Islam, the Bible, Apologetics, and Religious Conversion

Talking with my 12-year-old daughter (who has never met a Muslim--we live in a small town with no mosques) about Muslims...

Malea: You know Muslims??

Me: One of my best friends in graduate school was a Muslim.

Malea: How were you friends??

Me: We had a lot in common with respect to a lot of things that were important to us.

Malea: Did he become a Christian?

Me: Actually, "Did she become a Christian?"

Malea: OK.  Did she become a Christian?

Me: No.  Her whole family was Muslim.  Imagine what it would be like.  Your whole family is Christian and you suddenly think that Christianity might be wrong.  Imagine what it would take to convince you that everyone you know, love, and respect is wrong about your most fundamental beliefs.

Malea: That's a whole different scenario because we have a Book that tells us about Jesus.

Me:  Well, every religion has a book.

Malea: Do Muslims have the Bible?

Me: Not exactly.  Their main book is the Koran.

Malea: But we have proof.

Me: But they'll say the same thing.

Malea: Dad, are you saying that you don't believe in Christianity?!

Me: No.  I'm just saying that changing one's fundamental beliefs is complicated and it involves more than having proofs.

Meet the Women Apologists

Andrea Palpant Dilley:

Holly Ordway began her conversion to faith in a casino in Reno, Nevada, surrounded by slot machines. She had just competed in a North American Cup fencing tournament and was having dinner with her coach and his wife. “One of the Narnia films had just come out,” Ordway told me. “Our discussion of the film led to the question, Does God exist?”

As they talked late into the night, she traveled through a Lewisian wardrobe that landed her in a mysterious new country. “I discovered it was possible to think rationally about the faith,” says Ordway. “There were arguments that at least stood up to preliminary testing. That was a fundamental aha moment, when my intellect was able to wake up and say, Okay, this is interesting. It was frightening and exciting.”

At the time, Ordway was in her early 30s and teaching literature and composition at a public college in Southern California. Since graduate school, she had thought of Christians as superstitious, Christianity as a “blemish on modern civilization,” and the Bible as a collection of fairy tales. “I was radicalized as an atheist and hostile toward Christians in general,” says Ordway.

Here is the rest.

U2's Bono: Who is Jesus?

A Book I Just Finished

I generally like Peter Kreeft. I think very well of him.  This book was...meh.  If I would've read it 20 years ago I think I would have been a lot more enthused.  It's a work of Christian apologetics and it's not bad in that regard.  It's probably geared towards an undergraduate or lay audience, so there wasn't much there for me to chew on.  In fact, I skimmed through parts as soon as I saw where it was heading.  I should add, also, that the title is misleading: It should have been called "Socrates meets liberal Christians who think they know more than they really do and he shows them why they are stupid."

Paul Copan's Apologetic Response to "the Slaughter of Women and Children" Destroyed

Lydia McGrew puts the royal kabash down on Paul Copan's (and Copan-like) strategies for dealing with problematic Old Testament passages.

Dang.  I was kind of hoping his line of argument had promise.  Now I'm quite doubtful.  We're back, then, to the following options:

1. Divine Command Theory--  Here is Aquinas's take (though he's not at DCTheorist):  God commanded the killing of women and children in the Old Testament times.  BUT (contrary to McGrew) this wasn't a case of murder since implicit in murder is that it's an illicit killing.  But God commanded it making it licit.
There are problems with this view that I won't get into.  Suffice it to say, I think this is the least plausible option for reasons left unsaid.

2. The Biblical Writers Got it Wrong-- Here the Peter Enns's and Peter van Inwagen's of the world take refuge. If the writers can get it wrong about the sun going around the earth, one of the spheres of heaven flooding the whole earth, and so forth, why not think they could get some things wrong about God too?  Revelation is progressive and God meets people where they are.  The Biblical folk learned more and more about God, and revelation culminates in Jesus who gives us the fullest picture of God.  God IS love.  God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow.  He wouldn't have commanded killing babies.  "YOU say an eye for an eye, but I say...."
I can't say I have a huge problem with this view.  Some innerantists won't like it but there is more than one way to be an innerantist.  Moreover as an apologetics strategy--"for all I know they got this wrong"--I don't think that it's necessarily a bad one.

3. Throw Up Your Hands View -- I like this view and recommend it to the reader.  Perhaps 1 is correct; Perhaps 2; Perhaps some unknown alternative 3.  Right now it is an utter mystery.

In conclusion, Lydia is spot-on when she says,

Philosophers of science are well aware that a theory does not need to have answers to all anomalies in order to be well-supported and rationally accepted. We have ample, to my mind overwhelming, evidence, quite independent of our response to the question of the Canaanite slaughters, that God exists, that He is loving and all-good, that His goal is to redeem mankind, and that Jesus is God the Son who reveals the loving Father to us. That means that we can handle points where we do not know the answer while still retaining a robust confidence in the truth of Christianity. 

Eternal Hell with Finite Suffering

In Dante's Purgatorio there is a sense of the flow of time.  This is as it should be, since Purgatory is always thought of as having a finite duration as it will take some time--but not forever--to either pay the debt for certain post-baptism sins or (depending on one's view of Purgatory) to be made completely holy.  In Dante's Inferno, however, the sense of the passage of time is absent.  One gets the sense of eternal monotony.

Maybe he was on to something.  Or maybe not.  But the following view should appeal to certain annihilationists while still (trying!) to remain true to tradition: eternal punishment with a finite experience of that punishment.

Suppose that for the first objective year in hell it "goes by fast," so to speak (think watching a soccer match--it's hell watching sissies fake injuries for two hours but somehow it goes by fast).  The first year of objective punishment one only subjectively experiences the one year as 1/2 a year.  And for year two one only experiences 1/4 of a year....etc.; so one's eternal punishment feels like a year (think Zeno's Achilles and the Tortoise where Achilles completes an infinite series of 1/2 distances in going a finite distance).

Now if justice demands more "time" (for Stalin, Hitler, Nick Saban, SEC fans, et al.) then perhaps the first year feels like 100 years, the second like 50, etc.  The point is just that it seems possible that there could be an eternal punishment that's subjectively experienced as finite.

Here then is a principle (along the lines of Anselm) which might be worth thinking about: any unatoned sin against God merits an eternal punishment, but no sin by a finite person merits that person experiencing a punishment infinitely.  Is there a good argument for that principle?  Not sure.  But it's worth thinking about.

An Apologetics Reading List

I have enough respect for the McGrew's to recommend this list from Timothy McGrew as worthy of consideration (even though I've never read anything by some of the authors):

Conversational Apologetics

Mandatory
Greg Koukl, Tactics

Recommended

Norman and David Geisler, Conversational Evangelism
Supplementary
Randy Newman, Questioning Evangelism
Randy Newman, Corner Conversations

General Bible and Historical Background

Mandatory
*James M. Gray, Primers of the Faith, chs. 1‐32 (Part I)
* Samuel P. Tregelles, Historic Evidence of the New Testament
E. M. Blaiklock, The Compact Handbook of New Testament Life
Recommended
E. M. Blaiklock, The Century of the New Testament
Paul Maier, In the Fullness of Time
* G. Rawlinson, The Historical Evidences of the Truth of the Scripture Records, ch. 7
* Robert Baker Girdlestone, The Building Up of the Old Testament
Supplementary
* Thomas Cooper, The Bridge of History over the Gulf of Time
* Isaac Taylor, History of the Transmission of Ancient Books to Modern Times
* Isaac Taylor, The Process of Historical Proof
Reference
* William Binnington Boyce, Introduction to the Study of History

Basic Reasoning Skills in Apologetics

Mandatory
Peter Kreeft, Between Heaven and Hell
Recommended
Peter Kreeft, The Best Things in Life
Peter Kreeft, The Unaborted Socrates
Peter Kreeft, Socrates Meets Jesus

Positive Biblical Apologetics: Minimal Facts Argument

Mandatory
* C. S. Lewis, “Modern Theology and Biblical Criticism”
William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith, chs. 7 and 8
Terry Miethe, ed., Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?
Copan and Tacelli, eds., Jesus’ Resurrection: Fact or Figment?
Recommended
Komoszewski, Sawyer and Wallace, Reinventing Jesus
Craig A. Evans, Fabricating Jesus
Supplementary
N. T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God
William Lane Craig, Assessing the New Testament Evidence for the Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus
Mike Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach

Positive Biblical Apologetics: Eyewitness Testimony Argument

Mandatory
* C. S. Lewis, “Modern Theology and Biblical Criticism”
J. W. Montgomery, Where is History Going?, chs. 2 and 3 (Also published separately asJesus Christ and History)
* Edmund Bennett, The Four Gospels from a Lawyer’s Standpoint
* F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?
* William Paley, A View of the Evidences of Christianity, Parts 1 and 2
Recommended
* Thomas Cooper, The Bridge of History over the Gulf of Time
* John James Blunt, Undesigned Coincidences, Part 4
Jeffrey Sheller, Is the Bible True?
Mark D. Roberts, Can We Trust the Gospels?
Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses
Eddy and Boyd, The Jesus Legend
Komoszewski, Sawyer and Wallace, Reinventing Jesus
Craig A. Evans, Fabricating Jesus
Supplementary
N. T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God
Reference
* T. H. Horne, An Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, 8th ed., vols. 1 and 2
* Nathaniel Lardner, Credibility of the Gospel History, 17 vols.

Positive General Apologetics: Orientation

Mandatory
C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity
Recommended
Craig and Copan, eds., Contending with Christianity’s Critics
Sennett and Groothuis, eds., In Defense of Natural Theology: A Post‐Humean Assessment
Timothy Keller, The Reason for God
Reference
Craig and Moreland, eds., The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology

Positive General Apologetics: The Kalam Argument

Mandatory
* William Lane Craig, “The Existence of God and the Beginning of the Universe”
William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith, chs. 3 and 4
Supplementary
William Lane Craig, The Kalam Cosmological Argument
Craig and Smith, Theism, Atheism, and Big Bang Cosmology
Reference
William Lane Craig, The Cosmological Argument from Plato to Leibniz

Positive General Apologetics: The Origin of Life

Mandatory
Stephen Meyer, “The Explanatory Power of Design,” in Mere Creation
Dean Overman, A Case Against Accident and Self‐organization
Recommended
 J. P. Moreland, ed., The Creation Hypothesis, ch. 5
C. Thaxton, W. Bradley, and R. Olsen, The Mystery of Life’s Origin
Robert Shapiro, Origins: A Sceptic’s Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth
Stephen Meyer, Signature in the Cell

Positive General Apologetics: Intelligent Design

Mandatory
† Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, chs. 1‐4
J. P. Moreland, ed., The Creation Hypothesis, Intro. and chs. 1 & 2
Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box
Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution
Recommended
William Dembski, ed., Mere Creation
Jon Wells, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design
Supplementary
* Tim McGrew, “Toward a Rational Reconstruction of Design Inferences”

Positive General Apologetics: The Moral Argument

Mandatory
C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, Book I
* Paul Copan, “God, Naturalism, and Morality,” from The Future of Atheism
Recommended
C. E. M. Joad, The Recovery of Belief, ch. 3
Mark Linville, “The Moral Poverty of Evolutionary Naturalism,” in Contending with Christianity’s Critics

Defensive General Apologetics: The Challenge of Naturalistic Science

Mandatory
C. S. Lewis, Miracles: A Preliminary Study, ch. 3
John Lennox, God’s Undertaker: Has Science Buried God?
Recommended
* Arthur James Balfour, The Foundations of Belief, 8th ed.
Supplementary
Rodney Holder, Nothing but Atoms and Molecules?

Defensive General Apologetics: The Problem of Evil

Mandatory
† David Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Section X
William Lane Craig, Hard Questions, Real Answers, chs. 4 and 5
Recommended
C. S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain

Defensive General Apologetics: The Objection to Miracles

Mandatory
† David Hume, “Of Miracles”
* William Adams, An Essay in Answer to Mr. Hume’s Essay on Miracles, 3rd ed.
Recommended
* George Campbell, A Dissertation on Miracles
Habermas and Geivett, eds., In Defense of Miracles
Supplementary
* John Douglas, The Criterion
C. S. Lewis, Miracles: A Preliminary Study
Reference
* Tim McGrew, “Miracles,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Defensive General Apologetics: Other General Objections

Recommended
Paul Copan, When God Goes to Starbucks
William Lane Craig, Hard Questions, Real Answers
Craig and Copan, eds., Contending with Christianity’s Critics
Reference
* John Leland, A View of the Principal Deistical Writers, 2 vols.
Geisler and Brooks, When Skeptics Ask

Defensive Biblical Apologetics

Mandatory
* Richard Watson, An Apology for the Bible
Recommended
Paul Copan, Is God a Moral Monster?
* Joseph Butler, The Analogy of Religion
* William Paley, A View of the Evidences of Christianity, Part III
Supplementary
* B. F. Westcott, A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament
Köstenberger and Kruger, The Heresy of Orthodoxy
Eddy and Boyd, The Jesus Legend
Reference
* Haley, An Examination of the Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible
* Tuck, A Handbook of Biblical Difficulties, 2 vols.
* John Thein, The Bible and Rationalism, 4 vols.
* T. H. Horne, An Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, 8th ed., vols. 1 and 2
Gleason Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties
Geisler and Howe, The Big Book of Bible Difficulties
Michael Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, 5 vols.

Scientology and Apologetics

I just finished Going Clear: Scientology, Hollywood, and the Prison of Belief on the history of and controversies surrounding Scientology.  Not a single dull page in the entire book.  Before reading the book, I had heard very little about the "religion," other than that Tom Cruise, Kirstie Alley, and John Travolta were Scientologists.  The organization did send me a huge box full of L. Ron Hubbard's books a few years ago out of the blue, but I never read any of them.  Having finished this book I now kind of regret selling so many of them for a pittance on Amazon.  Knowing what I now know about Hubbard, the set would've at least made for a cool decoration in the office or conversation piece!

So what did I learn?  I used to think that Scientology was a silly, fake religion that was pretty harmless.  I now think that Scientology is a scary cult straight out of the pit of hell. L. Ron Hubbard is a complex and fascinating character, to say the least.  Intelligent?  My impression is that he was certainly imaginative and clever but neither a philosopher nor sage.  Deeply twisted and evil?  Yes!  (His connection to Aleister Crowley is hair-raising).  What a liar!  He seems, though, like he came to believe his own lies and fictions, which perhaps isn't surprising since he did start a new religion and was viewed as more than human.  (Whether it is a religion is controversial, but so is what counts as a religion).

Here is something else I found interesting, though, after listening to an interview of the successor to Hubbard, David Miscavige, in his only TV interview ever which he granted to Nightline's, Ted Koppel.  When both Miscavige and Hubbard are asked to "sell" Scientology--when they are asked to give their apologetic case for Scientology--they present it like many Christians present their case for Christianity:

God's Existence Debate Now on Youtube

The William Lane Craig debate with physicist Sean Carroll is now up on YouTube:
Debate at New Orleans Seminary

I haven't watched it yet.  The only credible reviews I've heard so far report that it was about a draw (unlike the recent debate between Craig and Lawrence Krauss wherein any rational person should think that Craig mopped the floor).

Undesigned Coincidences in the Bible

Philosopher Timothy McGrew has a nice series of short articles on undesigned coincidences in the Bible.  A link to all six of them can be found in the middle of this webpage:
Apologetics 315

"[T]here is a third kind of evidence that lies within Scripture itself, a kind that requires only attention to one’s own Bible and a willingness to read thoughtfully. This is the evidence of undesigned coincidences.

The term itself, coined over two centuries ago, is perhaps not the best description for modern readers, since we rarely use the word “undesigned” today. But the meaning is not terribly difficult to grasp. Take two texts (for the sake of the argument one need assume nothing about them except that they both purport to recount some historical events) and compare them. Of course, they might have nothing in common; in that case, there is no material for this sort of argument. But they might touch on some of the same characters and events. If so, we may examine them to see whether the manner in which they discuss these things fits together obliquely, in ways not likely to have been deliberately chosen for that effect—undesignedly."