Science Has Disproved Christianity... Really?

Scientific mistrust of the Bible began with the Enlightenment belief that miracles cannot be reconciled to a modern, rational view of the world. The premise behind such a claim is 'Science has disproved that there is no such thing as miracles'. But embedded in such a statement is a leap of faith.

It is one thing to say that science is only equipped to test for natural causes and cannot speak to any others. It is quite another to insist that science proves that no other causes could possibly exist. However, when studying a phenomenon a scientist must always assume there is a natural cause. That is because natural causes are the only kind its methodology can address. It is another thing to insist that science has proven there can't be any other kind. There would be no experimental model for testing the statement 'No supernatural cause for any natural phenomenon is possible'. It is therefore a philosophical presupposition and not a scientific finding.

The next hidden premise is 'There can't be a God who does miracles'. It fails to acknowledge that if there is a Creator God, there is nothing illogical at all about the possibility of miracles. After all this God created everything. To be sure that miracles cannot occur you would have to be sure beyond a doubt that God didn't exist, and that is an article of faith. The existence of God can neither be demonstrably proven nor disproven.

Moreover, it is vital to consider a large number of scientists that see no incompatibility between faith in God and their work. However, modern media emphasises a conflict between Evolutionist and Creationists but fails to paint a more realistic and diversified picture of what is actually being discussed. Very interesting is also that many atheist do not believe in evolution.

The relation between evolutionary theory and the book of Genesis also depends on how the way scripture is interpreted. As one commentator puts it: "If evolution is elevated to the status of a world-view of the way things are, then there is direct conflict with biblical faith. But if evolution remains at the level of scientific biological hypothesis, it would seem that there is little reason for conflict between the implications of Christian belief in the Creator and the scientific explorations of the way which - at the level of biology - God has gone about his creating processes."

Based on: Keller, T. (2008). The Reason For God. p.84-96

How Can a Loving God Send People to Hell?

I our Western culture today, divine judgement is one of Christianity's most offensive doctrines. Although it is easy to understand that some people are distressed by this teaching, we find a number of hidden beliefs in their position. The following two are an example:

(A) A God of Judgement Simply Can't Exist

It appears that one of the most fundamental beliefs in our postmodern society today is that moral truth is relative to individual consciousness. Our culture therefore, has no problem with a God of love who supports us no matter how we live. It does, however, object strongly to the idea of a God who punishes people for their sincerely held beliefs, even if they are mistaken.

This objection, however, has a history to it. In ancient times it was understood that there was a transcendent moral order outside the self, built in to the fabric of the universe. Modernity reversed this. Ultimate reality was seen not so much as a supernatural order but as the natural world, and that was malleable. Instead of trying to shape our desires to fit reality, we now seek to control and shape reality to fit our desires.

Interestingly, if Christianity is the truth, it would have to be offending and correcting your thinking at some place. Maybe this place is exactly the doctrine of divine judgement.

(B) A God of Judgement Can't Be a God of Love

All loving people are sometimes filled with anger, not just despite but because of their love. If you really love a person and you see someone ruining them - even they themselves - you get angry. Anger is not the opposite of love, but hate is. Also, if God were not angry at injustice and deception and did not make a final end to violence - that God would not be worthy of worship. Moreover, it is vital to consider the highly beneficial aspects of divine judgement with regards to society and world peace. Trusting that God will eventually bring justice to a situation will give people the power to forgive and resist the impulse of seeking personal vengeance and an endless vicious cycle of retaliation.

Based on: Keller, T. (2008). The Reason For God. p.68-83

I don't believe in God because the church is responsible for so much injustice... Have you thought that through properly?

Many people who take an intellectual stand against Christianity do so against a background of personal disappointment with Christians and churches.

Hence, it's necessary to address the behaviour of Christians - individual and corporate - that has undermined the plausibility of Christianity for so many people. First, there's issue of Christian's character flaws. Second, there's the issue of war and violence. Third, there's issue of fanaticism.

Character flaws: If Christianity is true, why are so many non-Christians living better lives than Christians? This reasoning is based on a mistaken belief concerning what Christianity actually teaches about itself. Growth in character and changes in behaviour occur in a gradual process after a person becomes a Christian. This means, though that the church will be filled with immature and broken people who still have a long way to go emotionally, morally and spiritually. There's much truth in the saying "The church is a hospital for sinners, not a museum for saints"." Good character is largely attributable to a loving, safe and stable family and social environment - conditions for which we were NOT responsible. Many have had instead an unstable family background, poor role models and a history of tragedy and disappointment. As a result, they are burdened with deep insecurities, hypersensitivity, and a lack of self-confidence. They may struggle with uncontrolled anger, shyness, addictions and other difficulties as a result.

Church and violence: If Christianity is the truth, why has the institutional church supported war, injustice and violence over the years? Many unbelievers see the belief in one true God as one of the main reasons for war and conflict in history. There are, however, significant problems with this view. The Communist Russian, Chinese and Cambodian regimes of the 20th century all rejected all organised religion and belief in God. These societies were all rational and secular, yet each produced massive violence against its own people without the influence of religion. The reason is that society will automatically "transcendentalise" something else, some other concept, in order to appear morally and spiritually superior. The Marxist made the State into such an absolute, while the Nazis did it to race and blood. Obviously there is also the terrible reality that violence has been done in the name of Christ e.g. during the Crusades. In the 20th century, however, violence has been inspired as much by secularism as by moral absolutism. We can only conclude that there is some violent impulse so deeply rooted in the human heart that it expresses itself regardless of what the beliefs of a particular society might be. Ultimately, then, the fact of violence and warfare in a society is no necessary refutation of the prevailing beliefs of that society.

Fanaticism: Many people are repulsed by Christians who appear intolerant and self-righteous. Interestingly, what strikes us when observing overly fanatical and judgemental Christians is the failure to be fully committed to Christ and his Gospel. The essence of Christianity is salvation by grace, salvation not because of what we do but because of what Christ has done for us. There is nothing to boast about and no basis at all for feelings of superiority with regards to Non-Christians.

Furthermore, when mentioning the argument of injustice in the name of Christ (which is obviously terribly wrong), many people forget to consider all the amazing acts of justice that Christians have carried out. These include the abolition of the African slave trade which was driven by Christian activists such as William Wilberforce in Great Britain, John Woolman in America and many others who devoted their entire lives, in the name of Christ, to ending slavery. Another great example was the Christian pastor Martin Luther King fighting for desegregation and civil rights in the US. The list of martyrs who stood up for the oppressed in Jesus' name is very long and also includes Archbishop Oscar Romero of El Salvador and German theologian Dietriech Bonnhoeffer.

Conclusion: When people have done injustice in the name of Jesus Christ, they are not being true to the spirit of the one who himself died as victim of injustice and who called for the forgiveness of his enemies. When people give their lives to liberate others as Jesus did, they are realising the true Christianity that Martin Luther King, Jr, Dietrich Bonnheoffer and other Christian voices have called for.

Based on: Keller, T. (2008). The Reason For God. p.51-67

Believing in Christ is a Straitjacket... Really?

Is the belief in absolute truth the enemy of freedom? Many people say so and see claims of absolute truth mainly motivated by the desire to control people.

However, the objection that all truth is a power play falls prey to the same problem as the objection that all truth is culturally conditioned. If you try to explain away all assertions of truth as one or the other or something else you find yourself in an untenable position. If you say all truth-claims are power plays, then so is your statement. If you say (like Freud) that all truth claims about religion and God are just psychological projections to deal with your guilt and insecurity, then so is your statement. To see through everything is not to see.

Moreover, some people criticise Christianity as it requires particular beliefs in order to be a member of its community. In the new "liberal democracy" common moral beliefs are seemingly not necessary - if everybody respects the privacy and rights of others and works for equal access to education, jobs and political decision-making for all.

However, this is a vast oversimplification as does not pass the test of further scrutiny. This "liberal democracy" is based on an extensive list of assumptions - a preference of individual to community rights, a division between private and public morality, and the sanctity of personal choice. All of these beliefs are foreign to many other cultures. "Liberal democracy" (as is every community) is based on a shared set of very particular beliefs. Western society is based on shared commitments to reason, rights and justice, even though there is no universally recognised definition of any of these. The idea of a totally inclusive community is therefore an illusion. Every human community holds in common some beliefs that necessarily create boundaries, including some people and excluding others from its circle.

Furthermore, any community that did not hold its members accountable for specific beliefs and practices would have no corporate identity and would not really be a community at all. We cannot consider a group exclusive simply because it has standards for its members. Here is a far better set of tests: which community has beliefs that lead its members to treat people in other communities with love and respect - to serve them and meet their needs? Which community's beliefs lead it to demonise and attack those who violate their boundaries rather than treating them with kindness, humility and winsomeness?

We should criticise Christians when they are condemning and ungracious to unbelievers. But we should not criticise churches when they maintain standards for membership in accord with their beliefs. Every community must to the same.

Based on: Keller, T. (2008). The Reason For God. p.35-50

How Could a Good God Allow Suffering?

Many people reject the idea of God because of all the unjust suffering in the world.

This point of view is based on a hidden premise, namely, that if evil appears pointless to me, then it must be pointless. This reveals within supposedly hard-nosed scepticism an enormous faith in one's own cognitive capabilities. It also ignores the character growth and personal development many people experience through their suffering.

Moreover, some people get mad at God. However, if you have a God great and transcendent enough to be mad at because he hasn't stopped evil and suffering in the world, then you have (at the same time) a God great and transcendent enough to have good reasons for allowing it to continue that you can't know. In fact, you cannot have it both ways.

Evil and suffering may be (if anything) evidence for God. Some atheists object the idea of God based on a sense of fair play and justice. People, we believe ought not to suffer, be excluded, die of hunger and oppression. However, the evolutionary mechanism of natural selection depends on death, destruction and violence of the strong against the weak - these things are all perfectly natural. On what basis then does the atheist judge the natural world to be horribly wrong, unfair and unjust? If you are sure that this natural world is unjust and filled with evil, you are assuming the reality of some extra-natural (or supernatural) standard by which to make your judgement.

Based on: Keller, T. (2008). The Reason For God. p.22-34

A very interesting thought...

When a frog becomes a prince instantaneously, we call it a fairy tale.

When a frog becomes a prince over a very very long time, we call it modern evolutionary science.

There can't just be one way! ... Really?

Many people today struggle with the exclusivity of Christianity. It is also widely believed that religion in general is one of the main barriers to world peace. This is true. Religion can threaten peace.

However, within Christianity - robust, orthodox Christianity - there are rich resources that can make its followers agents for peaced on the earth. It provides a firm basis for respecting people of other faiths. E.g. the bibilical doctrine of the universal image of God, leads Christians to expect non-believers will be better than any of their mistaken beliefs could make them. Furthermore, Christian believers are NOT accepted by God because of their moral performance, wisdom or virtue, but because of Christ's work on their behalf.

It is common to say that 'fundamentalism' leads to violence, yet all of us have fundamental, unprovable faith commitments we think are superior of others. Common postmodern examples of such fundamental beliefs are:

• "There can't be just one way."
• "There can't be any absolute truth. Everything is relative."
• "All the ways lead to the same destination."

The real question then is which fundamentals will lead their believers to be the most loving and receptive to those with whom they differ?

We cannot skip lightly over the fact that there have been injustice done by the church in the name of Jesus Christ, yet who can deny that the force of Christians' most funadmental beliefs can be a powerful impetus for peace-making in our troubled world?

Based on: Keller, T. (2008). The Reason For God. p.3-21