Christian Apologetics

This is for my buddy Luis who wanted me to listen to a talk with five questions answered by Ravi Zacharias and William Lane Craig. Here is a link. the five questions make up the sections.

I'm not the intended audience for this talk or discussion. Almost all the arguments require an important precursor, faith. Without faith, the Christian apologetic stories and evidence sound like the stories and evidence from any other religion which Christians apologists do not accept.

Popular Christian apologists fill large halls with people who share their beliefs. That is the intended audience. The talks solidify Christians' faith, give advice for conversation with non Christians, sell books, and or, for Zacharias and others, build a global franchise.

Before I start, I want to define faith. Faith has many meanings and usages, but I am using it very specifically to refer to belief without proof. I know proof can be subjective in the degrees of certainty, but when I use the word proof, I mean it in the strictest sense, like a mathematical proof.

Faith-

• strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof. (Google)

• belief that is not based on proof (dictionary.com)

• firm belief in something for which there is no proof (Merriam-Webster)

This is a big problem for faith is God. If it was a fact, there wouldn't be an argument. Christian apologists and atheists apologists wouldn't be able to write and sell books. On a similar note, the existence or nonexistence of God is non falsifiable. No one can prove or disprove God's existence. This is a crucial assumption I accept.

But just because there isn't mathematical proof of God, doesn't mean there isn't evidence for and against God. I think there is a lot of good evidence to believe in God. But without faith, the evidence against any specific religion can be overwhelming. The cumulative effect leads many non religious people to atheism. 

I don't find the five questions from talk insightful, maybe these questions are for immature and or less educated atheists.

1) What is the meaning/purpose of life?

Zacharias’ sermon about children and fairy tales is terrible evidence. For one, children are always asking why. For one, children believe in all sorts of imaginary ideas: Santa, Tooth Ferry, imaginary friends, monsters, etc. His example of children is not true. Children ask why all the time, and that is ironic considering his following anecdote about the court case.

Zacharias is not practicing good philosophy. A good philosopher presents and debates the oppositions best arguments. Zacharias either makes up or uses the weakest oppositional arguments, strawmen. But since he is a great speaker, smart, and loaded with charisma, he became extremely successful. His talks are mostly  rhetoric. When you break down what he is saying, there isn't anything new or convincing to someone with who has thoughtfully considered the philosophical arguments. I will focus more on Craig's ideas.

I agree with Craig's opening statements to the meaning of life. Life, in the vast scope of the universe, is absurd and meaningless. I can say more if Luis wants, but Craig represented my view pretty well. But that doesn’t mean life and people on Earth cannot find meaning. We all do. Everyone finds meaning just fine. People found meaning before Abraham or Christianity spread. Atheist find meaning just fine. Every human, with the ability to kill themselves who doesn't, finds meaning. Christians find different meaning within their religions. Even those who commit or attempt suicide, I'm not sure if a meaningless universe is a common reason.

2) What good evidence is there for the existence of God?

The origin of the universe is good evidence for a God. As Craig mentioned, if you adjust the conditions of the beginning of the Universe, the conditions we know for life vanish.

During the talk Craig cherry picks science when it helps him and discards or misrepresents science when it doesn't help him. Craig is a philosopher academically, so I have high confidence that he understands the ideas of the Big Bang and Theory of Evolution. His audience likely doesn't, so maybe he is attempting to make it digestible for his audience? It's bad philosophy, and I doubt he does this in academic settings.

Craig claimed that the Big Bang says the Universe started from nothing. That is false. The Big Bang theory has only strengthened the last 100 years. But science cannot say anything about what happened before The Big Bang because there is no evidence for anything prior. Scientific theories need evidence and or mathematical models that can be observed and verified. So although there are theories of what might have happened before The Big Bang, those a separate from the Big Bang theory..

Side note: Brian Greene is a famous physicist and an excellent writer. I recently listened to his book The Hidden Reality. He explains the evidence for infinite universes. It is a mind blowing progression of ideas. But in his book, he discusses the limitations of what we can know, prove, and the possibilities of what we might be able to find in the future. Greene's modesty about the limitations of science to describe reality is very close to my beliefs on the subject.

Evolution has nothing to say about how life began. It is a theory that explains how life evolved on Earth. This is another extremely strong theory. DNA and fossil records almost prove how natural selection can produce complex organs and life over millions to billions of years.

Natural Laws or objective moral laws do not convince me of anything. If they exist, or do not exist, what does that prove? Reality is what reality is regardless of what we think. Our thoughts and feelings do not affect objective reality. Our thoughts and feelings only affect how we perceive reality.

I think science can offer many plausible explanations as to why people/cultures can accept similar ideas on morality. It isn't objective moral laws. History suggests cultures decides what is right and wrong, and culture is always changing. As people collaborate and create a greater collective knowledge, culture and morals change. Ideas in society evolve. I choose not to eat factory farmed animals because I think those animals suffer and I do not need them to live a health life or feel good. It is not because eating meat or killing an animal is wrong. We could all come up with exceptions for any so called natural law.

3) How can a good God allow evil?

Easy. This is a bad question and the arguments from skeptics about the contradiction between our world and a just God aren't good. Freedom is a perfect example and reason for an ambivalent being to allow suffering.

If God is outside of time and space, then it's fair to say God's capabilities are far beyond humans'.

4) How can we know that the resurrection of Jesus really occurred?

This is a tough question. I like an explanation I read from Reza Aslan (Aslan is another poor philosopher but great writer), he states people in Jesus' and Muhammad's time wouldn't have thought about facts the way we do today. They would have looked for the meaning of a story. It wasn't if Jesus was resurrected, but what does Jesus' resurrection mean? (They also might not expect people 2000 years later to be arguing about it either, or maybe they would. I don't know. Seems like an interesting idea to consider later.)

I'll speculate more. I don't know how plausible people of Jesus' time would have considered of a resurrection. Did the biblical writers try to prove Jesus was resurrection by 21st century standards? Certainly not. Since Jesus was a mostly obscure Jewish man (by Roman standards), skeptics of the news wouldn't have had any reason to record their disbelief. Most people alive at Jesus' death wouldn't have suspected his life would spark a new religion that would cover the Earth. So why would they mention Jesus or some little uprising in the middle east?

Craig says Jesus' resurrection is the most plausible account. Craig should add "to him." It's most plausible to Craig. If one believes it is plausible, it'll be more plausible. The resurrection is essential to the claim of Jesus' divinity. So people who believe in Jesus will find it most plausible. I'd really like to make a detailed list of evidence that people could plug their own probabilities into to spit out a probability using Bayes' theorem.

Here are a few ideas I find a lot more plausible:

1. Jesus had a twin. People thought Jesus resurrected because they saw his twin. Identical twins happen about 3-4 times per 1,000 births. Given high infant mortality rates (over 25%), and it is possible twins would suffer higher mortality rates in ancient times. The chances of a woman in Roman times having twins who both survived to adulthood is low. Using Beyesian reasoning, the question becomes how probable is it that twins could pull off a resurrection? This seems unlikely too, but all those unlikely events combining are still more plausible than Jesus' resurrection to me, and probably many people who don't presuppose a God is trying to reach people.

2. Jesus didn't die. People used to be buried with a string and bell because people would misdiagnose death and bury people alive. Jesus being presumably dead and returning three days later is plausible.

3. Jesus died on the cross and didn't physically resurrect. All the accounts of his resurrection where spiritual, imagined, exaggerated, and then over time collaborated to prove his divinity. This is most plausible considering the distance between Jesus' death and the writings of his physical resurrection, empty tomb, etc in the New Testament.
   

Plausibility isn't the only important factor, but as a person who doesn't believe in the supernatural, plausibility is the most important factor in determining the evidence for Jesus' resurrection.

5) How is the exclusivity of Christianity fair to those who don't hear the Gospel?

The answers here were the most unsatisfying. But there are a lot of reason and answers.

Conclusion

There are a lot of good reasons to believe in God and Christianity. There is evidence for both. I admire and respect people who live their life like Jesus of Nazareth.

But I do not think he was God or resurrected. It is possible that ideas exist that I haven't heard yet, but I have studied Christianity and the major world religions, and their answers do not satisfy me. I have thought and read a lot about these topics. I enjoy learning and reading about religion. Religions help me grow as a person and understand other people and the world. Still, they are human creation, like science, philosophy, or mathematics.

Religions were created and served a function in their cultures. Then the religions that benefited people most survived and beat out other religions. Eventually states and nations used religions as a systems of control. Today, the major religions are the religions that provided people meaning but also allowed allowed people to be controlled. Religions evolve. Christians today are different than Christians 100 or 1,000 years ago. As society changes and progress, religions and Christianity will adapt and evolve. Churches in the US and Europe especially are adapting to meet progressive ideas.

Even though I see problems with religions, I don't see religion as bad, nor do I use any of my time or effort to disprove people's faith or beliefs. That isn't my place. I love to argue and critically analyze ideas. I'd like to help people think better, but I don't want to tell people what to think or believe.

I want to be a good person. I'm interested in finding out how I can be a better person, but my current condition has my priories to my immediate family. So the questions and answers discussed in the talk, do not interests me nor help me or my family.

In my experience, people believe because of two main factors: 1) how they were raised or 2) what they feel or experience. It is as easy for me to reject Christianity as it is a Christian to reject Islam, Hinduism, or Scientology. I wasn't told or taught anything growing up. I wasn't brought up to be an atheist either; we just didn't go to church or talk about religion. I accepted God because everyone I knew did, and I didn't know it was an option not to believe in God until I was an adult. I didn't think The Big Bang or evolution were serious ideas until I went to college.

Lacking religious ideas growing up, I consider a blessing. I am able to think about philosophical questions with a less bias towards a religious idea, allowing me to be more critical in general, or it feels that way at least.

Luis, I love you brother. I appreciate you wanting and trying to save me. And I'm happy you have found meaning and answers in your life.



Jimbo out