News

The worst mistake you can make when defending the Christian worldview

18 Comments

So, this is just an advice post for doing apologetics.

Here are three situations I’ve run into while doing apologetics in the last month.

First situation. I was talking with a lady who is an atheist. I had a copy of “God’s Crime Scene” in my hand, and she asked me about it. I told her that it was a book written by the guy who solved the homicide case that I asked her to watch on Dateline. She remembered – it was the two-hour special on the woman who was killed with a garrotte. She pointed at the book and said “what’s in it?” I said, it has 8 pieces of evidence that fit better with a theistic worldview than with an atheistic one, and some of them scientific. Her reply to me was – literally – “which denomination do you want me to join?”

Second situation. I was talking with a friend of mine who teaches in a Catholic school. She was telling that she got the opportunity to talk to her students about God, and found out that some of them were not even theists, and many of them had questions. So she asked them for questions and got a list. The list included many hard cases, like “what about the Bible and slavery” and “why do Christians oppose gay marriage?” and so on.

Third situation. Talking to a grad student about God’s existence. I’m laying out my scientific arguments for her, holding up the peer-reviewed papers for each discovery. I get to the Doug Axe paper on protein folding probabilities, and she holds up her hand. One question: “Am I going to Hell?”

So think about those three situations. In each case, the opponent is trying to reject Christianity by jumping way, way ahead to the very end of the process. When you do Christian apologetics, you do not take the bait and jump to the end of the process dealing with nitty gritty details until you have made your case for the core of the Christian worldview using your strongest evidence. Let me explain.

So, your strongest evidence as a Christian are the scientific arguments, along with the moral argument. Those would include (for starters) the following:

  1. kalam cosmological argument
  2. cosmic fine-tuning
  3. galactic and stellar habitability
  4. origin of life / DNA
  5. molecular machines / irreducible complexity
  6. the moral argument

The problem I am seeing today is that atheists are rejecting discussions about evidence because they think that all we are interested in is getting them to become Christians. Well, yes. I want you to become a Christian. But I know perfectly well what that entails – it entails a change of life priorities. Both of the women I spoke to are living with their boyfriends, and the kids in the Catholic school just want to have fun. None of them wants to believe in a God who will require self-denial, self-control, and self-sacrifice. Nobody wants God to be in that leader position in their lives. Christianity is 100% reversed from today’s me-first, fun-seeking, thrill-seeking, fear-of-missing-out travel spirit of the age.

So, how to answer all these late-game questions? The answer is simple. You don’t answer any late-game questions until the person you are talking with accounts for the widely-accepted data in your list. These are things that have got to be accepted before any discussion about minor issues like one angel vs two angels at the empty tomb can occur. When we discuss all the basic issues where the evidence is the strongest, then we can go on to discuss issues where the evidence is debatable, then finally, in the last bits before the end, we can discuss these other kinds of questions.

How to explain why this process must be followed to the person who asks specific questions about minor issues? Simple. You explain that your goal is not to get them to become a Christian right now. That you want to let them believe anything thing they want. That’s right. They can believe anything they want to believe. As long as what they believe is consistent with the evidence. And what I am going to do is give them the evidence, and then they can believe whatever they want – so long as it’s consistent with the evidence.

So, for example, I’m going to tell them 3 pieces of evidence for a cosmic beginning of the universe: the expanding universe (redshift), the cosmic microwave background radiation, and the light element abundances. That’s mainstream science that shows that the universe came into being out of nothing, a finite time in the past. And I will charge them not to believe in any religion that assumes that the universe has always been here. For example, Mormonism is ruled out, they believe in eternally existing matter. See how that works? Hey, Ms. Atheist. You can believe anything you want. As long as what you believe is consistent with the evidence. 

I think this approach of not letting them rush you to the end at the beginning is important for two reasons. First, we can get our foot in the door to talk about things that are interesting to everyone, in a non-stressed environment. Everyone can talk about evidence comfortably. Second, we show that we hold our beliefs because we are simply letting evidence set boundaries for us on what we are allowed to believe. We can’t believe not-Christianity, because not-Christianity is not consistent with the evidence. And you start with the most well-supported evidence, and eliminate worldviews that are falsified by the most well-supported evidence. Atheism actually gets falsified pretty quickly, because of the scientific evidence.

So, that’s my advice. Had a friend of mine named William try this out about a week ago. It went down like this:

William to me:

This guy I know messaged me and bragged for a while about how easy he can dismantle Christianity. He said: “present the gospel to me as you understand it. I’ll simply ask questions to demonstrate it is not worth your belief.”

WK to William:

First of all, he isn’t allowed to just sit there and poke holes in your case, he has to present a positive case for atheism. Second, don’t discuss Christianity with him at all until you first discuss the evidence for theism – start with the good scientific evidence.

And William wrote this to his friend:

The way I’m wired is that I process all competing theories and go with the best one. By doing a comparative analysis of worldviews I find that Christian theology easily explains the most about the world I find myself living in.

I’m pretty sure that a God of some sort exists because of the scientific evidence for the origin of the universe and the fine tuning in physics. From there I find it quite intuitive that if a God went through the trouble of creating and tuning a universe for life that this God likely has some sort of interest in it and has revealed Himself to humanity in some way.

From there I can look at the major world religions and compare them to see which one explains the past and the present the best. Christianity easily comes out on top.

And then a few days later, I got this from William:

I finally got the agnostic to tell me what he thinks about origin and fine tuning. When I started pointing out that his views were unscientific, he blew a gasket, called me dishonest and told me he didn’t want to discuss anything further.

And that’s where you want to be. Cut off all discussions where the challenger tries to jump to the end and get you to debate the very last steps of your case. Present the strongest evidence for your core claims, and get him to account for this evidence within his own worldview. Lead the discussion with public, testable evidence. All warfare depends on picking the terrain, weapons and tactics that allow you to match your strength against your opponent’s weakness.

News

Two surprising things that Dr. Fauci’s National Institutes of Health funded

6 Comments

I’m going to be pulling an all-nighter tonight (Sunday) to finish some coding, so this post is short. I just wanted to make sure that everyone was aware of what Dr. Fauci’s National Institutes of Health funded. I’ll be linking to 2 articles, both from far-left sources. So there should be no trouble from the far-left fact-checkers who would love to continue to suppress the truth about these stories.

First, far-left Vanity Fair reports. Read this carfully, especially the last paragraph.

Excerpt:

“I totally resent the lie you are now propagating.”

Dr. Anthony Fauci appeared to be channeling the frustration of millions of Americans when he spoke those words during an invective-laden, made-for-Twitter Senate hearing on July 20. You didn’t have to be a Democrat to be fed up with all the xenophobic finger-pointing and outright disinformation, coming mainly from the right, up to and including the claim that COVID-19 was a bioweapon cooked up in a lab.

The immediate target of Dr. Fauci’s wrath was Senator Rand Paul, who was pressing the nation’s top doctor to say whether the National Institutes of Health had ever funded risky coronavirus research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Based on new information disclosed by the National Institutes of Health, however, Paul might have been onto something.

On Wednesday, the NIH sent a letter to members of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce that acknowledged two facts. One was that EcoHealth Alliance, a New York City–based nonprofit that partners with far-flung laboratories to research and prevent the outbreak of emerging diseases, did indeed enhance a bat coronavirus to become potentially more infectious to humans, which the NIH letter described as an “unexpected result” of the research it funded that was carried out in partnership with the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The second was that EcoHealth Alliance violated the terms of its grant conditions stipulating that it had to report if its research increased the viral growth of a pathogen by tenfold.

[…][T]he NIH letter—coming after months of congressional demands for more information—seemed to underscore that America’s premier science institute has been less than forthcoming about risky research it has funded and failed to properly monitor. Instead of helping to lead a search for COVID-19’s origins, with the pandemic now firmly in its 19th month, the NIH has circled the wagons, defending its grant system and scientific judgment against a rising tide of questions.

[…][A]nother disclosure last month made clear that EcoHealth Alliance, in partnership with the Wuhan Institute of Virology, was aiming to do the kind of research that could accidentally have led to the pandemic.

Previously, I read about how the fact-checkers employed by Big Tech social media companies are partially funded by Chinese interests. So, it’s not surprising that these Big Tech fact-checkers would have wanted to suppress the truth about this story.

Image

The second article is from the far-left The Hill.

Excerpt:

The White Coat Waste Project, the nonprofit organization that first pointed out that U.S. taxpayers were being used to fund the controversial Wuhan Institute of Virology, have now turned its sights on Anthony Fauci on another animal-testing-related matter — infecting dozens of beagles with disease-causing parasites to test an experimental drug on them.

House members, most of whom are Republicans, want Fauci to explain himself in response to allegations brought on by the White Coat Waste Project that involve drugging puppies.

According to the White Coat Waste Project, the Food and Drug Administration does not require drugs to be tested on dogs, so the group is asking why the need for such testing.

White Coat Waste claims that 44 beagle puppies were used in a Tunisia, North Africa, laboratory, and some of the dogs had their vocal cords removed, allegedly so scientists could work without incessant barking.

Leading the effort is Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.), writing a letter to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) saying the cordectomies are “cruel” and a “reprehensible misuse of taxpayer funds.”

“Our investigators show that Fauci’s NIH division shipped part of a $375,800 grant to a lab in Tunisia to drug beagles and lock their heads in mesh cages filled with hungry sand flies so that the insects could eat them alive,” White Coat Waste told Changing America. “They also locked beagles alone in cages in the desert overnight for nine consecutive nights to use them as bait to attract infectious sand flies.”

The secular left came out in droves to vote for the Biden-Harris ticket. “The return to civility” – that’s what they called it. This is the return to civility that they voted for. We never had anything like this in the Trump-Pence administration. These people truly are the ideological descendants of Stalin and Mao.

And remember, the NIH has no money of its own. It sells no products or services in the private sector. All of these research grants were funded by you, the taxpayer.

News

Does the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission have the courage to confront child rape?

2 Comments

Let’s go over this past week, we got lots of news about the story from Loudon county Virginia public schools. Previously, we found out that the police were called in to investigate the rape of a female student. User of rape kit confirmed that the child had been raped. The suspect is a transgender female (biological male).How did the public schools and the Biden administration respond?

So, let’s go over the facts again briefly, from my previous post:

Per the report, [parent Scott] Smith was at the [Loudon county public] school board meeting because his daughter had been raped by a transgender boy in the girls’ bathroom at Stone Bridge High School. What transpired after that was almost as sickening as the act itself.

Smith was given a no-trespassing order prior to the meeting that forbids him from telling his story. This was all part of an elaborative cover-up by the school district to not publicize the rape of his daughter. In fact, when Smith showed up at the school to complain about what had happened, they essentially accused him of lying and called the police, not on the transgender rapist, but on Smith himself for causing a scene. Luckily, he was able to get his daughter a rape kit that evening that confirmed the crime.

The public schools are all-in on pushing transgenderism in the schools, and championing the right of transgender women (biological men) to enter the bathrooms and change rooms of girls and women. Do you remember that case of the Canadian transgender woman (biological man) who demanded that female massage therapists wax his male genitals? That’s what these public school s support. What’s surprising is the next part – their response to being caught.

The Washington Free Beacon reports:

An email released by Virginia’s Loudoun County Public Schools shows the district superintendent knew of a rape case in a high school bathroom weeks before he said there had been no reports of sexual assaults in the district’s restrooms.

Superintendent Scott Ziegler emailed school board members on May 28, the day a boy who identified as “gender fluid” allegedly raped a female peer in a women’s restroom in Stone Bridge High School.

[…]Less than a month later, however, the superintendent claimed in a meeting that the district had no “record of assaults occurring in our restrooms.”

It’s not just this one school:

The alleged perpetrator was arrested in July but released and allowed to attend school while investigators processed DNA evidence. He was transferred to Broad Run High School, where he allegedly assaulted another student in a classroom on Oct. 6.

And what about the teachers?

Beth Barts, one of the school board members who said transgender students pose no threat to their cisgender peers, announced her resignation days after the Daily Wire reported on the rape allegations. Loudoun County Public Schools said they could not comment on student records in a previous statement to the Washington Free Beacon.

Remember, every public school teacher pays union dues to teacher unions, and the vast majority of that money goes to Democrats. So these people are on board with the Democrat agenda.

The latest news is that the school board association actually collaborated with the White House on a letter that labels parents who disagree with the conduct of public schools as “domestic terrorists”. THE WHITE HOUSE.

The Washington Free Beacon explains:

The country’s largest school board association collaborated with the Biden White House before sending a controversial letter calling on the FBI to investigate parents as potential domestic terrorists, according to previously unreported emails.

So, I’m thinking that this is the position of the Biden administration, and of the voters who elected him. This is what they believe about parents. When parents object to biological males in female bathrooms, the teachers, administrators and school boards agree: they’re “domestic terrorists”. And you can bet they had no such criticism of the left-wing  rioters and looters who caused TWO BILLION DOLLARS OF DAMAGE. They were just peaceful protesters, who needed space to riot and loot.

The response of establishment evangelical Christians

But what about the response of pious, charismatic Christian leaders to news stories like this?

Here is pastor Matt Chandler, who is a featured contributor the ERLC web site, explaining his views on biological males in female bathrooms, showers and changing rooms:

Here’s an interview that Matt Chandler did with Vice TV:

Here’s what Matt Chandler says about Trump voters who opposed having biological men in women’s bathrooms, showers and changing rooms:

I think people are frightened. I think people are frightened at the speed at which things are changing culturally. So I think they begin to grasp for something that might help. The Obama presidency, great man, some of his policies and the way he rolled out his policies really really scared evangelicals. And without any kind of real help from Pastors and ministers to help us understand, the news media just whipped us into a frenzy and made people feel desperate.

[…]But I think especially around topics like homosexuality where we are quick to say it’s a sin.

[…][P]eople were terrified by that bathroom bill… the thought that their children were going to be in a bathroom with the opposite sex, and… that made [conservatives] go “whoever the opposition is to that I’m voting for” and then they lost their soul on that…

That’s the defense of ethics and religious liberty that you get from a pastor who has majored in tallness, handsomeness and charisma. In order to be a courageous Christian, though, you have to spend more time in the books: Thomas Sowell, Stephen C. Meyer, William Lane Craig, Voddie Baucham, Jay Richards, Ryan T. Anderson, etc.

The problem with people like Matt Chandler is that they lack courage. He’s a coward in the face of the secular left, because he wants them to like him. He is too lazy to learn how to debate these issues. His laziness leads to ignorance. And his ignorance causes him to behave like a coward when he’s challenged by the secular left. Next time we have an election, don’t listen to progressive groups like TGC, 9Marks, Acts 29, ERLC, Christianity Today, etc. They’re cowards.