Evidence for God from Science

It's a common misconception nowadays: people say 'We can't know God' and mean 'The Bible is a fallible, human-invented document and does not adequately represent God'. People believe in a 'god' who would never send honest people to Hell (like Osama bin Laden or Adolf Hitler...after all, 'why would a loving God send people to Hell'?

What would be the best way of getting those people to see sense? Quoting the Bible will not really help, because they only believe in those passages of the Bible which make them feel good. We need to have some soundbites we can throw back whenever someone asserts that 'The Bible wasn't faxed from Heaven', or 'God is far beyond our comprehension [so I will trust my own assumptions rather than read the Bible which is written by primitives whose comprehension of God was even worse than ours]'.

An article by Eric Vestrup, Six Neo-Orthodox Theses Examined, may be of some help.

Turgy, you have raised a very important issue here, and also pointed to a very interesting and relevant paper - again, on your favourite website!

There are now "liberal" or "neo-orthodox" or "revisionist" (whichever word you like) so-called believers in probably every Christian denomination, as well as the non-believers who spurn Christianity anyway. In fact, it seems to me as though the old division of Roman Catholic and Protestant is now less of a division than this more recent one of revisionist and orthodox (traditional, conservative).

The difference between these two newer divisions seems to be the infiltration of postmodern philosophies with an armament of moral relativism, multiculturalism, pragmatism, utopianism and a "this world" perspective. Essentially postmodernism rejects any notion of a universal, overarching truth and reduces all ideas - including traditional Biblical Christian truth claims - to social constructions shaped by gender, class and ethnicity. The argument concerns the "knowability" of objective truth.

I think the concluding paragraph in that paper by Eric Vestrup sums it up the problem very well, and I quote it here:

By summarily rejecting theses (a)-(f), we Christians do not have the modern "enlightened'' frame of view on our side. Nor should we expect the world in general to recognize the soundness of our position, for our position is that of the Scriptures which condemns worldly thinking in such matters. Yet, we should know that despite what most moderns and even some wolves in minister's garb teach from the pulpits, the historical and theological case for Christianity is no more unreasonable than the underlying assumptions of modern neo-orthodoxy. Our faith is founded on empirically unprovable metaphysical statements no more than the modern critics, who a priori place their worldview as judge over the text of Scripture. Yet, ultimately, even though we can support our position logically and can offer sound and historically grounded apologetics, we must cast all appeals to human logic and pride aside and state that it is not the evidence, but the gracious testimony of God the Holy Spirit which calls us to faith and lets us believe. The secular scholars have the "rational mind'', but the believers have both the "rational mind'' and the testimony of God the Holy Spirit in addition. Noting this undeserved advantage on our part, this essay ends.

There are times, but not always, when I have found it can be rather meaningless debating over Bible truth claims. That occurs when there is no shared common reference point. It occurs more often for me with revisionist "Christians" than with non-believers who are more likely to be Biblically illiterate and confused over what Christianity is about. The argument you mention - a loving God would not condemn someone to hell - is exactly a case in point, a lack of knowledge and understanding regarding God and our human situation. However, if I and the other differ in opinion over the nature and inerrancy of Scripture then any use made of Scripture has to be with great care. It may be necessary to debate on more philosophical concepts - what is truth, can we know truth? etc. There is a lot of good apologia available to counter arguments put forward on authenticity and reliability of Scripture, on the historical reality of Jesus, evidence for His physical resurrection, etc, but if I am hoping for some kind of quick conversion to orthodox Christianity when there is a lot of resistance and no motivation or desire in that direction, then I am usually disappointed. It is more like chipping away at a rock which has little intention of being chipped.

However, having said that, I also believe that presenting the Word of God is an important part of bringing someone to Christ and must not be excluded. Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.

Turgy, you might be interested in reading another paper concerning the Barriers to Salvation by Dr Hugh Ross. I think that very often the obstacle to belief (orthodox Biblical Christian belief) is not so much intellectual but moral instead, and that is to where the focus needs to shift. After all, how supremely arrogant of us to put God in the dock and criticize and make judgements about Him and His ways. Maybe considering these obstacles will give you some idea of the kind of "sound bytes" that need to be devised in response to the heavily fortified brick walls with which both revisionists and non-believers surround themselves.

One of the most important things you can do is be praying for the guidance of the Holy Spirit as you discuss these matters with others who are resistant to the truth of the Gospel. In the end it is the Holy Spirit who will convict the other of the Truth, and that indeed is His role rather than your own.

I found another article, on precisely the same site: How to Talk to a Theological Liberal (If You Must) by Justin Moser.

Judah -- Thanks for your well-thought-out response. I know the number of liberal theologians in every major denomination is appalling. Recently we had a poll in Holland among pastors of the PKN (Protestant Church in the Netherlands). It turned out that one out of three did not believe in a personally involved God, and one out of six did not believe in God at all! (I heard one on the radio. He said he prayed, but he didn't address God directly. He believed in God, but he didn't believe in God, he said. ) But in the Reformed Alliance within the PKN, every pastor believed in God.

Some people wouldn't start teaming up with Roman Catholics... Someone from the only theocratic party in our country was removed from the national election list for attending a Catholic mass, even though he did it in his function as major of the town. Some people are so narrow-minded...

Yes, I know what you mean. They're often biblically illiterate, too. At least, I have debated two girls over the internet who were neo-orthodox. It's jesus-flavoured humanism.

The approach you take is a sound one, I think. First let the opponent list his/her objections, then answer them one by one (if you can...) Thank you for linking Dr Ross's paper; I'll read it.

You're right about the 'moral' thing. But it isn't always arrogant. Yesterday I registered at http://www.ex-christian.net (though I haven't posted yet). There was someone who described how much pain and suffering he had had in his life, and how his pastor seemed to be unable to be of any help -- and the elders in his church knew less about the Bible than he did. I mean, when someone's had so much suffering in his life, you can't call him 'arrogant' outright. And the idea is not 'God's doing it wrong', but 'Because it's going so wrong, God doesn't exist'. It's not exactly criticizing God, but doubting His existence.

Your last remark deserves to be repeated:

Judah wrote:In the end it is the Holy Spirit who will convict the other of the Truth, and that indeed is His role rather than your own.

And indeed, 'My word shall not return empty to Me!'

Thanks for pointing me to the Justin Moser paper, Turgy. I need to take more time to catch up on what J.P. Holding has on his site these days.

I was raised in the Church of England and so am interested in the struggles they are having within the Anglican Communion presently.
Back in 2002 an independent Christian research organization carried out a survey of C of E clergy in the United Kingdom to explore their Christian beliefs. The results were quite shocking. If you (or anyone else here) are interested, I have them written up on my own website here.
(There are more posts there on this subject of liberal revisionist theology as well.)

Quoting my own words regarding this survey, if folk will forgive me...

One of the interesting things that has been noted in recent times is the hand-in-hand ordination of women to the priesthood, and ordination of practising homosexuals likewise. These are both very recent trends in the 2000 year history of the Christian church, something that is a feature only of the last decade or so. This occurrence coincides with the growth of liberal theologies, a move away from a traditional exegesis of Scripture by some who are more open to the influences of our postmodern secular age and the pressure to be “inclusive” of all. These influences include moral relativism, the political correctness of multiculturalism, and the reign of pragmatism and utopianism. A worldview that regards these ideas more highly than the truth claims of traditional Christianity will require the efforts of revisionism to provide an alternative interpretation of Scripture that better fits the philosophy of the age. Such revisionism has heralded both the ordination of women and of practising homosexuals, neither group previously considered appropriate as ordinands by Christians who adhere to a traditional exegesis of Scripture.

But back to the findings of the aforementioned survey and several interesting and disturbing outcomes arise. On every single item in the questionaire, confidence in the faith among female clergy is less than that of their male counterparts. When it comes to beliefs concerning the person of Jesus, the gaps between male and female clergy become highly significant.

One of the results that I found most concerning was that 53% of male clergy and only 39% of female clergy believed that Jesus Christ is the only way (as in John 14:6) by which we can be saved. So if they think there is some other way, then what they must be preaching from their pulpits is certainly not orthodox Biblical Christianity.

One of the tragic things happening in the Episcopal Church USA is the tearing away from traditional Biblical Christianity of a sizeable liberal faction through the recent appointment of a new Presiding Bishop, Dr Katharine Schori, who signalled her feminist credentials in a sermon that drew on the writings of the 14th-century Julian of Norwich. She said: “Mother Jesus gives birth to a new creation — and you and I are His children. If we're going to keep on growing into Christ images for the world around us, we're going to have to give up fear.” Her sermon was defended by Liberals in Britain and America as being in a long tradition of writings by women theologians that use the metaphor of Jesus as mother. This idea of a “Mother Jesus” giving birth to creation is an example of gynecological theology. This is opposed by Biblical Christianity as definitely un-Scriptural. Creation is not birthed from some kind of divine womb. It is spoken into being by a divine Word. We are not the children of Jesus, not without even more laxity of interpretation, but children of God the Father whose Son is Jesus, our Lord and Saviour.

Turgy, I understand what you mean that it isn't always arrogance. I believe we can genuinely inquire of God in all humility, seeking knowledge and understanding of His purpose, seeking answers and reassurance and faith for times of doubt, and for meaning where there is suffering. That is not arrogance. However, so often I hear an attitude that does not speak of humility and the acknowledgement of God's far greater wisdom, but a criticism of God as though He can't be real, or right, or have the authority, or that it would be what He really wants of us, or would have as consequences for our constant lack of repentance. And the other thing I hear from revisionists - that the Holy Spirit is still leading us into God's truth which will likely be different from what is already in Scripture, as though His truth is a changing and evolving thing. Some of these folk call themselves 'Progressive Christians" and they are far more advanced than the likes of me who is still stuck 2000 years and more back in the past, oh silly me.

But yes, we can all have doubts at times - and do - but we are still to resist temptation to sin while our faith is being tested.

Right, I must hop over there and read that Justin Moser paper.

The Stand to Reason website is another site that may interest you, Turgy, if you have not already discovered it. There are some great essays there on Christian apologia, theology, philosophy, ethics, etc, and one in particular that relates to this thread here is Guard the Treasure. It is presented in .pdf format.
The introduction reads "How do Christians talk effectively about the One who said HE is the truth when much of our culture considers distinctions like true and false completely superfluous?" - and how do we reach people with what we think is truth when many deny truth even exists?
To conclude, there is a checklist of six pointers for putting your knowledge into action when confronted with this situation.

Judah wrote:Turgy, I understand what you mean that it isn't always arrogance. I believe we can genuinely inquire of God in all humility, seeking knowledge and understanding of His purpose, seeking answers and reassurance and faith for times of doubt, and for meaning where there is suffering. That is not arrogance. However, so often I hear an attitude that does not speak of humility and the acknowledgement of God's far greater wisdom, but a criticism of God as though He can't be real, or right, or have the authority, or that it would be what He really wants of us, or would have as consequences for our constant lack of repentance.

That wasn't precisely what I meant; I was talking about Christians-turned-atheists because of grave pain in their lives. They concluded God wasn't real. But it's more pain than arrogance, I think.

Judah wrote:And the other thing I hear from revisionists - that the Holy Spirit is still leading us into God's truth which will likely be different from what is already in Scripture, as though His truth is a changing and evolving thing. Some of these folk call themselves 'Progressive Christians" and they are far more advanced than the likes of me who is still stuck 2000 years and more back in the past, oh silly me.

Yeah... If you like JP Holding, you've gotta like John Calvin:

Calvin wrote:Those who, rejecting Scripture, imagine that they have some peculiar way of penetrating to God, are to be deemed not so much under the influence of error as madness. For certain giddy men have lately appeared, who, while they make a great display of the superiority of the Spirit, reject all reading of the Scriptures themselves, and deride the simplicity of those who only delight in what they call the dead and deadly letter. But I wish they would tell me what spirit it is whose inspiration raises them to such a sublime height that they dare despise the doctrine of Scripture as mean and childish. If they answer that it is the Spirit of Christ, their confidence is exceedingly ridiculous; since they will, I presume, admit that the apostles and other believers in the primitive Church were not illuminated by any other Spirit. None of these thereby learned to despise the word of God, but every one was imbued with greater reverence for it, as their writings most clearly testify. And, indeed, it had been so foretold by the mouth of Isaiah. For when he says, “My Spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the Lord, from henceforth and for ever,” he does not tie down the ancient Church to external doctrine, as he were a mere teacher of elements; he rather shows that, under the reign of Christ, the true and full felicity of the new Church will consist in their being ruled not less by the Word than by the Spirit of God. Hence we infer that these miscreants are guilty of fearful sacrilege in tearing asunder what the prophet joins in indissoluble union.

I've come across Stand to Reason, but I haven't looked much into it. Thanks for pointing it out!

Turgonian wrote:

Judah wrote:Turgy, I understand what you mean that it isn't always arrogance. I believe we can genuinely inquire of God in all humility, seeking knowledge and understanding of His purpose, seeking answers and reassurance and faith for times of doubt, and for meaning where there is suffering. That is not arrogance. However, so often I hear an attitude that does not speak of humility and the acknowledgement of God's far greater wisdom, but a criticism of God as though He can't be real, or right, or have the authority, or that it would be what He really wants of us, or would have as consequences for our constant lack of repentance.

That wasn't precisely what I meant; I was talking about Christians-turned-atheists because of grave pain in their lives. They concluded God wasn't real. But it's more pain than arrogance, I think.

I am thinking of what is (to me) the fundamental position from which arrogance arises - that of putting one's Self at the centre, rather than God. This happening is extremely hard to avoid when coping with intense or chronic pain, but it is the beginning of a move away from God.

C.S. Lewis wrote of the intense and unrelenting pain of grief when he lost his beloved wife, Joy Gresham, and how close he came to losing his faith in God. Whether it is physical or psychological, pain is pain and can test the limits of human endurance. There is a profound intensity, whether that is an acute or chronic experience, that puts oneself at the centre of it because it is too hard to move away from it.

Pain may certainly lead a person to lose faith in God, but always the loss of faith coincides with where you have chosen to place God in relation to yourself, as your Master - or not.

IMHO