Category Archives: Videos

Guillermo Gonzalez lectures on the corelation between habitability and discoverability

There are 5 video clips that make up the full lecture, which took place in 2007 at the University of California, Davis.

The playlist for all 5 clips is here.

About the speaker

Guillermo Gonzalez is an Associate Professor of Physics at Grove City College. He received his Ph.D. in Astronomy in 1993 from the University of Washington. He has done post-doctoral work at the University of Texas, Austin and at the University of Washington and has received fellowships, grants and awards from such institutions as NASA, the University of Washington, the Templeton Foundation, Sigma Xi (scientific research society) and the National Science Foundation.

Click here to learn more about the speaker.

The lecture

Here’s part 1 of 5:

And the rest are here:

Topics:

  • What is the Copernican Principle?
  • Is the Earth’s suitability for hosting life rare in the universe?
  • Does the Earth have to be the center of the universe to be special?
  • How similar to the Earth does a planet have to be to support life?
  • What is the definition of life?
  • What are the three minimal requirements for life of any kind?
  • Requirement 1: A molecule that can store information (carbon)
  • Requirement 2: A medium in which chemicals can interact (liquid water)
  • Requirement 3: A diverse set of chemical elements
  • What is the best environment for life to exist?
  • Our place in the solar system: the circumstellar habitable zone
  • Our place in the galaxy: the galactic habitable zones
  • Our time in the universe’s history: the cosmic habitable age
  • Other habitability requirements (e.g. – metal-rich star, massive moon, etc.)
  • The orchestration needed to create a habitable planet
  • How different factors depend on one another through time
  • How tweaking one factor can adversely affect other factors
  • How many possible places are there in the universe where life could emerge?
  • Given these probabilistic resources, should we expect that there is life elsewhere?
  • How to calculate probabilities using the “Product Rule”
  • Can we infer that there is a Designer just because life is rare? Or do we need more?

The corelation between habitability and measurability.

  • Are the habitable places in the universe also the best places to do science?
  • Do the factors that make Earth habitable also make it good for doing science?
  • Some places and times in the history of the universe are more habitable than others
  • Those exact places and times also allow us to make scientific discoveries
  • Observing solar eclipses and structure of our star, the Sun
  • Observing stars and galaxies
  • Observing the cosmic microwave background radiation
  • Observing the acceleration of the universe caused by dark matter and energy
  • Observing the abundances of light elements like helium of hydrogen
  • These observations support the big bang and fine-tuning arguments for God’s existence
  • It is exactly like placing observatories on the tops of mountains
  • There are observers existing in the best places to observe things
  • This is EXACTLY how the universe has been designed for making scientific discoveries

This argument from the “discoverability” of the universe has now been picked up by famous Christian philosopher Robin Collins, so we should expect to hear more about it in the future.

Is the probability of getting a universe that supports complex life 100%?

Apologetics and the progress of science
Apologetics and the progress of science

Let’s have a quick review of the famous fine-tuning argument to start.

The argument from cosmic fine-tuning looks at various constants and quantities in our universe that are set at particular values and notes that if any of the values of these constants and quantities were to change, then complex embodied life of any kind could not exist. The argument is fully in line with the standard Big Bang cosmology, and is based on mainstream science.

There are two kinds of finely-tuned initial conditions: 1) constants and 2) quantities. These constants and quantities have to be set within a narrow range in order to permit intelligent life. There are three explanations for this observation: law, chance or design. Law is rejected because the numerical values of constants and quantities are set at the beginning of the universe – when there was no matter, space or time. The values of the constants and quantities were not determined by anything causally prior to the moment the universe began to exist. Chance is not a good explanation, because the probabilities are far, far too small for us to reasonably believe them (e.g. – the chance is 1 in X, where X is much higher than the number of subatomic particles in the visible universe). Since the fine-tuning is not due to law or chance, it must be due to design.

Here’s one example of something that is set correctly to allow complex, embodied life from The New Scientist:

The feebleness of gravity is something we should be grateful for. If it were a tiny bit stronger, none of us would be here to scoff at its puny nature.

The moment of the universe‘s birth created both matter and an expanding space-time in which this matter could exist. While gravity pulled the matter together, the expansion of space drew particles of matter apart – and the further apart they drifted, the weaker their mutual attraction became.

It turns out that the struggle between these two was balanced on a knife-edge. If the expansion of space had overwhelmed the pull of gravity in the newborn universe, stars, galaxies and humans would never have been able to form. If, on the other hand, gravity had been much stronger, stars and galaxies might have formed, but they would have quickly collapsed in on themselves and each other. What’s more, the gravitational distortion of space-time would have folded up the universe in a big crunch. Our cosmic history could have been over by now.

Only the middle ground, where the expansion and the gravitational strength balance to within 1 part in 1015 at 1 second after the big bang, allows life to form.

Changing the value at all means there would be no complex, embodied life of any kind anywhere in this universe.

Here’s a quick video clip to explain what The New Scientist is saying:

Now, this is going to surprise you, but there are some non-theists who try to argue that the finely-tuned constants and quantities that were set up at the beginning of the universe – long before we ever existed – are actually explained by our existence today. 

Atheist Jeffery Lowder summarizes a debate between William Lane Craig and Doug Jesseph, and Jesseph says something like this:

Craig’s argument is like asking the question, “What are your chances of landing in a universe hospitable to life, assuming you were tossed into any old universe whatever.” That is precisely not the point. It’s presupposed in the question that you’re already in a universe which favors life. Confuses conditional probability with unconditional probability.

Unlike me, Lowder is never snarky in his summaries, so this is guaranteed to be accurate.

Here’s what Dr. William Lane Craig says to that idea that our being here explains the fine-tuning:

Now some people have tried to avoid this conclusion by saying that we really shouldn’t be surprised at the enormous improbability of the fine-tuning of the universe because, after all, if the universe were not fine-tuned then we wouldn’t be here to be surprised about it. Given that we are here we should expect the universe to be fine-tuned. But I think the fallacy of this reasoning can be made clear simply by a parallel illustration. Imagine that you were traveling abroad in a third world country and you were arrested on trumped up drug charges, and you were dragged in front of a firing squad of 100 trained marksmen, all with rifles aimed at your heart to be executed. And you hear the command given – “Ready, aim, fire!” And you hear the deafening roar of the guns. And then you observe that you are still alive, that all of the 100 marksmen missed! Now, what would you conclude? Well, I guess I really shouldn’t be surprised that they all missed; after all, if they hadn’t all missed I wouldn’t be here to be surprised about it. Given that I am here, I should expect them all to miss. Of course not. You would immediately suspect that they all missed on purpose. That the whole thing was a set up engineered by some person for some reason. And in exactly the same way, given the incomprehensible improbability of the fine-tuning of the initial conditions for intelligent life, it is rational to believe that this is not the result of chance but of design.

Does it make sense? It’s true that any arrangement of bullet holes in a condemned spy is as unlikely as any other, but the vast majority of possible arrangements of 100 bullet holes result in you being dead. Being marksmen, the shooters definitely know how to hit a target at close range. It doesn’t matter if some hit your head and some hit your heart and some hit your throat – the most common consequence of a hundred bullets fired by expert marksmen at you is “dead you” – regardless of the specific arrangement of bullet holes. If you find yourself not dead, that requires an explanation. The explanation is design.

Ronald Reagan’s 40th anniversary D-Day speech: the boys of Pointe du Hoc

June 6, 1944 D-Day Normandy Invasion Map
June 6, 1944 D-Day Normandy Invasion Map

It’s June 6th, today, and it’s the anniversary of D-Day: the Allied invasion of northern France – the beginning of the end of World War 2. One of the most pivotal events of that day was the assault on German gun emplacements by members of the Army Rangers at a fortified position called “Pointe du Hoc”.

President Ronald Reagan recognized the soldiers who attacked Pointe du Hoc back in 1984:

You can read the full transcript of that speech here.

Ronald Reagan also made the case for gratitude and vigilance:

Here’s the hymn that starts to play at the end:

The Boys of Pointe du Hoc

Here’s a summary of the Pointe du Hoc mission:

[Lt. Col. James Earl] Rudder took part in the D-Day landings as Commanding Officer of the United States Army’s 2nd Ranger Battalion. His U.S. Army Rangers stormed the beach at Pointe du Hoc and, under constant enemy fire, scaled 100-foot (30 meter) cliffs to reach and destroy German gun batteries. The battalion’s casualty rate for this perilous mission was greater than 50 percent. Rudder himself was wounded twice during the course of the fighting. In spite of this, they dug in and fought off German counter-attacks for two days until relieved. He and his men helped to successfully establish a beachhead for the Allied forces.

You can watch a three-clip documentary on it, too: part 1, part 2, part 3.

Although initially, the Rangers did not find the guns where they had expected them, they did find them further back behind the cliffs and destroyed them there, removing a threat to the forces that would be landing later.

What does D-Day mean to Christians in particular?

A Christian friend asked me what she should be thinking about when I sent her one of the videos above, and so I wrote her this to explain why I sent her the video:

To make you close your eyes and think in a more practical way about what it means for someone to sacrifice their lives to save you, of course. What it means to look up cliffs at machine guns, barbed wire and mortars raining death on you and to take a rope in your hands and to climb up a sheer cliff, under heavy fire, in order to save generations yet unborn and freedom itself.

To think about a concrete example helps us to be able to appreciate what Christ did for us in giving his life for us so that we could be free of sin, as well.

This is the insight that drives my entire interest in war and military history, in fact.

What does this mean: “Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.”

The more you know about D-Day, the more fearful what Jesus did appears, and the more you can be grateful.

Bullets and shrapnel are scary… and so are nails and lashes. Why on Earth would anyone endure either for me? And what should my response be to it?

I think it is helpful to explain Christianity to those who are not yet Christian, and for Christians to fully appreciate what Christianity is all about.

We were in peril. And now we have been saved. But at a cost.

I think that it’s important for Christians to look to history, art, poetry and music to help them to reflect and comprehend the sacrifice that Christ made for us in dying on the cross to protect us from peril. What must the cross have looked like to Jesus? It must have been something like what the Omaha beach looked like to the Americans landing in Normandy. Jesus saw whips, thorns and nails, and the heroes of Normandy saw 88 mm AT guns, 81 mm mortars and MG42 machine guns. How should you feel about people who face death on your behalf? Think about it.

William Lane Craig: Christians are idling in intellectual neutral

The video is 40 minutes long.

The full transcript is available here on the Reasonable Faith web site. (H/T Think Apologetics)

Excerpt:

No one has issued a more forceful challenge to Christians to become intellectually engaged than did Charles Malik, former Lebanese ambassador to the United States, in his address at the dedication of the Billy Graham Center in Wheaton, Illinois. Malik emphasized that as Christians we face two tasks in our evangelism: saving the soul and saving the mind, that is to say, not only converting people spiritually, but converting them intellectually as well. And the Church is lagging dangerously behind with regard to this second task. Our churches are filled with people who are spiritually born again, but who still think like non-Christians. Mark his words well:

I must be frank with you: the greatest danger confronting American evangelical Christianity is the danger of anti-intellectualism. The mind in its greatest and deepest reaches is not cared for enough. But intellectual nurture cannot take place apart from profound immersion for a period of years in the history of thought and the spirit. People who are in a hurry to get out of the university and start earning money or serving the church or preaching the gospel have no idea of the infinite value of spending years of leisure conversing with the greatest minds and souls of the past, ripening and sharpening and enlarging their powers of thinking. The result is that the arena of creative thinking is vacated and abdicated to the enemy.

Malik went on to say:

It will take a different spirit altogether to overcome this great danger of anti-intellectualism. For example, I say this different spirit, so far as philosophy alone—the most important domain for thought and intellect—is concerned, must see the tremendous value of spending an entire year doing nothing but poring intensely over the Republic or the Sophist of Plato, or two years over the Metaphysics or the Ethics of Aristotle, or three years over the City of God of Augustine. But if a start is made now on a crash program in this and other domains, it will take at least a century to catch up with the Harvards and Tübingens and the Sorbonnes—and by then where will these universities be?

What Malik clearly saw is the strategic position occupied by the university in shaping Western thought and culture. Indeed, the single most important institution shaping Western society is the university. It is at the university that our future political leaders, our journalists, our lawyers, our teachers, our scientists, our business executives, our artists, will be trained. It is at the university that they will formulate or, more likely, simply absorb the worldview that will shape their lives. And since these are the opinion-makers and leaders who shape our culture, the worldview that they imbibe at the university will be the one that shapes our culture.

And:

The great Princeton theologian J. Gresham Machen warned on the eve of the Fundamentalist Controversy that if the Church loses the intellectual battle in one generation, then evangelism would become immeasurably more difficult in the next:

False ideas are the greatest obstacles to the reception of the gospel. We may preach with all the fervor of a reformer and yet succeed only in winning a straggler here and there, if we permit the whole collective thought of the nation or of the world to be controlled by ideas which, by the resistless force of logic, prevent Christianity from being regarded as anything more than a harmless delusion. Under such circumstances, what God desires us to do is to destroy the obstacle at its root.

The root of the obstacle is to be found in the university, and it is there that it must be attacked. Unfortunately, Machen’s warning went unheeded, and biblical Christianity retreated into the intellectual closets of Fundamentalism, from which it has only recently begun to re-emerge. The war is not yet lost, and it is one which we must not lose: souls of men and women hang in the balance.

This lecture is an excellent opportunity for us all to ask ourselves: what are we doing to influence the university? Do you have a plan?

Many of the strongest people who are now opposed to Christianity raised in two-parent Christian homes, and went to church for a decade before going off to the university. I’m thinking especially of people like Tim Gill, in Colorado. At university (and even increasingly in high school) they turned away from Christianity. All their peers and the adults could not answer their questions. As adults, they were able to get money, power and influence. Many of them are using it against Christ and his kingdom – kicking away the ladder that they climbed to success on. Why is this? Unfortunately, many of us are not willing to do what works – pick up the Lee Strobel books and read them. Especially “The Case for a Creator”.

Bart Ehrman debates the reliability of the gospels with Craig Evans

Sherlock Holmes and John Watson
Sherlock Holmes and John Watson

This is the first debate ever between these two top-ranked scholars. Both Evans and Ehrman are probably 2 of the 10 most recognized historical Jesus scholars.

The MP3 audio and a link to the video is here. (From Brian Auten at Apologetics 315)

Speakers

Bart Ehrman

Dr. Ehrman, is a graduate of Wheaton College (Illinois), Professor Ehrman received both his Masters of Divinity and Ph.D. from Princeton Theological Seminary, where his 1985 doctoral dissertation was awarded magna cum laude. Since then he has published extensively in the fields of New Testament and Early Christianity, having written or edited twenty-one books, numerous scholarly articles, and dozens of book reviews. Among his fields of scholarly expertise are the historical Jesus, the early Christian apocrypha, the apostolic fathers, and the manuscript tradition of the New Testament.

Craig Evans

Dr. Evans received his B.A. degree in History and Philosophy from Claremont McKenna College, his M.Div. degree from Western Baptist Seminary in Portland, Oregon, and his M.A. and Ph.D. degrees in Biblical Studies from Claremont Graduate University in southern California. Author and editor of more than fifty books and hundreds of articles and reviews, Professor Evans has given lectures at Cambridge, Durham, Oxford, Yale, and other universities, colleges, seminaries, and museums, such as the Field Museum in Chicago and the Canadian Museum of Civilization in Ottawa.

Note: This is a very snarky summary, and I am just paraphrasing things to be silly and funny. Reader discretion is advised.

Summary

Snarky things I made up are in italics.

Question 1: are the gospels historically reliable?

Bart Ehrman opening speech:

  • I used to be an ignorant fundamentalist like you!
  • but then I went to Princeton, and now I know better
  • to Craig: are there errors in the Bible
  • the gospels have some reliable and some unreliable info
  • only careless readers don’t see contradictions in the gospels
  • contradictions in the genealogies
  • contradictions in timing of recognizing Jesus as the Messiah
  • contradiction about when Jesus died
  • contradiction about when the stone was rolled away
  • contradiction about who was at the empty tomb
  • contradiction about when the disciples went to Galilee
  • contradictions in minor details means the gospels are unreliable

Craig Evans opening speech:

  • the question is “do the gospels tell us enough about Jesus for faith?”
  • the gospels don’t tell us everything, but they tell enough for faith
  • the extremely early creed in 1 Cor 15:3-7 has an outline of the gospel
  • it contains the burial, the appearances to eyewitnesses
  • and it agrees with the early sermons of Peter in Acts 2
  • the gospels agree with these extremely early summaries
  • the gospels are based on earlier sources
  • the gospels are corroborated by the Jewish historian Josephus

Question 2: Do the gospels accurately preserve the teachings of Jesus Christ?

Bart Ehrman

  • are there any discrepancies in the gospels?
  • the gospels have things Jesus said, and things he didn’t say
  • if the Bible is inaccurate in some minor details, then it’s all unreliable
  • in the latest gospel, John, Jesus calls himself God and sees himself as divine
  • but these high-Christology statements are not in the synoptics
  • therefore, Jesus really didn’t say these things
  • why didn’t the synoptics record these claims to divinity
  • the author of John changed the words of Jesus and John the Baptist?

Craig Evans

  • E.P. Sanders (a non-Christian scholar) says we can know what Jesus taught
  • cites E.P.’s list of Jesus’ core teachings that are agreed on by most scholars
  • Jesus’ focus was talking about the Kingdom of God – the rule of God
  • Jesus’ followers were expected to record and understand the words of Jesus
  • It is permissible for the followers of Jesus to have some editorial license

Question 3: Do the gospels accurately preserve the activities of Jesus Christ?

Bart Ehrman

  • E.P. Sanders agrees with me that there are discrepancies in the gospels
  • E.P. Sanders agrees with me that there are mistakes in the gospels
  • If Jesus’ followers changed his words a little, then we can’t know anything he said
  • If the author changes the story a little, then the story was changed a lot
  • If there not 100% accurate, then they’re not accurate at all
  • contradiction of the ordering of Jesus’ temptations
  • contradiction of the number of animals Jesus rode into Jerusalem
  • contradiction of whether Jesus spoke or didn’t speak in some instance
  • contradiction of what Jesus said on the cross
  • contradiction of the number of robbers who speak to Jesus
  • Jesus can only say ONE THING when he’s on the cross
  • the gospel writers have to be in complete agreement

Craig Evans

  • E.P. Sanders (non-Christian) lists 7 virtually indisputable facts about Jesus
  • just because there are discrepancies, doesn’t mean there are no minimal facts
  • in additional to E.P. Sanders, there are other facts that are widely-accepted
  • many assertions in the gospels are embarrassing to the author
  • many liberal scholars think that Jesus was a healer and an exorcist
  • all scholars agree on the crucifixion
  • most scholars accept the “King of the Jews” placard placed over the cross
  • this means that Jesus was viewed by his followers as the Messiah

Question 4: Do the gospels contain eyewitness tradition?

Bart Ehrman

  • I used to be an ignorant uninformed fundie, like you all
  • but then I started to study seriously, not like Craig Evans
  • I changed my mind based on intense research, not peer pressure
  • My apostasy has nothing to do with the problem of evil and suffering!
  • I use my brain, and Craig Evans and you fundies don’t use your brains
  • the gospels don’t claim to be written by eyewitnesses
  • the titles of the gospels were added later
  • the gospels don’t claim to be written by the authors attributed to them
  • the gospels were written anonymously
  • the gospels only had names attached in 120-140 AD
  • even if gospels were written by eyewitnesses, they are not always accurate
  • written 40-60 years after Jesus died
  • written in Greek, not Aramaic
  • written in different countries
  • based on stories that were told and retold and changed over time

Craig Evans

  • Richard Bauckham says the gospels are largely based on eyewitness accounts
  • the gospels were written while there were still eyewitnesses alive
  • the people who met Jesus were there to correct the written accounts
  • there were many disputes about things in the early church, so if the early church invented sayings, then why not invent sayings of Jesus to resolve the disputes?
  • there is no evidence of things being invented wholesale by the early church
  • Pappias says that he talked to Christians who knew the eyewitnesses to Jesus

Question 5: Do archaeologists and historians use the gospels as sources?

Bart Ehrman

  • archaeologists do not use the gospels, they just dig things up
  • historians do use gospels
  • Jesus is not mentioned by any Greek or Roman non-Christian source for 80 years after Jesus’ death
  • The earliest Jewish source is Josephus, writing 60 years after Jesus’ death
  • Paul is the earliest source, but says nothing about Jesus’ words and deeds
  • the earliest sources for words and deeds are the discrepancy-filled gospels
  • the gospels are based on telling and re-telling of the stories

Craig Evans

  • James Charlesworth has a 700-book about archaeology and the Bible
  • the book contains hundreds of references to the four gospels
  • the four gospels and Acts are viewed as the best sources for archaeologists
  • they provide accurate information about the way things were
  • the gospels and Acts helps archaeologists to know where to dig for things
  • the Biblical sources are early and based on eyewitnesses
  • the gospels and Acts fit well in the first century culture
  • the gospels and Acts talk about real events and real places and real customs
  • the gospels and Acts talk about real buildings and real public figures and real groups
  • the language of the gospels traces back nicely to Aramaic
  • the gospels talk about geography and climate
  • archaeologists discover many things discussed in the gospels

Question 6: Have the gospels been accurately preserved done through the centuries

Bart Ehrman

  • if God inspired the Bible without error, he should have preserved it without error
  • but the originals have NOT been preserved without error
  • so I no longer accept the inerrancy of the autographs (the originals)
  • we don’t have the originals
  • we only have copies of copies… of copies… of copies… of copies
  • and the copiers all made mistakes
  • the first manuscripts are decades later
  • and the manuscripts we have are different from one another
  • the earliest copies have the most mistakes
  • even if we have many copies, they are late, so we don’t know what the original said
  • we don’t have early manuscripts

Craig Evans

  • we know where the discrepancies in the manuscripts are
  • the discrepancies are marked in your Bible
  • the discrepancies affect peripheral issues
  • some discrepancies are supported by other verses
  • Mark doesn’t have the appearances, but 1 Cor 15 does, and it’s earlier
  • the errors are things like spelling and grammar errors, typos, etc.
  • we have fragments that are earlier than the full manuscripts
  • some early manuscripts have errors, but other early manuscripts are correct

Question 7: Do scribal errors and textual variants significantly impact any teaching of Jesus or any important Christian teaching?

Bart Ehrman

  • the woman caught in adultery is a late addition
  • the ending of Mark is a late addition
  • can we handle snakes or can’t we?
  • did Jesus sweat blood or didn’t he?
  • some manuscripts have errors – that should not be allowed by God
  • some scribes are careless – that should not be allowed by God
  • we have to have perfect copies of the originals, or I won’t believe!
  • if God really inspired it, it all has to be perfect! Perfect! I was lied to!!!!
  • if the snake-handling verse isn’t there, then the whole Bible is lies! Lies!

Craig Evans

  • no variants impact any teaching of Jesus or significant Christian teaching
  • the vast majority of the manuscripts agree on 98-99% of the text
  • often, the theology gives rise to a variant, which is introduced later
  • variants aren’t central enough to affect any theological doctrines

And then there are concluding speeches by each speaker.

I made this summary based on the video, which is here on Apologetics 315.