Here’s a good introductory lecture on the topic by Chad Gross, who blogs at Truthbomb Apologetics.
You can see the footnotes for his article on his blog.
The one criticism I have is that he seems to be quoting from John a lot, and he should have some sort of case for John being reliable. I would maybe cite the scholarly work of someone like Richard Bauckham, who thinks that John is not only based on eyewitness testimony, but was actually written by a disciple of Jesus named John. John is my favorite gospel, but skeptical NT critics critics are pretty hard on it. Of course, Chad was speaking in a church, so it’s understandable why he might not take the time to do that.
For those who don’t want to watch the video, here’s a good thought from J. Warner Wallace at Please Convince Me.
Excerpt:
A “just” God does justice, which means to punish or reward appropriately. In the Western tradition, we punish people for the actions they commit, but the extent of punishment is dependent also on the person’s mental state, and a person’s mental state is reflective of his or her beliefs. Premeditated murder is worse than manslaughter, and is punished more severely, and a hate crime is a sentencing enhancement that adds more punishment to the underlying crime. In both examples, a person’s beliefs are at play: the premeditated murderer has reflected on his choices and wants the victim dead; a hate crime reflects a belief that the rights of a member of the protected group are especially unworthy of respect. So, considering a person’s beliefs may well be relevant, especially if those beliefs have motivated the criminal behavior.
But the challenger’s mistake is even more fundamental. He is wrong to assert that people are condemned for not accepting the gospel. Christians believe that people are condemned for their sinful behavior – the “wages of sin is death” – not for what they fail to do. The quoted challenge is like saying that the sick man died of “not going to the doctor.” No, the person died of a specific condition – perhaps cancer or a heart attack – which a doctor might have been able to cure. So too with eternal punishment. No one is condemned for refusing to believe in Jesus. While Jesus can – and does – provide salvation for those who seek it, there is nothing unjust about not providing salvation to those who refuse to seek it. After all, we don’t normally feel obliged to help someone who has not asked for, and does not want, our assistance. So too the Creator has the right to withhold a gift – i.e. eternity spent in His presence – from those who would trample on the gift, and on the gift-giver.
The quoted assertion also demonstrates an unspoken belief that we can impress God with our “kind” or “generous” behavior. This fails to grasp what God is – a perfect being. We cannot impress Him. What we do right we should do. We don’t drag people into court and reward them for not committing crimes. This is expected of them. They can’t commit a murder and then claim that punishment is unfair, because they had been kind and generous in the past. When a person gets his mind around the idea of what perfection entails, trying to impress a perfect Creator with our “basic goodness” no longer seems like such a good option.
If you want to hear a debate featuring exclusivists versus pluralists, I’ve got a podcast and a summary of a good debate on this issue between Chris Sinkinson and John Hick. You can’t find a more prominent pluralist than John Hick, except for maybe Paul Knitter, who is featured in a debate with Harold Netland in the new “Debating Christian Theism” book that is just out with Oxford University Press.
Apologetics 315 posted the video of a debate from the Reasonable Faith speaking tour in the UK:
This is a must-see debate. It was extremely fun to watch.
Details:
On Wednesday 26th October 2011 William Lane Craig debated Peter Atkins on the topic: Does God Exist? This debate took place at the University of Manchester as part of the UK Reasonable Faith Tour with William Lane Craig. The debate was chaired by Christopher Whitehead, Head of Chemistry School at the University. Post-debate discussion was moderated by Peter S Williams, Philosopher in Residence at the Damaris Trust, UK.
Dr. William Lane Craig:
William Lane Craig (born August 23, 1949) is an American analytic philosopher, philosophical theologian, and Christian apologist. He is known for his work on the philosophy of time and the philosophy of religion, specifically the existence of God and the defense of Christian theism. He has authored or edited over 30 books including The Kalam Cosmological Argument (1979), Theism, Atheism and Big Bang Cosmology(co-authored with Quentin Smith, 1993), Time and Eternity: Exploring God’s Relationship to Time (2001), and Einstein, Relativity and Absolute Simultaneity (co-edited with Quentin Smith, 2007).
Craig received a Bachelor of Arts degree in communications from Wheaton College, Illinois, in 1971 and two summa cum laudemaster’s degrees from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois, in 1975, in philosophy of religion and ecclesiastical history. He earned a Ph.D. in philosophy under John Hick at the University of Birmingham, England in 1977 and a Th.D. underWolfhart Pannenberg at the University of Munich in 1984.
Dr. Peter Atkins:
Peter William Atkins (born 10 August 1940) is a British chemist and former Professor of Chemistry at the University of Oxford and a Fellow of Lincoln College. He is a prolific writer of popular chemistry textbooks, including Physical Chemistry, Inorganic Chemistry, and Molecular Quantum Mechanics. 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 studied chemistry at the University of Leicester, obtaining a bachelor’s degree in chemistry, and – in 1964 – a PhD for research into electron spin resonance spectroscopy, and other aspects of theoretical chemistry. Atkins then took a postdoctoral position at the UCLA as aHarkness Fellow of the Commonwealth fund. He returned to Oxford in 1965 as fellow and tutor of Lincoln College, and lecturer in physical chemistry (later, professor of physical chemistry).
You can get the audio of the debate here, along with links to their previous debate from 1998. This debate is accessible and understandable to novice-level Christians.
I am happy when debates like this come out. I have friends who are Christians who doubt the importance of apologetics in evangelism, because they don’t think that apologists can prove anything or win arguments. I have friends who are skeptical of using arguments that assume a 14-billion year old universe, because they think that the Big Bang is compatible with atheism (!). I have friends who think that philosophical arguments have no persuasive force. I have friends who think that nothing can be proven from history, beyond a reasonable doubt. I have co-workers who ask me whether anyone wins these debates. I think that this debate answers all of those questions.
This debate clearly shows why Christians should not shy away from studying science, philosophy and history. We will not discover anything that harms Christian theism by thinking logically and by looking at the evidence. To the contrary, it is the atheist who makes war on the progress of science, and who is forced to resist the clear experimental evidence, and to resort to baseless speculations and blind faith. If you want to see a good debate with an intelligent atheist, I recommend watching the debate between William Lane Craig and Peter Millican instead. But if you want to see a really, really overwhelming defeat for atheism, watch this debate. It is very clear at the end of this debate why Richard Dawkins refused to debate William Lane Craig at Oxford.
SUMMARY OF THE OPENING SPEECHES
I only had time to summarize the first two speeches. Keep in mind that Dr. Craig always shines in his rebuttals, and this debate is no different. So you’ll want to watch those rebuttals. Dr. Atkins literally says in this debate in his first rebuttal “There was nothing here originally. There is nothing here now. But it is an interesting form of nothing which seems to be something.” And the audience laughs nervously. This debate is like that. You will see a clear winner and clear loser in this debate. This fight is decided by knockout.
William Lane Craig opening speech:
1. the origin of the universe
2. the moral argument
3. the resurrection of Jesus
Peter Atkins opening speech:
1. Dr. Craig is stupid, lazy and evil:
– Dr. Craig’s arguments are old: from the 11th century! Old arguments can’t be true
– Dr. Craig is just asserting that “God did it” because he is lazy
– Dr. Craig feels pressured to agree with the theistic majority
– Dr. Craig needs a psychological crutch to comfort him
– Dr. Craig is fearful of death
– Dr. Craig is just wishing for an eternal life of bliss
– Dr. Craig is driven by his heart, and not by his head
2. Origin of the universe:
– Maybe the universe is eternal and has no beginning – we don’t know
– Maybe mommy universes can give birth to daughter universes
– It is naive to think that a cause is needed to cause the creation of the universe from nothing
– Science is just about to show how it is possible that something appears out of nothing without cause
– Some scientists have already begun to speculate about about how something can come into being out of nothing
– Maybe nothing is not really nothing, but it is actually something
– It would be admitting defeat to say that God created the universe out of nothing
3. Fine-Tuning:
– It could be the case that the fundamental constants are not variable
– It could be the case that the fine-tuning of the cosmic constants is a happy accident
– It could be the case that there are billions of billions of unobservable universes that are not fine tuned
– It could be the case that the cosmic constants in these billions and billions of unobservable universes are all random so that some are fine-tuned
– Anyone who infers that an intelligence is the best explanation of a finely-tuned set of life-permitting cosmic constants is lazy
4. Purpose:
– Philosophers and theologians are stupid
– I don’t think that there is purpose in the universe
– I think that the universe is more grand if there is no purpose, so there is no purpose
5. Miracles:
– I don’t think that miracles happen
– The resurrection is a fabrication
– It could be the case that Jesus didn’t exist
– It could be the case that Jesus wasn’t really crucified
– It could be the case that Jesus didn’t really die after being crucified
– It could be the case that the disciples stole his body
– It could be the case that the women went to the wrong hole in the ground
– the gospels are political propaganda written long after the events they are reporting on
6. Theodicy:
– God has no morally sufficient reason for allowing humans to perform actions that result in suffering
– God has no morally sufficient reason for allowing nature to cause suffering
7. Morality:
– customs and conventions emerges arbitrarily in different times and places based on an awareness of the consequences of actions, as well as various anecdotes and experiences
– these customs and conventions are decided based on the goal for survival, in much the same way as politeness and manners emerge for decorum and to avoid offense
– it is childish to presume that there is an umpire God who decides moral values and duties
8. Religious believers are stupid, lazy and evil:
– the notion of God has arisen because people are stupid and want to be comforted
– there are no arguments or evidences for belief in God
– people who believe in God do not think, but instead take refuge in incomprehensible nonsense
An amazing debate about the origin of life and the cosmic fine-tuning between a Christian and a materialist agnostic. John Lennox is AWESOME in this debate, and he only talks for a tiny part of the debate. He’s very gracious, and focused the discussion on the areas that we care about. Paul Davies is an EXCELLENT scientist and well aware of what Christians believe. This is a great debate, very easy to listen to. Justin, the moderator, does a great job controlling a fantastic discussion.
What does it take for life to get going in our universe? Is there intelligence in the stars or right under our nose? Renowned astrophysicist Paul Davies chats to Oxford Professor of Mathematics John Lennox.
A popular science author, Davies is also the Chair of the SETI post detection task force. His latest book “The Eerie Silence” which marks SETI’s 50th anniversary examines the likelihood of the universe producing life elsewhere.
John Lennox is a Christian Mathematician and philosopher. He is the author of “God’s Undertaker: has science buried God?” and has debated Richard Dawkins on several occasions.
Davies’ work on the fine tuning of the universe for life has been sympathetic to theism. In this programme Lennox challenges Davies to look to design not just in cosmology but in the cell. They also chat about what the discovery of ET would mean for Christian theology.
Summary
Justin:
Is there meaning in the universe?
Paul:
We have no evidence for or against intelligent life elsewhere in the universe
The vastness of the universe makes me think there is life elsewhere
Humans are capable of observing and understanding the universe
It seems the universe has the ability to create observers to understand it
If one species has this ability, then we should expect others to do it
John:
The fact that we can observe the universe and do science has cosmic significance
Our rare habitable planet and our ability to do science is suggestive of purpose
So science itself points to an extra-terrestrial intelligence: GOD
The complexity of life and consciousness itself points away from atheism
Monotheism gave birth to science
Human minds capable of doing science are not compatible with atheistic materialism
Justin:
Why do you say that either we are the only life or there are many different kinds of life?
Paul:
There are lots of factors that have to be met to have a site for simple life
These are related to the fine-tuning of cosmic constants, e.g. gravitational force
But there are also factors that have to be met for originating intelligent life
Things like convergence, self-organization, etc.
So the cosmic requirements and evolutionary requirements are different
Darwinian evolution doesn’t solve the problem of the origin of life
50 years ago, skepticism about alien life existing anywhere was excessive
Today, credulity about alien life exiting everywhere is excessive
The naturalist is searching for a process that creates life easily
John:
Paul agrees that there is no theory for a naturalistic origin of life
This is fatal for the idea that life can emerge elsewhere in the universe
We have not discovered any law that produces life without an intelligence
Consider the method used by SETI used to detect an alien intelligence
Why can’t this method be applied to the origin of life on Earth?
Why can’t an intelligence created specified complexity (functional information)?
Why can’t an intelligence created epigenetics and protein folding?
Paul:
Darwinian evolution can add new biological information after life begins
John:
Darwinian evolution assumes a mutating replicating life form to act on
Paul:
You can’t generate specified complexity by using physical laws
You can’t generate specified complexity by chance
At this point we are guessing as to how life might have formed
John:
Why do we have to rule out an intelligent cause a priori
If you can recognize an intelligence in outer space, why not in living systems?
Paul:
I don’t mind the word “intelligence”, it’s the word “signal”
I oppose the idea that God or aliens manipulated physical stuff to create life
It’s an “ugly explanation and very unappealing both theologically and scientifically”
I prefer the idea that the universe has processes to self-organize and create complexity
When it comes to supernatural meddling by God, “I don’t want that”
If I were God, I would create the universe so that I would not have to intervene
I think God would be more clever if he did not have to intervene
My preferences about what is “clever” determines what scientific conclusions are allowed
John:
Humans already have experience with their non-material minds to move atoms (matter)
If God is a mind, then there is no reason why he cannot move atoms (matter)
Paul:
My mind is physical, so are you saying that God is physical?
If God intervenes in the universe, then what is he doing now?
John:
There is a distinction between acts of creation and providential upholding the universe
God is also speaking to people and drawing humans toward him
God is spirit, not material
Paul:
How can a non-physical entity cause effects on the physical world?
John:
What science reveals that there is information needed for the origin of life
Information requires an intelligence to create it, just as with human who write books
That’s not God of the gaps – it’s an inference based on what we know today
Paul:
We may be able to explain the origin of life later, using matter, law and chance
What you’re saying is that God tinkers with the genome
If you say that God intervened once, then he intervenes all the time, everywhere!
I don’t want a God who tinkers in the genome
if God could intervene in the universe that would remove its intelligibility
John:
Look at the cover of this book – when I read words, I infer an intelligence
There are bad gaps that the progress of science closes
There are good gaps that science opens, showing the need for intelligence
On the one hand, you say we have no theory of the origin of life
On the other hand, you know that an intelligent designer wasn’t involved
If we don’t know how life began, why do you rule God out a priori?
Paul:
What scientists want to do is to explain the universe without involving God
naturalists want to use science to discover only materialist explanations
The purpose of SETI is to prove that there is other life in the universe
This would then show that there is a naturalistic way of making life
I agree that information in living systems is real hard to explain materialistically
I believe in the power of emergence
We might discover laws that prove that complexity can emerge without intelligence
The discovery of alien life would help to show that no intelligence is needed to make life
Justin:
What sort of cosmic fine-tuning is needed at the Big Bang for life to occur?
Paul:
It’s true that the universe appears extremely fine-tuned for life to exist
The typical answer from naturalists is that there is a multiverse
But the multiverse “falls far short” of providing a good answer to the fine-tuning
It’s irrational to appeal to massive numbers of unseen universes to explain fine-tuning
The design and purpose seen in the universe may be due to God or it may be emergent
John:
The fine-tuning is real and the multiverse is a desperate attempt to evade the creator
Sir Martin Rees (an atheist) says he “prefers” the multiverse to a designer
Scientists are not supposed to prefer anything except what is true
Justin:
Would the discovery of aliens hurt Christianity, because of the belief in the uniqueness of humans?
Paul:
Christians believe that Jesus came to save HUMANS specifically, not animals or aliens
If we were to discover intelligent aliens, it would challenge traditional religions
What will God do with alien races? Multiple incarnations? Or just preach the gospel to them?
John:
We don’t know if the aliens exist, first of all – it’s speculative
The Bible teaches that humans bear the image of God
We just don’t know whether alien species are also made in God’s image
WINTERY KNIGHT 