Here’s a challenge you might hear from a Christian:
In 1 Corinthians 2:4-5, Paul says, “[M]y message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith would not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God.” If Paul didn’t use “persuasive words of wisdom” when he went to the Corinthians, wouldn’t it be wrong for us to use apologetics today?
What do you think about this one? Tell us in the comments below how you would respond, then Brett will answer this challenge for us on Thursday.
This week’s challenge, taken from a blog comment, is about whether or not there can be real meaning in life if God doesn’t exist:
I personally don't understand why a relatively "local" sense of purpose (limited to the scope of what humanity can grasp) is deemed insufficient by theists. I don't understand why it has to be "all or nothing," why our precarious sense of "meaning" – infinitesimal against the magnitude of physical reality – must encompass the whole universe, or else we lack all meaning. That seems incoherent to me.
Can anything be called “meaningful” in a world without God? If not, why not? How would you answer this blog commenter? Give us your thoughts in the comments below, then Brett will post a video with his answer on Thursday.
This challenge comes from the first item in the Pro-Choice Action Network’s article refuting “some common misconceptions about abortion”:
Human life begins at conception. There is no scientific consensus as to when human life begins. It is a matter of philosophic opinion or religious belief. Human life is a continuum—sperm and eggs are also alive, and represent potential human beings, but virtually all sperm and eggs are wasted. Also, two-thirds of human conceptions are spontaneously aborted by nature.
What mistakes are made here? How would you argue that we can objectively know when a new human being comes into existence? Answer this challenge in the comments below, and then we’ll hear Alan’s answer on Thursday.