Stand to Reason Blog

Update Your Bookmark and RSS Feed for the Stand to Reason Blog

You may have noticed we didn’t have the usual new post here this morning. That's because it's at str.org! We have now fully integrated our blog into our website. You'll be able to see the six most recent blog posts there on the home page, or you can go straight to our blog.

To keep reading our posts, make sure you update your RSS feed or subscribe to our blog highlights email.

Why Doesn't God Require a Designer?

If life is so complex that it requires a designer, then why does an even more complex God not require a designer?

 

What Can’t Science Account For?

I’m helping out at CrossExamined Instructor Academy this weekend, and Frank Turek played this great two-minute clip from a discussion between William Lane Craig and Peter Atkins, wherein Craig lists five rational beliefs that can’t be scientifically proven:

1. Logical and mathematical truths – science presupposes logic and math.
2. Metaphysical truths – e.g., the idea that the external world is real.
3. Ethical truths – e.g., you can't prove by science that the Nazis were wrong to experiment on Jews.
4. Aesthetic truths – beauty can’t be scientifically proven.
5. Science itself – science can’t be justified by the scientific method.

When You Denigrate Objective Truth, This Is What You Get

I can’t help but think the insanity we’re seeing in politics right now is what happens when a culture gives up the idea of objective truth. For years, postmodernists have argued against a modernistic view of truth (i.e., that it can be discovered, known, and argued for, even if imperfectly—and that, in this way, consensus can be found across varying communities), saying we should drop it because it leads to dangerous conflicts. But in a postmodern world of relativism, people don’t stop trying to promote their political, theological, and worldview positions; they just use power and propaganda rather than rational argument to do so.

Ten years ago (on a blog that’s now defunct), I wrote about the danger ahead of us:

Those who advocate the postmodern view that we construct our world through our language within our separate communities do so in part because they believe it will be a remedy for violence in the world. If we would only understand that our views are merely the views of our community and not representative of reality itself (i.e., if we didn’t have confidence that we had the “right” view), then (they believe) we would be humble about our views and just live and let live, not attempting to force those views on others through violence.

Here’s the irony, however: this view will, in the end, lead to more violence than we currently experience. Imagine a world where all people in all societies view the world in these postmodern terms, believing that all of their values and stories about the world (history, theology, etc.) are subjectively created through the languages of their particular communities. Further, communication of one’s beliefs to another who is part of a different community is not possible in any meaningful way because the separate communities (e.g., Christians and atheists) have different languages and have constructed different worlds for themselves. The only way for someone outside the community to enter in is to slowly learn the language and behavior of that new community.

Why do I say this will lead to violence? Currently, people from different communities (like Christians and atheists) debate and discuss their diverse ideas in an effort to promote what they consider to be the truth. But imagine what would happen if the whole world believed in the postmodern view described above. The problem begins with this: Even if people do not believe their view represents actual reality, being postmodernist does not automatically make people care less about the view they prefer. After all, postmodern philosophers and theologians prefer their views strongly enough to write many books trying to convince others to take on those views as well. The danger then comes because of the isolating effects of the postmodern view. Each community is trapped within the confines of its own language, and the people within are unable (or believe they are unable) to rationally communicate with those outside (who have very different languages) to persuade them that their view is a better one. That is what will lead to violence. In a world where postmodernism dominates and people live out the implications consistently, what is left when separate communities come into conflict and the members believe rational communication and persuasion is impossible? Only the international language of power remains.

I’m not saying everyone has thought through what I said above. Ideas, and the behavior resulting from those ideas, work their way though a society even when most people have never thought through either the reasons behind their worldview or how that worldview connects with their behavior. This happens through institutions like our universities, which, as a result of ideas like those above, have shifted from being places where we search for truth together to places where we learn techniques to promote our particular tribe (including shouting down opponents, protecting ourselves from hearing views from outside our community, and driving out people who disagree with us).

I think this postmodern denigration of our ability to find a shared, objective truth through reasoned argument accounts for at least part of what we’re seeing play out now, from the violent rioting against Trump supporters to the frighteningly demagogic propaganda we’re seeing in the media.

The Gospel’s Answer to the Problem of Evil

In “A (Very) Brief, Gospel-Centered Defense against the Problem of Evil,” Derek Rishmawy explains how we can know, through the Gospel, that God is indeed all-powerful, all-good, and all-knowing, despite the existence of evil:

1. If God raised Jesus Christ from the dead, I have good reason to believe both that he exists, and that he is unfathomably powerful.

2. Furthermore, if he is good enough to send his only-begotten Son to die on behalf of a sinful, rebellious world he loves, he is unfathomably good.

3. Next, if God is wise enough to use what is objectively the most horrifying, and initially apparently pointless, event in human history—the unjust murder of the Godman—for the salvation of the world, then it is entirely reasonable to trust he has a good enough reason for allowing the evil that he currently does.

4. Finally, the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ are the promise that ultimately evil will be judged, removed, and made right. There is comfort and hope for the future.

I love this. Read the rest of his post.

When (and Why) Feminism Is Anti-Feminine

Alastair Roberts has a really interesting article at Mere Orthodoxy titled “Why We Should Jettison the ‘Strong Female Character,’” in which he argues that the current trend of strong female characters in pop culture, while attempting to be feminist, actually degrade the value of women and their femininity because they subtly teach a woman’s value lies in how well she succeeds in acting like a man.

The article is quite long, so here are a few of the relevant quotes to give you an overview (and hopefully inspire you to read the rest):

The female action heroines may have many relatable personal traits, interests, and concerns for the typical girl or woman—as I have already noted, few of these heroines are merely clumsy gender-switches of male characters. However, all too often, their prominence and the recognition of their importance in the narrative rests almost entirely upon the fact that they have in some crucial respects followed a typically male path, or that they exhibit relatively male tendencies, interests, and aptitudes in key areas. Their claim to strength and the stature of their personhood lies, less in the confident development and pursuit of determined and unapologetically womanly character—with the considerable scope that provides for resisting flat stereotypes—than in their capacity to prove themselves on men’s terms, as fighters who can excel at typical male interests and activities.

Were such characters rare or occasional exceptions, it could fairly be claimed that they serve to resist the closure of certain possibilities to women—a worthwhile end indeed. However, when they increasingly represent a norm among the most prominent female characters in popular culture, they cease to be a message of empowerment and become something closer to an indictment upon the natural strengths and tendencies of women relative to men as a sex….

The recurring characterization problems with such Strong Female Characters arise in no small measure from the struggle to show that men and women are interchangeable and can compete and cooperate with each other on the same terms. As I have already noted, this falsehood serves no one. It sets women up for frustration and failure as they have to justify their agency on men’s terms and it produces an embarrassment about male strengths that should be celebrated rather than stifled. It reflects a drive towards intense gender integration and de-differentiation in the wider world….

The fact that women’s stature as full agents is so consistently treated as contingent upon such things as their physical strength and combat skills, or upon the exaggerated weakness or their one-upping of the men that surround them, is a sign that, even though men may be increasingly stifled within it, women are operating in a realm that plays by men’s rules. The possibility of a world in which women are the weaker sex, yet can still attain to the stature and dignity of full agents and persons—the true counterparts and equals of men—seems to be, for the most part, beyond people’s imaginative grasp….

The problem also lies with the lack of female characters that teach men to respect women as women, not only to the extent that they can play to male strengths. Without denying that some women can and do effectively play to male strengths, they should not have to do so in order to be valued as full agents.

Roberts then explains how the Bible succeeds in showing the value of women in their full, unapologetic femininity. I encourage you to read what he says.

I’ve been thinking for a while about our culture’s push to make everyone and everything the same. We have confused equality with sameness—believing that equality can only result from sameness (and in this case, everyone must be the same as a man). I’m convinced this is a result of our society’s loss of belief in intrinsic human value. If we are all made in the image of God, then we are all equally intrinsically valuable, regardless of our traits and natural abilities. This means we can recognize and embrace our differences without fearing any loss of dignity and value. But if we deny intrinsic value, if we believe our value comes from the characteristics we express, then how will we argue that men and woman are equally valuable? The only way to get to equality, on that view, is to deny all differences.

And that is what our culture has been feverishly doing for a while now. The denial of differences doesn’t reflect reality, and it leads to a loss of appreciation for the diverse male and female traits, squeezing everyone into the same mold, but it’s the only bulwark against inequality of value a godless society can offer.

How Neuroscience Points to Dualism

Michael Egnor has a fascinating post on neurosurgeon Wilder Penfield’s evidence-based conversion from materialism to dualism:

Penfield began his career as a materialist, convinced that the mind was wholly a product of the brain. He finished his career as an emphatic dualist.

During surgery, Penfield observed that patients had a variable but limited response to brain stimulation. Sometimes the stimulation would cause a seizure or evoke a sensation, a perception, movement of muscles, a memory, or even a vivid emotion. Yet Penfield noticed that brain stimulation never evoked abstract thought….

Penfield noted that intellectual function – abstract thought – could only be switched off by brain stimulation or a seizure, but it could never be switched on in like manner. The brain was necessary for abstract thought, normally, but it was not sufficient for it. Abstract thought was something other than merely a process of the brain….

Furthermore, Penfield noted that patients were always aware that the sensation, memory, etc., evoked by brain stimulation was done to them, but not by them. Penfield found that patients retained a “third person” perspective on mental events evoked by brain stimulation. There was always a “mind” that was independent of cortical stimulation.

It’s worth reading the rest of the post to see the relevant quotes from Penfield himself.

We Perceive the Moral Reality around Us

In Brett’s monthly letter, he points out the similarity between our ability to perceive (and have knowledge of) moral reality and our ability to perceive physical reality:

[T]he idea of self-evident moral truths represents the ground floor of moral reasoning. Such truths are known to us by way of our moral intuitions. An intuition is a faculty of knowing. It’s a reflective way of seeing something. It’s a way of knowing that is immediate and direct. You see something, you reflect for a moment, and you simply come to see the truth of the matter….

To help students grasp this concept better, I compared their moral perception to their sense perception. Sight via the eyes is the faculty we use to see the physical reality around us. If a dog walks in front of me, I see it and know it exists. If you asked me how I know, I would respond, “Because I see it. It’s self-evident. I just see that dog walking in front of me.” If you asked me to prove it, I would simply point to the dog and say, “Look! It’s right there. Can’t you see it?” If you said, “No, I don’t see any dog,” I would conclude there is something wrong with your sense perception, that your eyesight is not working properly. However, I would not conclude that I was not actually seeing a dog.

In the same way, our moral intuitions are a faculty we use to “see” the moral reality around us. I see that torturing children for fun is wrong, or murder is wrong, or dishonesty is a vice, and thus apprehend moral truth. If you asked me how I know, I would respond, “Because I see it. It’s self-evident. I just see that torturing babies for fun is morally wrong.” If you asked me to prove it, I would simply point to the action of torturing young children and say, “Look! The truth is right there. Can’t you see it?” If you said, “No, I don’t think torturing babies for fun is wrong,” I would conclude there is something wrong with your moral perception. However, I would not conclude that it was not actually wrong to torture babies for the pure pleasure of it.

Read the rest here.

If Morality Is Objective, How Can We Know It?

Brett explains how we can know the difference between subjective truth and objective truth.

Is It Wrong to Claim a Religion Is True?

Here’s a challenge I received:

No-one can “validate” his/her own religion. Likewise, no-one can “invalidate” any other religion. I believe in some type of god/gods, but I choose not to associate that belief with any specific religious teachings, because I've never felt qualified to refute the equally unprovable beliefs of other cultures. You can’t claim anyone’s beliefs to be “right” or “wrong” when it’s all based on conjecture.

I can’t help but draw your attention to the self-refuting nature of the last sentence. We need to ask the question, is the belief that “you can’t claim anyone’s beliefs to be right or wrong,” based on conjecture? If so, why is he telling me it’s wrong to “claim anyone’s beliefs to be right or wrong?” Doesn’t he think he’s right? Isn’t that why he’s correcting me? He thinks my claims about my beliefs are wrong and his claims about his beliefs are right.

Having said that, let’s get back to responding to the broad challenge—you can’t claim anyone’s beliefs to be right or wrong. This person has expressed a very common confusion. He’s confused objective truth with subjective truth. Let me define what I mean by these terms.

By subjective truth I mean that the belief or claim is made true by the subject’s personal preference. So if I said, “The best flavor of ice cream is Butterscotch Ripple,” and you said, “The best flavor of ice cream is Chocolate Peanut Butter,” both claims about the best flavor of ice cream would be true. But how can the best flavor of ice cream be both Butterscotch Ripple and Chocolate Peanut Butter? That’s simple! It’s because the claim is true for you. That is to say, the truth of the belief only depends on the one who believes it. It turns out that when I claim that Butterscotch Ripple is the best flavor of ice cream, I’m not actually saying anything about the ice cream. I’m only talking about me. That’s how subjective truth claims work.

Now just imagine how ridiculous it would be if I said, “Your belief that Chocolate Peanut Butter is the best ice cream is wrong.” Why is this so ridiculous? Well, it’s because you can’t tell someone that his or her personal preference is wrong. It’s their preference after all. Thus, no one can invalidate your personal preferences. I think this is what the challenger is trying to get at when he says, “No-one can ‘validate’ his/her own religion. Likewise, no-one can ‘invalidate’ any other religion.” The only problem is he has assumed that religious claims are personal, subjective preference truths.

Objective truth is very different. Objective truth is about the way the world really is. It’s when a belief or claim corresponds with reality. If I say, “Insulin regulates diabetes,” then I am making an objective truth claim about the real world. If I have diabetes, it doesn’t matter if I like insulin or not, or if I believe it works or not. My beliefs and preferences don’t change the fact of the matter; insulin controls diabetes. So objective “insulin” truths are very different from subjective “ice cream” truths.

As I hope you are beginning to see, our challenger believes that religious truths are simply subjective “ice cream” truths. However, he couldn’t be more wrong.

Every world religion makes claims about the real world. Just take the central claim of Christianity that Jesus physically rose from the dead. This is a historical claim. It’s about an event that took place in time and space. It either happened or it didn’t. He either rose or He didn’t. But, make no mistake, it’s not the kind of thing that can be true for me but not for you. Notice that if this claim is true, then Christianity is validated and many other religions are invalidated by default. Let me show you.

The Muslim will tell you that Jesus didn’t rise from the dead because He didn’t actually die on the cross, but rather, a substitute took His place. (Some say that Judas Iscariot was made to look like Jesus and the Romans actually crucified Judas.) So, Muslims don’t believe in the resurrection. A Jewish person will tell you that Jesus was a false messiah, and that after He was crucified He stayed dead. The Christian teaches that Jesus was crucified by the Romans, buried in Joseph of Arimathea’s tomb, and on the third day rose physically from the dead.

Now if it turns out that Jesus really did rise from the dead, then Christianity is vindicated, and Islam, Judaism, and every other religion that denies Jesus’ resurrection would be wrong. This is simple logic.

Therefore, Christianity is not the kind of thing that can be true for you and not for me. It makes objective truth claims about reality. So, in principle, it can be falsified. The Apostle Paul said it himself in his first letter to the Corinthians.

And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. (1 Corinthians 15:14-17)

These words are absolutely striking. Essentially, he’s saying that if Jesus did not rise from the dead, then we are really wrong. Paul knew he was making an objective truth claim about the resurrection. Now whether that objective claim is indeed true is another question.

I answer the question "Did Jesus Rise From the Dead?" in this presentation. You can book me to come to speak at your church on this topic by clicking here.