men, then there is an internal defect in that person’s worldview.
It is the Christian’s contention that all non-Christian worldviews are beset with internal contradictions, as well as with beliefs which do not render logic, science or ethics intelligible. On the other hand, the Christian worldview (taken from God’s self-revelation in Scripture) demands our intellectual commitment because it does provide the preconditions of intelligibility for man’s reasoning, experience, and dignity.
In Biblical terms, what the Christian apologist does is demonstrate to unbelievers that because of their rejection of God’s revealed truth, they have “become vain in their reasonings” (Rom. 1:21). By means of their foolish perspective they end up “opposing themselves” (2 Tim. 2:25). They follow a conception of knowledge which does not deserve the name (1 Tim. 6:20). Their philosophy and presuppositions rob one of knowledge (Col. 2:3, 8), leaving them in ignorance (Eph. 4:17-18; Acts 17:23). The aim of the apologist is to cast down their reasonings (2 Cor. 10:5) and to challenge them in the spirit of Paul: “Where is the wise? Where is the disputer of this world? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?” (1 Cor. 1:20).
In various forms, the fundamental argument advanced by the Christian apologist is that the Christian worldview is true because of the impossibility of the contrary. When the perspective of God’s revelation is rejected, then the unbeliever is left in foolish ignorance because his philosophy does not provide the preconditions of knowledge and meaningful experience. To put it another way: the proof that Christianity is true is that if it were not, we would not be able to prove anything.”
Please see this article for more on reasoning with non-Christian faiths: Presuppositional Reasoning with False Faiths http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pa208.htm
3. You see, the Christian is not left with feeling and emotions. The Christian faith and worldview is to be believed because apart from it, you cannot prove anything. It provides the only basis for intelligibilty, laws of logic, the uniformity of nature, etc. If you wish to study this more, please see the apologetics articles at http://www.cmfnow.com/freearticles.aspx. I would also recommend listening to Dr. Bahnsen debating an atheist at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EW4LXxTZ0S4&feature=PlayList&p=75F2FF36C0ECC4A2&playnext_from=PL&playnext=1&index=1
Let me add one more thing. To embrace the Christian faith and worldview takes believing the gospel of Jesus Christ. The goal of Christian apologetics (as I outlined above) is to point people to the truth of the Christian faith, and ultimately Jesus Christ as savior. You cannot come to accept the Christian faith but by trusting in Christ for salvation. Pure reasoning will not do it.
It is good to see that you do not eschew all use of human logic and reasoning which was the impression I carried away from your review of Mr. Ham’s book. This was especially worrisome due to his use of the concept of “self-authentication.” A concept that can and has been used to justify so many different beliefs.
However I see that in order to justify this concept as being exclusive to Christianity and not applicable to other religious beliefs you do have to resort to human reason, logic, and evidence.
I would also say that your “worldview” does not hold up in this regards. Although I could be wrong on what your “worldview” is though and am only assuming certain beliefs based on just what I have seen here.
If you believe the universe only 6,000 years old and that evolution is not true for example then I would most definitely state that your “worldview” is mistaken and is not supported at all by the evidence. In fact it is greatly contradicted by such. Should you wish to discuss specifics I would be more than happy to do so. After all that is why my e mail address is debate bill.
Let me just take a moment to mention why I put quotation marks around the word worldview. It is because I find it overused and used in place of clear reasoning. It is a useful, but limited concept. Most people’s worldviews have a wide degree of overlap. After all, no matter what our beliefs about the afterlife we still life this life.
As such it is used too often to make it sound as if people of differing beliefs cannot put aside those areas of disagreement and still work together. In which case it is counterproductive as well as false.
Let me also state something about my background. While I am an atheist and have been for about 36 years now, I was born and raised a Christian. In fact both my parents and my brother (my sole sibling) still are very devoted and good Christian people.
My walk towards atheism began with me reading through the Bible again when I was about 14 and finding some passages that disturbed me. I had read them before but this time when I read them they caused me to question some things I had only assumed before. One question led to another and after about 4 or 5 years of questioning I realized that I had become an atheist.
My point to this is that I am familiar with the Christian viewpoint, even though I now disagree with it.
I would point out one common thread through your post, your comments, and other writings of a similar nature that I have read – interpreting all things with the firm belief that God is real. That sort of firm belief predisposes you to discount and ignore contrary evidence.
It can, and all too often does, lead to distortions and false representations of contrary views. I see this occuring over and over again in my debates against creationists. In fact, when I was still a Christian and was looking at the evidence for evolution and creationism I saw this and was appalled that what was supposedly a Christian side using such unethical tactics.
The most honest creationists I have ever discussed this issue with have openly admitted that the current evidence strongly supports evolution. They did not try to distort, discount or ignore the evidence. They went on to say though that because of their faith in God they know that one day science will come across something to prove evolution wrong even though such evidence is nonexistant today.
Well, as usual I have gone on longer than I meant. And rambled more than is my wont. Usually I write these respones in word where I can see more of my writing at once and then cut and paste, but this time I am writing directly in this small little box. Let me just end this by summarizing my position and what I believe are the flaws in your position.
I believe that science, logic, reason do not support the claim that the Christian worldview is superior to all other religious viewpoints.
I believe that there are serious philophical and moral problems with the whole concept of an omnipotent, omniscient, moral, personal being.
I believe that a firm refusal to even consider the question of whether you might be wrong about God’s existence leads to a tendency to be blind to contray evidence and reasoning.
Befuddled2
@Befuddled2
We all have our presuppositions – those assumed beliefs through which we interpret all evidence. Since the Lord has saved me through the work and sacrifice of Jesus Christ from the depths of my sin, I cannot do anything but begin with the premise that the God of the Bible exists. For me to do anything else, would be inconsistent with my salvation (and worldview) and would be treasonous against the Lord of glory.
However, I also believe and defend the Christian faith because I believe it is the only consistent position to hold. All other religions, worldviews, etc., cannot account for our universe. I gave the examples of the laws of logic and the uniformity of nature. No other position can account for these things.
Instead of discussing the age of the universe, I would like to ask you some more basic questions first. How does an atheist account for the fundamental principles of science, say the uniformity of nature? Are you familiar with the work of the philosopher David Hume? Let me again quote Dr. Greg Bahnsen (from http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pa001.htm).
“Years ago, David Hume noted that the scientists proceed on a scientifically unfounded, yet critically essential belief in the uniformity of observable nature. Yet, he pointed out, there is no reason (beyond psychological habit) for the naturalistic scientist to expect the sun to come up tomorrow. Science as an autonomous self-contained discipline has no honest answer to Hume. But if science, properly conceived, subordinates itself to God’s revelation, then it knows why the sun will come up for it knows that God providentially controls all the operations of his created universe in a regular and dependable fashion.”
How can an atheistic worldview account for the uniformity of nature? If the reply is, “Well, we look at the past and see how things happen and expect them to behave the same way.” This response is begging the question. I believe only the Christian faith can adequately account for the uniformity of nature. You can read more on this at http://takingeverythoughtcaptive.com/bible-and-science/
How do you account for the laws of logic? Are the laws of logic mere conventions agreed upon by society? If so, then why do we have to follow them? Conventions differ from society to society. One group of people could have laws of logic different from another group. Or are the laws of logic abstract (that is, they are not physical entities), universal (apply everywhere in the universe) invariants (never changing)? If they are abstract universal laws, how does an atheistic, materialistic worldview account for them? How does it justify the existence and use of them?
You see, these are just some questions that I believe an atheistic worldview cannot answer. In fact, I believe only the Christian faith and worldview can account for them. Therefore, I cannot make sense of the universe that I live in unless God exists and the Bible is true. It is not that I ignore contrary evidence. I believe all evidence when properly interpreted points to the fact that God exists and Bible is true.
At the end of your latest comment, you stated that you believe there are “moral problems with the whole concept of an omnipotent, omniscient, moral, personal being.” What moral problems do you see? What moral standard are you judging by? In atheistic, evolutionary, materialistic universe, where do moral standards come from? Are they defined by the consensus of mankind? Are they ascertained by human reason? Are they universal standards that must be discovered? If so, how can we discover them? In any case, I believe that an atheistic worldview cannot account for any moral standards that can serve to judge the Living God.
In the end, only one who has been changed by the gospel of Christ can accept these things. The Bible is clear that unbelieving man is at enmity with God. Only through trusting in Jesus Christ alone for salvation can one have peace with God and account for the universe as we know it.
Thank you for a thoughtful response to my response. It will take me a few days to respond adequately – work always seems to get in the way of more enjoyable activites. And then some other enjoyable activities get in the way of other enjoyable activities.
You covered a lot of material here and my response may be a bit long. I have been unjustly accused of being rather long winded – or rather long writinged um, long lettered, hmm, going to have to think on that one. Any way, just a fair warning that it may be rather long. Hopefully you enjoy these sort of conversations as much as I do.
You asked several questions that to your mind, and many others I might add (I am after all a minority viewpoint) whose answers support Christianity. Here are my answers to those questions. And as promised, rather long winded. Yet even so they are not complete, but they are enough to show the issues. Should you wish to explore any of these in more detail I would be more than happy to oblige. I always like to listen to myself speak – or in this case read myself type. Or something like that. Anyway,
Your first question was ” How can an atheistic worldview account for the uniformity of nature?”
There are several answers to this, all of which make it clear that your assumption that Christianity is the only view that can account for it is not proven.
First Answer: You are relying on ignorance to prove that God is the answer. Because we do not know how the uniformity of nature came about you argue that God must have done it.
At one time we did not know what caused disease. God was assumed to send disease due to some transgression of the afflicted person. Quite often the remedy was religoius – extra prayers, penance, etc.
At one time it was thought that lightning was sent by God. Many religious people argued against the use of Benjamin’s Franklin’s lightning rod as a vain attempt the thwart the will of God.
Now we know there are natural explanations for both.
Not knowing an answer is no basis for any firm belief. In fact I believe if you read David Hume’s works you will find this is very consistent with what he said.
Now this is admittedly not an ideal situation. Humanity does not like blank spots on its intellectual map. However instead of filling in “Here be God” the proper response is to acknowledge that God might be the reason but that we really do not know yet. And continue to investigate.
Using ignorance as evidence of God is building a structure on a foundation of sand. I would not recommend it.
Second Answer: There are other religious answers to the question of why there is uniformity in nature. For example there is Islam and Allah. There is the God of Judaism. Zoroastrinism would fit the bill too. Not to mention Paganism (after all the ancient Greeks were one of the roots of modern science and logic). Why is the exclusive answer to this question Christianity when there are other religoius answers?
Third Answer: There are also secular and naturalistic answers to the question. Several current theories of cosmology and physics imply or allow for the existence of multiple universes, each with its own different laws. Many would be chaotic and there would be no uniformity in natural law. Nothing could live there.
But since there would be an infinity of universes then there would also exist universes that do display uniform laws. Since these are the only ones in which life, as we know it, could exist then of course we live in one.
Now you may say that there is no evidence for such universes and you are correct – for now. But it is a possibility that is not against anything that science now knows. In fact it is a logical consequence of the theories of science. And there are experiments that are almost within our ability to carry out that would test certain of these ideas of the multiverse. For example the supercollider that is starting to come on line in Europe could possibly provide experimental evidence for multiverses.
Both the second and third answer show that there are other possible answers than the Chrisitan God that can account for the uniformity we see in nature. The Christian God is not the default and only answer to this question. Move evidence is needed before you can claim this as an argument for Christianity.
However there is one other answer that can be given to your question. The uniformity that we see in nature is illusory. It is a function of our current time and place and that sometime in the future this uniformity will change – either into a sea of chaos or into a different set of physical laws. In which case all of the above answers are moot.
To summarize my answer to your question then – Ignorance proves nothing. It is a starting point to look for answer, not the final resting spot for all investigation. This is amply demonstrated by the fact that there are other possible answers for uniformity found in nature – both religious and naturalistic. More thought and more research will be needed before a definite answer can be given – if one ever can be given.
Your second question – “How do you account for the laws of logic?”
This will cover much of the same territory as the uniformity of nature question.
The first answer is the same – Ignorance proves nothing. It is the starting point of investigations and thought, not its final resting spot.
The second answer is the same too – how is the explanation of this the sole province of Christianity? After all the ancient Greeks were one of the prime practioners of what we recognize as logic. In fact the Church fathers borrowed and learned from the Greeks. Given that does this mean that logic favors the existence of the Pagan Gods rather than the Christian God?
Further some sort of logic will result from any universe that gives rise to life and has uniform laws. They arise from our interactions and experience with our environment and our attempts to understand it. In this context it might be worth spending a moment or two pondering that fact that our logic quite often fails us at levels outside our experience. For example how matter behaves at the quantum level follows a different set of rules from what we see at the macro level – particles being able to be in two places at one time, to both exist and not exist, to be both wave and particle.
Your next question(s) – “At the end of your latest comment, you stated that you believe there are “moral problems with the whole concept of an omnipotent, omniscient, moral, personal being.” What moral problems do you see? What moral standard are you judging by? In atheistic, evolutionary, materialistic universe, where do moral standards come from? Are they defined by the consensus of mankind? Are they ascertained by human reason? Are they universal standards that must be discovered? If so, how can we discover them? In any case, I believe that an atheistic worldview cannot account for any moral standards that can serve to judge the Living God.”
I was a Christian when I first started to have problems with the morality as depicted in many passsages of the Bible. It was my attempt to reconcile these problems with my Christian morality that first started me on my journey to atheism. So from that standpoint I would say it was Christian standards.
First though I would like to take issue with the way you (and many Christians) make it sound as if the morals of an atheist and that of Christians are totally different. They are not.
I am against murder. I am sure you are too. I do not steal from the company I work for. Neither do you I imagine. I have been married, happily, for 30 years now and have never cheated on my wife. I imagine that this too is part of a moral system you would endorse.
This relates to my problem with the overuse of worldview that I mentioned earlier. It makes it sound as if there is no point of contact between Christian and other viewpoints. The way you phrased your question here “What moral standard are you judging by? ” makes it sound as if our moral standards were totally different when in reality they would mostly (although not totally) agree.
However in this case, my first moral qualms about Christianity occurred when I was still a Christian. In fact it was this moral questioning that started me on the road that eventually cause me to become an atheist.
Exodus 7
1 Then the LORD said to Moses, “See, I have made you like God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron will be your prophet. 2 You are to say everything I command you, and your brother Aaron is to tell Pharaoh to let the Israelites go out of his country. 3 But I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and though I multiply my miraculous signs and wonders in Egypt, 4 he will not listen to you. Then I will lay my hand on Egypt and with mighty acts of judgment I will bring out my divisions, my people the Israelites. 5 And the Egyptians will know that I am the LORD when I stretch out my hand against Egypt and bring the Israelites out of it.”
Exodus 10
1 Then the LORD said to Moses, “Go to Pharaoh, for I have hardened his heart and the hearts of his officials so that I may perform these miraculous signs of mine among them 2 that you may tell your children and grandchildren how I dealt harshly with the Egyptians and how I performed my signs among them, and that you may know that I am the LORD.”
3 So Moses and Aaron went to Pharaoh and said to him, “This is what the LORD, the God of the Hebrews, says: ‘How long will you refuse to humble yourself before me? Let my people go, so that they may worship me.
New International Version
My atheism arose from a series of questions that occurred while I was reading the Bible. It was in fact my reading of Exodus and the whole interaction between God, Moses, and the Pharaoh.
Reading about how God hardened the Pharaoh’s heart so that he could prove his might and power just struck me as wrong on several levels.
First was the fact that God had set up the whole situation. What would Pharaoh and his advisors have decided if God had not hardened their hearts?
Second were the methods God used to prove his might, especially the death of all first born both royal and slave. To convince the Pharaoh to let the Jews go God was going to kill what were in many cases innocent children and babies, those of the weak and helpless such as slaves and peasants as well as the nobility. This was moral?
Third was the fact that God then abandoned the Egyptians. He proves his might and his power but instead of trying to build on that he leaves them. According to traditional ideas about salvation that means that all of the Egyptians were damned to Hell.
To my questioning mind a moral God would not have tried to harden the Pharaoh’s heart in order to just show off. And if the Pharaoh, of his own will, still decided not to let the Jews go then why couldn’t God have done miracles such as reducing all the pyramids and temples to their gods to sand? Turn all the gold and jewelry to plain stone? Caused the desert on either side of the Nile to bring forth forests and fertile fields with grain – just for a short time to show that he is the God who sustains and feeds with the implication that it holds true for the soul as well as the body.
If the Pharaoh, of his own will, refused to let the Jews go why couldn’t God have told Moses to gather those Jews who would follow to gather together and march out of Egypt. Then if the Egyptian soldiers tried to stop them cause it so that no soldier could approach closer than 10 ft to any of the Jews, held back by an invisible hand. If the archers tried to shoot at the departing Jews then cause the arrows to turn into flowers and the spears to burst into flame and hit the ground as ashes. And when the Jews reach the Red Sea make it so that they could walk on top of the water while the Egyptian Army could not.
This would have demonstrated God’s power just as well as what he is said to have done in Exodus without creating pain, suffering, and death on the innocent and helpless; on those that were just as much the victims of Pharaoh’s tyranny as the Jews were.
Now I imagine that this would have created a climate for a religious change in Egypt. Why not have at least some of the Jews stay to help bring the Egyptian people out of ignorance and into knowledge of the one true God instead of leaving them to stay in heresy and be damned for eternity?
There is much more, for example the Book of Joshua. But this gives you an idea of my moral issues. God is supposed to be a just, merciful, and loving God. One who is fair and is concerned about the welfare of all of his children. Yet this did not fit what I was reading in many parts of the Bible.
In the interests of the already lost cause of brevity I will not now go into the moral and ethical problems with God’s plan of salvation. Suffice it to say that, when still a Christian, I started to see some severe moral problems with this plan that did not fit in with an idea of an omniscient, omnipotent, just, and moral personal being.
As for the source of morality for an atheist the short answer is that morality is the result of certain evolved traits that allowed our species to survive as manifested in our society and culture.
Our species survived and prospered (so far)due to its being both a very social and a very intelligent creature. The traits that evolved to foster us forming groups are such things as empathy, a sense of fairness, bonding, etc.
Our intelligence allowed us to build different and varied societies to realize these traits. As these societies grew more complex, as the result of being comprised of more and more people, they developed their own ways of development.
This is a short answer without the detailed arguments. But given that this is already closer to 3,000 than 2,000 words I will leave it at that unless you wish to ask more questions about how this is possible.
Now this last bit is not really a question that you asked but rather a comment upon something you said. At the beginning of this response you stated:
“Since the Lord has saved me through the work and sacrifice of Jesus Christ from the depths of my sin, I cannot do anything but begin with the premise that the God of the Bible exists.”
Later you stated:
“In fact, I believe only the Christian faith and worldview can account for them. Therefore, I cannot make sense of the universe that I live in unless God exists and the Bible is true. It is not that I ignore contrary evidence. I believe all evidence when properly interpreted points to the fact that God exists and Bible is true.”
However this a possible problem for you. Since you already “know” what the answer is you may be tempted, consciously or unconsciously to force the answer you want. It is admittedly a fuzzy line between holding a position due to the evidence and reasoning for it still being at least marginally stronger than that against it and just being stubborn, but there is a line there.
For myself I am not wedded to an atheistic, naturalistic view of the universe. If someone could provide the evidence and reason for a God I would believe. However I have not seen such evidence and reasoning yet.
[...] However I have been having a bit of back and forth with a Christian that I thought might be of interest. So what follows is my response made on his site http://takingeverythoughtcaptive.com/2010/06/10/a-review-of-in-god-we-trust/ [...]
@Befuddled2
First, let me say that I have enjoyed this friendly interchange. I plan to have this be my final answer (but I reserve the right to change my mind!).
First Answer: I don’t believe I am relying on ignorance. There is a philosophical basis for the uniformity of nature (or sometimes called induction) in the pages of Scripture. The answer is clearly given. I see the uniformity of nature (from here on out I will abbreviate this as UON) and I find the reason for it in the pages of Scripture. I find a basis for induction. By ignorance, you must mean a scientific explanation.
A disease is a tangible, physical entity. It can be studied and tested. The UON is a metaphysical concept. You can’t test for it in the lab. It can observed in action. In order for science to work, the UON must be true. Yet, you say that science will prove the UON. (More on this when I get to the third answer you gave.)
Second Answer: Let’s be clear what I asked about. I said, “How can an atheistic worldview account for the uniformity of nature?” I find it odd that you would mention other religions in response to this question. Perhaps you are simply pointing out that other religions have an answer. But that was not my question. I want to know how you as an atheist account for the UON.
Third Answer: You have placed your faith in the abilities of science. A theory of multiverses that has no experimental evidence to date. I have placed my faith in the Sovereign God. This God’s Word and attributes provide a philosophical basis for the uniformity of nature. What is the philosophical basis for the uniformity of nature in the atheistic view? Why do we see it in the universe? Saying “that’s the way it is because that’s the universe we live in” is begging the question. Of course that’s what we see. What I am looking for is an explanation. Why in general is the future like the past? Why are scientific experiments repeatable? Why can we assume the future is like the past? What basis do we have to make that assumption? I am essentially asking how atheism can explain inductive reasoning.
But please remember, that all scientific endeavors assume the UON (induction) is a valid principle. If I understand your response you believe that someday science will explain it. We have no knowledge of how science could explain inductive reasoning. Induction is a philosophical concept; it’s a metaphysical principle. It’s not a physical phenomenon like a disease. We can’t test it in the laboratory. You can’t test for inductive reasoning. You need inductive reasoning in order to perform scientific tests. I may have not been clear earlier. I am asking what basis do we have to assume that the future will be like the past. Hume showed that philosophically there is none. What basis do we have that when we throw the ball up in the air for the 100th time it will behave like the 99 tosses before? If we say, we look at the past, that is circular. It’s proving induction by using induction!
On to logic. Anyone can use logic, no matter what your religious (or areligious) viewpoint. Just like anyone can perform science. What I am after is a justification for the basis and use of it. Can the atheistic worldview account for the use of logic? Can it explain how abstract laws exist in a materialistic universe? If they arise out of experience, then things outside our experience can be contradictory. This leads to a whole host of problems. One quick example, the number pi. We have never solved for the number to its final decimal point. No one has ever experience it. Therefore, it does and does not exist. The laws of logic do not apply to it. I would suggest that you might want to read up on the laws of logic as universals. This is why generally speaking even secular philosophers say that the laws of logic are universal and not experiential.
I also find it curious that you do not have faith that science will one day explain the apparent contradictions found at the quantum realm. I myself believe there is no contradiction. It is the “Copenhagen interpretation” of quantum physics that lends itself to the possibility of contradictions. Other interpretations state otherwise.
If I understand your response to my question on morality, you are essentially saying that some of the things you saw in the Bible contradicted the morals laid out in the rest of the Bible. I will pick this up shortly. But first let me address the use of “worldview.”
While Christians might share many moral precepts with other religions and beliefs, they arrive at that point by different paths. Christian morals come from the Sovereign Creator. Atheistic morals come by some other means, evolution, human reason, majority rule, etc. While they may agree on some issues, they have different bases. That’s what I am referring to.
I understand your issues with the verses in Exodus you reference. The Apostle Paul did as well. He speaks to this in Romans 9. Here is a link in case you want to read it.
http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=Romans+9
Your issues with Exodus really need to be addressed by some fundamental theological discussion which we really can’t do in this forum. Let me say that the God the Bible reveals is absolutely sovereign and owes man nothing. Since man has fallen into sin, he is justly deserving of God’s wrath and punishment. God sent His Son, to be the propitiation of God’s wrath and reconcile man to God. You see, there are no innocent people. The Egyptians were not innocent. They were guilty of sin.
God is loving and just. But He is also holy. He is also far above us. We are the creatures. We are the clay. He is the potter. He has the right to do with us whatever He wills. This is laid forth in more detail in Romans 9. The events that occurred in Exodus fully comport with the character of God that is revealed in the rest of the Scriptures.
Evolutionary ethics are essentially arbitrary. They can change and no one has to be bound by them.
Now for your comment on my comment. I believe only Christianity can account for the preconditions of intelligibility. I have to assume the Christian faith in order to prove anything to be true. We have to check all worldviews for consistency. I presuppose Christianity to be true in order to demonstrate that it is. When I assume the tenets of atheism, I find that they cannot account for the universe as we know it. That is why I don’t believe atheism.
Thanks for the interchange.
I too have greatly enjoyed our exchange. I am not fully satisfied with my following response – not because I think it defective but that it is too short and does not adequately address all your points. However I am already close to 2,000 words and do not really want to try your patience by having you read a book length response. This does though give at least the general direction of my thoughts on these questions.
You say you are not relying on ignorance yet the basis for your belief that Christianity is the only way the uniformity of nature can be explained is by your belief that no other belief system can explain it. That is relying on ignorance.
It is also presumptious since I did provide both materialistic possibilities for the the uniformity we see in nature and did mention other religions that could do the same.
Further, even if it were unknown that does not automatically make it evidence for a God. Any time we are faced with an unknown and are searching for an explanation there are four possible answers.
1) There is a natural explanation but we have not come up with the evidence needed to show us how to answer it or come up with the right way to look at the problem to solve it. Some examples would be Plate Tectonics and Einstein’s Theory of Relativity.
2) There is a natural explanation but we do not have the tools needed to solve it. Examples are the Germ Theory of Disease (microscope) and most of Astronomy (telescope).
3) There is a natural explanation but we will never be able to solve it because we just do not have the intelligence to do so. For example imagine one of our early ancestors – possibly Homo Erectus – sitting on the shores of the ocean. She notices the tides and wonders what causes them. However her intelligence is too limited for her to ever understand how the gravitational effects of the moon and sun cause the tides. Because of this she might conclude a god caused the tides when taking baths even though there is a natural explanation.
4) God did it.
Until we come with a way to reliable way distinguish between these four possible hypotheses then assuming that God did it stops our questioning too soon. If we had stopped with God causes disease to strike as punishment we would never have developed modern medicine. If we had stopped with God causes the lightning we would never have learned about electricity and developed lightning rods among many other useful benefits.
For people of faith, using an unknown as evidence that God did it not only stops us from looking for answers too soon but also puts the idea of God at risk. What will the effect be on a person’s belief in God if part of that belief rested on ignorance and then we found a natural explanation? Does it put his faith at risk then? Ignorance is shaky ground to base a belief in God on. Or any other belief for that matter.
In the context of our discussion imagine what will happen to your argument if scientists do prove that there are an infinity of universes with many different laws? Some have uniform laws of nature that give rise to life. Others don’t. Given an infinity there is really no surprise that some do.
Given all this then to assume that God did it is premature.
My answer right now in regards to the source of UON is that I don’t know. That is a perfectly valid answer. If you read Hume he says the same.
This is especially true given the fact that there are indications in some of physics that there might indeed be a natural answer to this question. Again if there are an infinity of universerses then some are going to have UON and some are not just by pure chance. Given that we can only exist in ones that have UON it is not surprising that we find ourselves in such a universe.
This is not proven. But then neither is God did it proven. As I already said you are relying on nobody having a better explanation (although how you discount the other religions such as Islam I am not sure). At one time no one had a better explanation for disease than spirits. As my example above illustrates ignorance is not a good basis for deciding one over another.
Further your explanation, that Christianity is true and God did it only pushes the question back. If the uniformity of nature needs an explanation then so too does God. After all he is not mere chaos. Where did he come from? If eternal then why not the universe too?
I know that everything that we see in the universe has a cause but so too might the universe. If part of a multi-universe then it could well be eternal.
Let me also make a distinction here that may (or maybe not) might help clarify my beliefs as an atheist. I did not become an atheist due to any scientific evidences or theories. In fact I believe that the idea of a God can be reconciled with evolution and all the other scientific theories. Many Christians do. The most that science does in this regard is disprove certain ideas about God or about how God works in the world.
However I also do not see that science proves God either.
The contradictions I mentioned in the Quantum field are real. They have been many experiments showing these apparent contradictions. I take it as evidence that what we view as logical and how the world works is attuned to our own experiences. That the universe is not bound by our limited experience. The universe follows an order but that order is not necessarily one our experience makes us comfortable with.
Now for morality.
In regards to worldview, the reason I dislike it is that way too often when it is used it makes it sound as if there is no overlap between an atheist, a Christian, a Muslim and so forth worldviews. That is wrong. They each may start from a different place but we quite often wind up at the same destination. Different bridges crossing the river as it were.
For example, I have been happily married for 30 years and am looking forward to another 60. I have two wonderful daughters who are doing well. I have never stolen or killed. I have never cheated on my wife. I help my neighbors and give of my time and money to different charities. These actions are all the result of the way I see the world.
I have seen Christians do the same (my parents being prime examples). I have seen Muslims, Hindu’s and so forth do the same. If our worldviews were radically different I would expect a more radical and consistent difference.
Yes, there are issues we will disagree on. Gay marriage and abortion might be two such issues. But I will state that there are atheists who are against both, which gives a problem to those who strongly stress the differences among worldviews. And the issues where we agree are much much more numerous than the ones we disagree on.
In regards to my problems with the morality some of God’s action’s as depicted in the Bible, let me state first off that my problems arose when I was still very much a Christian. I was taking the morality I had been taught by my parents and church and applying it to what I read in the Bible.
Let me ask, is God arbitrary? Is his morality based on his whims and subject to change? Does God love all of humanity and consider all of it his children?
If your answer to the first two questions was no and to the last yes then you believe the same as I did about God. And that is the basis of my problems with the story in Exodus. Also with my problems with his ordering the killing of all the men, women, children, and babies of several cities in Joshua. With his ordering the stoning of rebellious children, his tacit support of slavery, and several other problems. These actions are not in accord with a moral God who loves his creation.
They are though in accord with what was at one time a tribal God who cared only about his own people and no others.
Further there are the deeper, more philosophical moral problems. Such as how moral is it for God to create Adam and Eve knowing that they will disobey and that he will banish them and condemn them to a life of work and suffering? How moral was it for God to create Adam and Eve knowing that the vast majority of their descendents would not be saved and would be damned to Hell where they would suffer for eternity?
God set up the system knowing how it would play out.
Would you have had children knowing that the vast majority of your descendents would be fated to suffer eternally? Is this moral?
To my mind, it is not. Especially if I were truly omnipotent and could, theoretically, have created a different structure.
Of course this leads to all the other issues inherent in believing in an omnipotent, omniscient personal moral being who cares and loves humanity. But as I said at the beginning this is already going on too long.
Your final words show that you have to presuppose Christianity. Presuppose. However I believe I have shown that other beliefs and ideas can do the same in regards to UON.
In fact it is interesting that one of the roots of science lies in pagan Greece. Further another major root of science lies in medieval Muslim civilizations. Christianity was late coming to science. Given these two roots it seems pretty obvious that the UON can be explained by something other than Christian beliefs.
Let me say again that I have enjoyed this exchange, although I have a feeling I have not convinced you and you can rest assured that you have not convinced me.
However I not only enjoy these sort of debates I find them of value in causing me to explain and think further about my own beliefs. Rather like when Einstein kept raising objections to Quantum Theory trying to show it to be incomplete. He failed to do so but in bringing up his objections he helped further strengthen the evidence for quantum theory and broadened our understanding of what quantum theory means.
Occasionally I do change my mind as a result of these sorts of discussions. But not today.
However if you wish to take it up again I have no problems with discussing these issues or others further. But if not, then let me just say thanks again for an enjoyable discussion.
[...] In God We Trust [...]