On the Day They Face the Judgment of Jesus Whom they
Naively Denied[1]
“...that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord." (Philippians 2:11)
At one debate on the existence of God, agnostic philosopher
Dr. Kai Nielsen was challenged to account for the evidence of Jesus’
resurrection from the dead, to which he replied, “I don’t know much about
such things…Suppose there were good evidence…I have no idea if there is or
isn’t.”[1] This incident merits being highlighted here since,
in preparation for a public debate on that subject, such a renowned academic
should be expected to be familiar with this core biblical doctrine, regardless
of whether or not he personally believes it.
Yet in fact that occasion is symptomatic of much broader-ranging incidents
of intellectual laziness. British
Theologian Dr. J.B. Phillips observed in his book, Ring of Truth, that “Over
the years I have had hundreds of conversations with people, many…of a higher
intellectual calibre than mine, who quite obviously had no idea what
Christianity is really about…This I find pathetic and somewhat horrifying. It means that the most important event in
history is politely passed by. For it is
not as though the evidence had been examined and found unconvincing; it
had simply never been examined.”[2]
Although people harbor a range of private
motives for resisting the claims of Christ, it is common for them to rationally
justify that posture on what is merely a popular assumption. It asserts that science renders Christian
belief so untenable, it doesn’t merit even a moment’s consideration. That presumption is typically bolstered by
such charges as: 1) since the notion of Jesus’ resurrection (JR) entails
religious belief, it is categorically the case that it cannot be
factual, 2) since science “establishes” that nature operates on the basis of
physical laws alone, the notion of miracle is effectively impossible, 3) Consequently, the very notion of an
intelligent personal god is conceptually-incoherent, and 4), since scientists have
made extraordinary progress in both understanding and harnessing nature, assertions
which concern religious claims are thereby deemed to be inconsequential.
This
article does not challenge the authority of science to make its
own pronouncements on the states of affairs in nature. I instead charge that these objections do not
reflect authentic science. Therefore I challenge them on the basis of demonstrable
errors that are unique to each point.
·
Point 1: The “facts” which Christians appeal to
in support of JR are grounded not on religion, but on factual data
which can be evaluated by means of classical historical methodology.
·
Point 2: The pervasive belief that reality consists
of only physical entities and laws (no free-will or soulish beings exist)
does NOT rest on science but on the philosophical view, physicalism. Yet ironically, these same physicalists
who declare that we are just machines that have no capacity for free-will, nevertheless
teach classes and write books in direct contradiction to that very tenet,
thereby proving the fundamental incoherency, and so falsity, of that view.
·
Point 3: The scientific fact of the beginning of
the cosmos out of nothing at the Big Bang cannot possibly be explained by
scientific causes since, prior to that beginning, there was neither
matter, energy, space, nor time, out of which scientific causes could possibly
work.
·
Point 4: As I am writing this essay, our society
is experiencing profound social deterioration because of a loss of confidence
in the necessity of our heeding moral and spiritual truths.
To be continued...
[1] J.P. Moreland and Kai Nielsen. Does God Exist? The
Great Debate. (Nelson, 1990), p. 64, boldface mine.
No comments:
Post a Comment