The Logical Defense of the Faith: Christian Apologetics in One Lesson

1 • Mandy • May 14, 2008 • 7:15 PM

This was a good article!

2 • Greg • May 22, 2008 • 5:56 PM

I suffer from a severe case of intellectualism, and have always struggled with the concept of faith. I was brought up in a Christian environment, and before eventually giving up, I became interested in apologetics (I think more as a way of convincing myself I was living the right life). Could you recommend any reading aimed at logically/scientifically minded people who find it hard to accept (certainly not commit with blind faith) a greater presence (God or otherwise)? It would be greatly appreciated.

3 • Nancy Tait • July 25, 2008 • 9:20 PM

My brother is like Greg. He knows about the Lord, but works with highly intellectual people (?) who started questioning his faith. He got caught up in their arguments and now is questioning alot of things. Like how do we know who wrote Genesis and is it really true. My mom and I have had long talks with him,but I don’t seem to get thru to him. I am curious as to what you recommended to Greg. Please advise on the same type of reading.

4 • Nathaniel Bluedorn • August 10, 2008 • 4:44 PM

Intellect is the ability to learn and to reason, the capacity for knowledge and for understanding, as distinguished from capacities for emotion (responsive feelings) or for volition (choosing from options). An intellectual person would be characterized by a spirit of inquiry which pursues knowledge and understanding in a matter, not a spirit of crude and raw skepticism which seeks to tear a matter down. Healthy skepticism avoids naive credulity, but seeks knowledgeable credence. Crude and raw skepticism toward faith is the very definition of blind anti-intellectualism. No one is so blind as he who refuses to see.

1 Timothy 6:20 O Timothy! Guard what was committed to your trust, avoiding the profane and idle babblings and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge—
Romans 1:22 Professing to be wise, they became fools.

It seems your brother has caught this spirit of crude and raw skepticism.

1 Corinthians 15:33-34 Do not be deceived: “Evil company corrupts good habits.”  34 Awake to righteousness, and do not sin; for some do not have the knowledge of God. I speak this to your shame.
Proverbs 13:20 He who walks with wise men will be wise, But the companion of fools will be destroyed.

A person becomes like the company which he chooses to keep. Sometimes people point out that Jesus kept company with sinners. Yes, He did not keep company with self-righteous Pharisees, but with sinners who repented at His preaching. They chose in Him better company than what they were used to. Go and do likewise.

Though there must have been many persons involved in writing Genesis, yet Scripture generally attributes Genesis to Moses as the primary author/editor.

Similarly, many epistles are generally attributed to Paul, though the epistles themselves explicitly mention many others involved in the writing besides Paul.

We also say Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, and James Madison wrote the Constitution, though there were many other men involved as well.

What’s the problem? Only a very crude skepticism would find a problem here. It takes very little refinement in understanding to recognize that objections to Moses’ authorship are built upon unprovable speculation. Allow me to speculate, and give my speculation any credence, and I can talk you in or out of anything.

Some people say the reality of Jesus depends upon the reality of Genesis. I think they have it backwards. If Jesus is God incarnate Who offered Himself as a perfect sacrifice in payment for the sins of His people, then Genesis must be true. It is not possible to have a genuine Jesus and a false Genesis. It all comes down to this: Who is Jesus?

Reading suggestion: Religion, Reason, and Revelation by Gordon Clark.

Harvey Bluedorn

5 • liam • August 21, 2008 • 6:54 PM

I agree with a lot of what is said in this article, but there are a few fundamental things that are missing. In the worldview philosophy, you say “whatever is true is what God says is true”, etc and that’s your worldview—-I agree to some aspect of this theory. However, hypothetically speaking, if God said “1+1=monkey” does that make it true? Now, granted God never said this so your claim might be that its not true, but is mathematical philosophy universally true? You say truth is dependent upon worldview but is 1+1=2 also dependent on a worldview?

6 • Andrei MR • September 29, 2008 • 10:07 AM

I respectfully take issue to your claim that circular reasoning is valid. While logical inference has a recursive structure (like in the example about Jack’s wealth), an infinite recursion is fallacious (which is what “circular reasoning” refers to). The example of Jack’s wealth is valid because the recursive definition provided has a case that is not recursive (called the “base case”). Here’s your definition, restated formally:

Wealth(year) =  { 2 * wealth(year-1), if year>1; 1 if year = 1 }

So, if we ask the question, what’s

Weath(4) = ?

We would answer it as follows:

Wealth(4) =
<since 4>1, use recursive part: 2*Wealth(year-1), with year=4>
      = 2*Wealth(4-1)
      = 2*Wealth(3)
<since 3>1, use recursive part>
      = 2*2*Wealth(3-1)
      = 2*2*Wealth(2)
<since 2>1, use recursive part>
      = 2*2*2*Wealth(2-1)
      = 2*2*2*Wealth(1)
<since 1=1, use the non-recursive part>
      = 2*2*2*(1)
      = 8

The point is that this recursive definition is valid, because when we apply the definition repeatedly, we come to a case where we can stop applying the definition and we can know what the final answer is. However, a recursive definition is invalid if, when applied repeatedly, it does not bring us to a case where we can stop applying it and know what the final answer is. This is “circular reasoning.”

An example of this fallacy is stated as the following propositions, which I understand to be what your article claims as being mutually supportive:

(1) The Bible authenticates God.

(2) The Bible is authenticated by God.

So, if we ask the question, “is (1) true?” We have to answer that it is true if (2) is true. This requires we ask the question, “is (2) true?” Our answer is that this is true if (1) is true. This requires we re-ask “is (1) true?” This, in turn, requires we ask, “is (2) true?” and so on. Because this circular question-asking goes on without a case where we stop, we can never get our final answer. (Note that it doesn’t matter which of these two propositions we ask about first: we can never get a final answer.)

The burden of proof remains on you to prove each of (1) and (2) independently.

Or you can just take them on faith to be true. (But I actually think you’re better off with an evidentialist approach.)

7 • Chris • November 11, 2008 • 7:12 PM

This post is amazing. All that typing, and your “logical” stance boils down to believing that the Bible is the Word of God because it says so in the Bible. I could use that argument to “prove” that any religious book is the Word of its version of God, if it simply states so in its pages. This is pseudo logic at it’s worst. Your pre-supposition (stemming from circular reasoning) has completely destroyed your position and your “logic.” You know only that the Bible is a book written by men. Your claims of divine inspiration have not been even addressed, much less “proven.” You argue that we can’t put Man’s reason above God’s. What are you talking about? The only reason we have at this point is Man’s reason. It’s the same reason that we use to evaluate any book, not just religious texts. And we can apply this reason to find some very serious logical contradictions in the Bible. Like, for example: Why is God responsible for allowing people into Heaven, but NOT responsible for not allowing people into Heaven (ie: allowing them into Hell)? Logically, this is impossible. Is an omnipotent being forced to do something He doesn’t want to do? Is an omnipotent being limited to only 2 choices when we die? And He’s not even responsible for one of those choices? Using Man’s reason is exposing major logical contradictions in the Bible that makes it 0% possible that your God exists, and you still want to go on faith? I’m sorry, but your circular reasoning is not validating itself at all. It seems to me that you are just being intellectually dishonest with yourself, and with the people that you are trying to convince. I’m very disappointed in your “logic” and website.

8 • Penn • June 05, 2009 • 2:12 PM

Chris,

I don’t know if you will ever read this comment, but for anyone who is interested, I want to point out a “straw man” you used here:
you wrote: “And we can apply this reason to find some very serious logical contradictions in the Bible. Like, for example: Why is God responsible for allowing people into Heaven, but NOT responsible for not allowing people into Heaven (ie: allowing them into Hell)? Logically, this is impossible.”

First, this is a “straw man” fallacy, because you specifically said that this is a contradiction in the Bible. But this is wrong, because the contradiction you are addressing is not even in the Bible. Unless you can cite the passage you are referring to, no where in the Bible does it ever say that God “allows” people into heave or “allows” people into hell. The only reason your straw man contradiction is a contradiction, is because you made it up.

To give you a brief teaching on what the Bible does teach, that God is totally Sovereign, which means He does control who He saves and brings into heaven and who He does not save and sends to hell. Jesus promised eternal life for His sheep (John 10). The reason He gives them eternal life is because the Father loves them and sent Christ to die for them. He will never lose them or forsake them, but will glorify Himself in showing how great His grace and kindness is toward them in mercy and judgment (Ephesians 2, etc.).

About Hell, the Lord judges people guilty for violating all His holy, just and righteous Laws. The punishment for defaming God’s holiness by rebelling against His rule (i.e. breaking His Law), is death. Jesus calls it eternal punishment in Matthew 25:46. Other verses describe it as the hell of fire, or a lake of fire.

This has nothing to do with your false contradiction that God allows or disallows. God judges with justice and punishes sin. And for those who obey Him by repenting of their sin, especially of the sin of unbelief and trust in Him, the blood of Christ is sufficient to cleanse them from all sin that we may be forgiven freely. Then we may stand before the risen Lord Jesus and glorify God for His mercy, grace and love.

9 • penn • June 05, 2009 • 2:21 PM

I’m sorry I just realized something else you said was that God is supposedly “not responsible” for “allowing” people to go to hell. That again is what I was responding to. God is responsible for sending people to hell, since He is the righteous judge who does what is right. When He judges us for sinning, He is not wrong in condemning us. He would be wrong in forgiving us though, unless there is a way He can be just and still justify a guilty sinner. The answer is that He can be both the Just judge, and at the same time, the One who justifies the ungodly through faith in the amazing sacrifice of His Son Jesus Christ, by faith in His blood (see Romans chapter 3).

These are not silly questions to be played around with careless arguments. This involves our eternity before our Creator, either in peace with Him through the blood of His Son, and the resurrection, or at odds with Him in guilt and condemnation.

We have a hope, a strong hope, and that hope is that God would justify His enemies by faith in His Son (Romans 3 and 5)! Wow!

10 • Mark Keene • February 03, 2010 • 2:50 AM

@Nancy & Greg
Great book which will ease your mind and soul:
“The God Delusion” by Richard Dawkins, clears all this up wonderfully, with humanity and foremost, impeccable LOGIC! Even if you disagree, I recommend it as a great exercise in advanced refutation.