Brian Auten posted the latest lecture by Dr. Michael Licona at Apologetics 315. Brian’s site has the MP3 file (48 minutes, 44.5 Mb). I can make a smaller version for anyone who wants it.
Here is the video and my point-form summary.
The topic:
Contradictions do not affect the minimum facts case for the resurrection, although they are troubling
Most people respond to alleged contradictions by trying to harmonize them
Most verses that appear contradictory can be harmonized successfully
Some verses cannot be harmonized successfully without really damaging the texts
Christians should not gloss over these few real contradictions nor pretend that they don’t exist
How should we respond to the verses that cannot easily be harmonized?
Genre considerations:
The genre of the gospels is “ancient biography”
Ancient biography is not the same genre as modern biography
Insignificant differences
1. Contradictions vs. Differences:
In ancient biography, if a source mentions one person’s name, it does not mean that other people were not present
Example: one woman versus two women at the tomb, an account may only mention one woman when there are two
That is a difference, not a contradiction
2. Time compression:
in ancient biography, writers are allowed to leave out events in order to compress time
Some gospels omit details (guy version) and other gospels give more details (girl version)
For example, the cursing of the fig tree in Mark and Matthew
3. Narrative flow:
the ancient biographer’s style was to link together events into a narrative, even if they are slightly out of order
This means that the ordering matters less to ancient biographers than forming a coherent narrative
For example, the prediction by Jesus that Peter would deny him
Significant differences:
1. Biography allows for portrait painting
When people paint portraits, they sometimes use illustrations or imagery to convey the person’s character
For example, Shakespeare adds things to his history of Julius Caesar to make it more dramatic
For example, the genealogies in Matthew, the portrait of Jesus in the garden in John
2. Even if there are contradictions in an account it doesn’t mean that the basic facts are undermined
For example, even if we don’t know for sure if one thief or two thieves cursed Jesus, no one doubts that he was crucified
The basic details of the story are not affected by apparent contradictions
One of the key pieces of evidence in the universe is simply it’s origin. If our universe began to exist, what could have caused it’s beginning? How did everything (all space, time and matter) come into existence from nothing? One way atheist physicists have navigated this dilemma has simply been to redefine the terms they have been using. What do we mean when we say “everything” or “nothing”? At first these two terms might seem rather self-explanatory, but it’s important for us to take the time to define the words. As I’ve already stated, by “everything” we mean all space, time and matter. That’s right, space is “something”; empty space is part of “everything” not part of “nothing”. For some of us, that’s an interesting concept that might be hard to grasp, but it’s an important distinction that must be understood. When we say “nothing”, we mean the complete absence of everything; the thorough non-existence of anything at all (including all space time and matter). These two terms, when defined in this way, are consistent with the principles of the Standard Cosmological Model, but demonstrate the dilemma. If everything came from nothing, what caused this to occur? What is the non-spatial, atemporal, immaterial, uncaused, first cause of the universe? A cause of this sort sounds a lot like a supernatural Being, and that’s why I think many naturalists have begun to redefine the terms.
Lawrence Krauss, Arizona State University Professor (School of Earth and Space Exploration and Director of the Origins Initiative) wrote a book entitled, “A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing”. As part of the promotion for the book, Krauss appeared on the Colbert Report where he was interviewed by comedian Stephen Colbert. During the interview, Krauss tried to redefine “nothing” to avoid the need for a supernatural first cause:
“Physics has changed what we mean by nothing… Empty space is a boiling, bubbling brew of virtual particles popping in and out of existence… if you wait long enough, that kind of nothing will always produce particles.” (Colbert Nation, June 21st, 2012)
Now if you’re not careful, you might miss Krauss’ subtle redefinition. In describing the sudden appearance of matter (“particles”), Krauss assumes the prior existence of space (“empty space”) and time (“if you wait long enough”). If you’ve got some empty space and wait long enough, matter appears. For Krauss, the “nothing” from which the universe comes includes two common features of “everything” (space and time), and something more (virtual particles). This leaves us with the real question: “Where did the space, time and virtual particles come from (given all our evidence points to their origination at the beginning of our universe)?” Krauss avoids this inquiry by moving space and time from the category of “something” to the category of “nothing”.
If you’ve got a teenager in your house, you might recognize Krauss’ approach to language. I bet you’ve seen your teenager open the refrigerator door, gaze at all the nutritious fruits and vegetables on the shelves, then lament that there is “nothing to eat.”
I used to say that when I was a teenager, but I grew out of it. I didn’t go on the Comedy Channel and try to convince everyone that what I was saying about the refrigerator was scientifically accurate.
Anyway, here is a debate between William Lane Craig and Lawrence Krauss, if you want to see how Krauss defends his “refrigerator has nothing to eat” view of cosmology. I know everybody and even many Christians all think that we have something to hide when it comes to science, but if you would just watch these debates, you would see that there is nothing to fear from science at all. We own it.
Meanwhile, I want to show you that this is not at all rare among atheists.
Look, here is Peter Atkins explaining how he makes the Big Bang reconcile with his atheism – and notice that it’s a completely different view than Krauss:
So, just who is this Peter Atkins, and why is he a good spokesman for atheism?
Peter William Atkins (born August 10, 1940) is an English chemist and a fellow and professor of chemistry at Lincoln College of the University of Oxford. He is a prolific writer of popular chemistry textbooks, including Physical Chemistry, 8th ed. (with Julio de Paula of Haverford College), Inorganic Chemistry, and Molecular Quantum Mechanics, 4th ed. Atkins is also the author of a number of science books for the general public, including Atkins’ Molecules and Galileo’s Finger: The Ten Great Ideas of Science.
[…]Atkins is a well-known atheist and supporter of many of Richard Dawkins’ ideas. He has written and spoken on issues of humanism, atheism, and what he sees as the incompatibility between science and religion. According to Atkins, whereas religion scorns the power of human comprehension, science respects it.
[…]He was the first Senior Member for the Oxford Secular Society and an Honorary Associate of the National Secular Society. He is also a member of the Advisory Board of The Reason Project, a US-based charitable foundation devoted to spreading scientific knowledge and secular values in society. The organisation is led by fellow atheist and author Sam Harris.
Now watch that 6-minute video above. Peter Atkins thinks that nothing exists. He thinks he doesn’t exist. He thinks that you don’t exist. This is how atheism adapts to a world where the Big Bang creation event is fact.
I think Peter Atkins should join Lawrence Krauss on the Comedy Channel and present that view. I would laugh. Wouldn’t you?
Another post in which I try to pull women out of the quagmire of radical feminism
Note: in this article, when I refer to women, I mean young, unmarried women who have been influenced by feminism. I do not mean all women, and especially not married women.
My good friend Tom sent me this article from the ultra left-wing Vanity Fair. Tom is a veteran of the New York City dating scene and has been telling me for years about the practices described in this article.
The article is very, very long, so I can only quote a little, and then I’ll encourage you to read it, although be warned, it’s filled with sex and bad language, and it tries to present women as victims.
Excerpt:
It’s a balmy night in Manhattan’s financial district, and at a sports bar called Stout, everyone is Tindering. The tables are filled with young women and men who’ve been chasing money and deals on Wall Street all day, and now they’re out looking for hookups. Everyone is drinking, peering into their screens and swiping on the faces of strangers they may have sex with later that evening.
Tinder is a hook-up app that people use to find people to have sex with, based solely on their photograph. This is actually what studies say about how women choose men – it’s all physical appearance, and nothing that is learned subsequently alters that first impression.
The article says this:
“Romance is completely dead, and it’s the girls’ fault,” says Alex, 25, a New Yorker who works in the film industry. “They act like all they want is to have sex with you and then they yell at you for not wanting to have a relationship. How are you gonna feel romantic about a girl like that? Oh, and by the way? I met you on Tinder.”
“Women do exactly the same things guys do,” said Matt, 26, who works in a New York art gallery. “I’ve had girls sleep with me off OkCupid and then just ghost me”—that is, disappear, in a digital sense, not returning texts. “They play the game the exact same way. They have a bunch of people going at the same time—they’re fielding their options. They’re always looking for somebody better, who has a better job or more money.” A few young women admitted to me that they use dating apps as a way to get free meals. “I call it Tinder food stamps,” one said.
Even the emphasis on looks inherent in a dating game based on swiping on photos is something men complain women are just as guilty of buying into. “They say in their profiles, ‘No shirtless pictures,’ but that’s bulls**t,” says Nick, the same as above. “The day I switched to a shirtless picture with my tattoos, immediately, within a few minutes, I had, like, 15 matches.”
And if women aren’t interested in being treated as sexual objects, why do they self-objectify in their profile pictures? some men ask. “There’s a lot of girls who are just like, Check me out, I’m hot, I’m wearing a bikini,” says Jason…
Men talk about the nudes they receive from women. They show off the nudes. “T*t pics and booty pics,” said Austin, 22, a college student in Indiana. “My phone is full of ‘em.”
Although the article, and the women who are interviewed, try to pass themselves off as victims, it’s very clear that they are full participants in this hook-up culture. It’s “fun” for them to be free and independent – no responsibilities, expectations or obligations from a relationship.
Feminist writer Hanna Rosin says that this hook-up culture is great:
Some, like Atlantic writer Hanna Rosin, see hookup culture as a boon: “The hookup culture is … bound up with everything that’s fabulous about being a young woman in 2012—the freedom, the confidence.”
The Vanity Fair author comments:
“Short-term mating strategies” seem to work for plenty of women too; some don’t want to be in committed relationships, either, particularly those in their 20s who are focusing on their education and launching careers.
Previously, I quoted a feminist professor writing in the New York Times. She also thought that it was great that women were hooking up with hot guys for fun, but staying focused on their educations and careers.
Here’s Amanda to explain it:
“There is no dating. There’s no relationships,” says Amanda, the tall elegant one. “They’re rare. You can have a fling that could last like seven, eight months and you could never actually call someone your ‘boyfriend.’ [Hooking up] is a lot easier. No one gets hurt—well, not on the surface.”
[…]It’s not, she says, that women don’t want to have sex. “Who doesn’t want to have sex? But it feels bad when they’re like, ‘See ya.’ ”
Who doesn’t want to have sex? Well, me for one. At least, not till I’m married.
Amanda later explains that she doesn’t want to care, because that would mean that she “somehow missed the whole memo about third-wave feminism”. She has to be independent – able to dismiss responsibilities, expectations and obligations in a real relationship – because third-wave feminism tells her so. I know Christian women who think they are fundamentalists who have this exact same attitude. They think that relationships are somehow compatible with doing whatever they want to do – that doing whatever makes them happy each and every moment is compatible with a lasting relationship. Married people laugh at this, but this is what most young, unmarried women believe. And of course most men are only to happy to take advantage of this and treat women like objects.
Why don’t women reject the men who use them like kleenexes? Why is the man’s appearance so much more important than his character and suitability for the marriage roles of husband and father? Feminism tells women that gender distinctions are “sexist”, that chivalry is “sexist”, that chastity is “repressive” because it blocks having recreational sex, that marriage is boring and must be delayed, and that having lots of sexual experience makes you more attractive. All nonsense, but this is what the vast majority of American women believe. They measure men by how the man makes them feel and whether he will be impressive physically to their peers. They believe in feminism and the denial of specific male roles and male virtues. I can’t speak for all the men, but all my male friends are either virgins or married, and we are horrified because we don’t know who we are supposed to marry.
Probably the most traumatic experiences that I have ever heard in my life are the stories I hear from women who are raised in Christian homes, with two married Christian parents, who nevertheless dump their Christianity late in high school, or sometimes when they get to university. One minute, they are adorable little kids playing with teddy bears or riding horses. The next minute they are hooking up and shacking up and avoiding marriage and child-bearing in order to have as much fun as possible.
Two interesting things about this. First, their parents never find out what is really going on. The parents always believe that the daughters are as pure as the driven snow, no matter how long the “lost” period is, where their daughters went crazy. Second, the young woman’s core desire to have fun and seek thrills never goes away. Conversion to Christianity doesn’t make an irresponsible woman responsible. And she usually is careful to surround herself with people who will affirm her in her recklessness, perhaps confidently calling her emotional desires “the voice of God speaking to her”. My friend Dina likes to tell me that these women do not want to be rescued – they are having a good time doing what they want to do, and they think it will go on forever – that the attention from men will always be there, and that chasing happiness will somehow “work out”.
What is interesting is how the parents don’t fix the problem when the girls are young. They are too busy with their careers, their own traveling and fun, etc. Usually, the girl’s mother has chosen a man who is not really strong on truth or moral convictions, because then he is easier to get along with and will not judge her. Women do not like being judged by men, either about factual claims or about moral claims. When the girl starts to act up, and the mother turns to the non-judgmental, postmodern relativist man she chose, and expects him to do something about it. Unfortunately, he does nothing to set boundaries on the daughter.
Finally, you might think that the pastors would be aware of this, and be doing something about restoring women back to the way they used to be. I was talking with a friend who is also in his 30s, also a virgin, also an engineer, and also went to graduate school. We both agreed that the church was doing nothing to counter the radical feminism that exalts this retreat from relationship, and denigrates chastity, marriage and child-bearing. There’s no response from the church to radical feminism.
As always, should you, as a young Christian man of some means, desire to get married, then I recommend using my checklist to validate your candidate. And remember, the right answers are unimportant – only the willingness to learn matters.
WINTERY KNIGHT 