And in this corner . . .

This is a short note, but I'll add another blog this weekend. There's a debate coming up at UCSD in early March. The title is pretty simple: "Is Religion the Problem?" The subquestions are the following: "Is belief in God a menace to civilization, as the new atheists contend?" "Would a secular world be a more rational, peaceful, and decent world?"

Arguing against the question will be Dinesh D'Souza, president of The King's College. I've read some of his works before--a very solid thinker. Going up against him will be Dan Barker, American Atheist activist. I don't know much about him, but he's the author of a provocative book called Losing Faith in Faith; From Preacher to Atheist.

The debate is on Monday, March 7th at 7 p.m. on the campus of UCSD in the Price Center West Ballrooms. It's free and open to the public.

By the way, Emmanuel Faith Community Church will be hosting Greg Koukl on April 1st at 7 p.m. to hear his presentation on the new atheists. Greg will be arguing that science, morality, and logic is actually on the side of the Christians, not the atheists.

It's healthy to have open discussions like this. I say that knowing that Christianity can hold its own in a rational discussion.

A new start this Thursday

And so it starts again. For the fourth time, my wife and I will be hosting a twelve-week series on apologetics at our church, dealing with rational defenses of the Christian faith. I'm really looking forward to it.

One joy is the people involved. We have met teens, young marrieds, older marrieds dealing with adult children, singles dealing with careers, and those in their 80s. They all share a love of learning and a love of discussion. We have some thoughtful sessions in which people share their experiences in whatever area we are studying.

I also love the material we cover. This time we'll be reading a book called Evidence for God, edited by William Dembski and Mike Licona. These men have organized fifty interesting articles showcasing various approaches to Christian apologetics. There's a wide range of material here--philosophy, science, Biblical research, the historical Jesus, etc. The authors are some of the best in the field of apologetics--Craig Blomberg, Darrell Bock, Paul Copan, William Dembski, Mike Licona, Gary Habermas, Paul Maier, Nancy Pearcey, and Ben Witherington.

In addition, I enjoy dealing with a topic that is so relevant today. Christianity is under attack from the new atheists, college professors, the mass media, as well as others who have more emotion than logic. The good news is how well the faith holds up under this pressure. Each of us has a responsibility to defend Christianity as a way to strengthen our faith and challenge those who bring charges agaainst it.

Finally, I like seeing how the members of the class take on this challenge. I get to hear of conversations, letters, classroom discussions, and other opportunities in which it has been demonstrated that Christianity is not a simple leap-in-the-dark faith. Instead, it can more than hold its own against the prevailing doctrines of the day.

Is Christianity singularly responsible for injustice?

Tim Keller's book The Reason for God has a chapter that deals with one more complaint aimed at Christians -- the church is responsible for so much injustice. People question why so many non--Christians live better lives than Christians, why the institutional church supported war, injustice, and violence over the years, and why Christian churches have so many smug, self-righteous, dangerous fanatics. The author looks at all three of these criticisms.

Keller tackles first the problem of character flaws in Christians. He says every good act of wisdom, justice, and beauty is given by God to all humanity, regardless of religious conviction, race, gender, or any other attribute. He does this to make the world a better place. So, non-Christians can live decent lives. Secondly, Christian theology teaches that even Christians are seriously flawed people. Our moral efforts are too feeble and false to ever deserve salvation. It's not surprising to find broken individuals in church.

Growth in character and changes in behavior occur gradually after a person becomes a Christian. We don't come to God after we clean up our lives. So, as a result, "the church will be filled with immature and broken people who still have a long way to go emotionally, morally, spiritually."

Keller then takes on the complaint that historically the church has supported violence. Critics note how Christian nations institutionalized imperialism, violence, and oppression. But, Keller notes, governments which rejected organized religion and belief in God (France in the 18th century, Communist countries in particular) each produced massive violence against its own people without the influence of religion. The author says violence in the 20th century was inspired as much by secularism as by moral absolutism. His conclusion is that there is some violent impulse that is so deep in our hearts that it expresses itself regardless of what the beliefs are in a particular society.

Keller's third point is in reaction to the complaint that Christians are self-righteous fanatics. But the Christian message is that we are accepted by God by sheer grace, not because of what we do but because of what Christ did for us. Keller says this is profoundly humbling. So, the people who are fanatics and smug "are not so because they are too committed to the gospel but because they're not committed to it enough." He thinks the solution is not to tone down and moderate Christianity, but to understand more fully what it means to be a Christian. Jesus himself criticized religious people, notably the Pharisees. He ripped into their legalism, self-righteousness, bigotry, and love of wealth and power. Self-righteous religion is always marked by insensitivity to issues of social justice because these people feel superior to others. Instead, true faith is marked by profound concern for the underprivileged. The Bible, according to Keller, "teaches us that our treatment of them equals our treatment of God."

Keller looks at one historical stain on Christian history -- the African slave trade. He notes that even though slavery existed around the world in every human culture over the years, it was the Christians who first came to the conclusion that it was wrong. When Europeans set up slavery in the New World, they did so in opposition to papal pleading. Keller brings this up because he says Christianity has a self-correcting apparatus--we get our list of virtues with which we can criticize sins of the church from within the Christian faith itself.

Another example of this is the civil rights movement in the United States. It was not a political or primarily a religious and spiritual movement -- the Christian faith of African-Americans empowered them to insist on justice despite strong opposition to their demands. Martin Luther King, Jr. often invoked God's moral law and Scripture to call white Christians to be more true to their own beliefs and to finally understand what the Bible really teaches.

I think Keller has it right. There's no doubt that the church has done terrible things, but look at the alternative. Many more lives were lost in the 20th century because of secularism, not Christianity. Today the smug, self-righteous people often occupy the highest positions in intellectual, atheistic circles; they think the human race is perfectible and that they have all the answers. Christians, on the other hand, know their own failings and cry out, "Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me."

Keller and the question of suffering

Tim Keller's book called The Reason for God has several chapters which address frequent doubts that skeptics, and even those who believe, have about religion. I covered the first objection (there can't be just be one true religion) in a previous blog. I wanted to cover his second chapter here -- how could a good God allow suffering? This is a common complaint among skeptics, but Keller has good points to challenge it.

First, he says the question seems to suggest an enormous faith in the skeptic's own cognitive faculties. Just because we can't see or imagine a good reason why God might allow something to happen doesn't mean there can't be one. The skeptic doesn't have a good answer, and, therefore, he thinks there can't be any. Keller calls this "blind faith of a high order."

The author believes that with time and perspective most of us can see good reasons at least for some of the suffering in this world. Many admit that success in life came only after difficult and painful experiences. So, since we know some tragedy and pain is useful, why couldn't it be possible than that God sees good reasons for all of them?

Keller says that evil and suffering actually may be evidence for God, not against his existence. How is that possible? We say people should not suffer in the world; on what basis does the atheist judge this world to be wrong and unfair and unjust? A nonbeliever in God doesn't have a good basis for being outraged at injustice. If you say this is an unjust world, you are assuming the reality of some standard by which to make your judgment. Notice the atheist does not say that he doesn't like injustice; he says it is wrong. So his standard is beyond his own feelings -- he believes there really is some larger standard for his judgment. Where does this standard come from except from a supernatural agent?

Keller then argues that even though Christianity does not provide a reason for every experience of pain and suffering, it provides deep resources for facing it with courage. For one thing, it is only Christianity that says God came to earth to deliberately put himself on the hook of human suffering. Jesus died a terrible death, separated from God and jeered by the onlookers. He had not only physical pain but also cosmic abandonment. It is Christianity alone among world religions that says God became human and, therefore, knows all the suffering of the human race.

It is Christianity that also provides a great hope. Our suffering is not in vain because of the resurrection of Jesus. The secular view sees no future after death. Eastern religions say we lose our individuality after this life. The biblical view of things, however, is resurrection, a restoration of the life we always wanted.

Many authors over the centuries have struggled with this issue of suffering and the goodness of God. Keller's response is a good one -- he says our view is too limited view to be able to say there is no reason for our suffering, by complaining of injustice we are actually saying there is a standard beyond us, Christianity offers consolation and hope. I'll take a look at some of his other chapters in future blogs.

God is back

There is a new book out that I’m looking forward to reading – God Is Back. I found an interview in World magazine with its two authors, both connected with The Economist, a news magazine. Many of the points they discuss are extremely interesting.

For one thing, they wanted to explore the idea that the more modern the world gets, the more secular it would become. They found this was not the case. Even in a place like Europe, religion is on the front burner, thanks especially to the interaction between their Western cultures and Islam. They note that the United Nations was created by secularists who were hoping they could squeeze religion out of any prominence it had, but now this body addresses all sorts of religious issues.

They see America as having a key role in the rise of religious fervor around the world. For one thing, our nation obviously supplies missionaries, Bibles, and books. However, indirectly it contributes to a global revival of religion because it exports capitalism, which is a chaotic process that causes many people to turn to religion for help in dealing with the new economics. A third way America encourages religion is its exportation of Hollywood “morality” (or lack thereof) that many cultures find offensive, with the result that they focus more on religious values.

When they compare Islam to Christianity, the authors see distinct advantages for the latter. Islam, unlike Christianity, has not had to deal with competition within and modernity’s attacks. They see a severe period of testing ahead for Islam, and there is a question whether it can survive. Islam needs its own reformation – will it deal with it well and come out the other side in good shape? The authors seriously doubt this outcome will be positive for this religion.

When asked about recent bestsellers by atheists, they had an interesting reaction. “You do not suddenly wake up in a panic about God being bad or terrible if you think you’ve already won the argument.” They say these new atheists talk down to religious people. In addition, those who have a religious faith are not supposed to bring their beliefs to the argument even though the other side is allowed to bring their most profound moral beliefs to the same argument. Quite a double standard exists.

Finally, United States foreign policy is dramatically affected by its leaders’ lack of religious faith. This statement made me think of the comment I read elsewhere—“If Sweden is the most secular country and India is the most religious, the United States is made up of Indians who are governed by Swedes.” The authors claim that the elite who run the foreign policy in this country are clueless when it comes to religious values. They failed to understand the power of Islam in the Middle East, for example.

Thoughts such as these make me want to get started on their book. I’ll let you know what I encounter.

Reading some letters

Our home-town newspaper, North County Times, has a section for religious issues. As part of this, the paper allows both religious and nonreligious people to write letters. As an aside, I find it interesting that the editors think they must separate such letters from the regular opinion page, suggesting there’s something different about religious issues that don’t qualify them for general consumption. Religious issues need to be part of a ghetto in the back of the paper.

I usually read these letters, especially the ones from nonbelievers to see what their complaints are about people of faith. One recent letter took exception with Tim LaHaye’s view of end-times prophecies. Here are the letter’s comments: “Nonreligious people do not fear any end times; they fear those people who, in the 21st century, still believe in myths generated thousands of years ago. Islamic fanatics blowup themselves, and innocent bystanders, believing that they will be instantly transported to Paradise forever. A born-again Christian world leader rushes into war, believing that if it goes really badly and ends in Armageddon, the rapture will waft him and the other faithful up to heaven (to live side-by-sided with martyred jihadists for eternity?).”

Notice several things going on here. First, the author fears religious people more than the nonreligious. I wonder how he explains the horrors of Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, and Mao—all nonreligious individuals. Far more death and destruction has come from the secular world than from the religious. Secondly, he equates Islamic fanatics with Christian believers. Hey, after all, they are all the same, aren’t they? How’s that for a failure to note distinctions?

Another writer refers to the return of Christ, who comes with “a promise of a non-fleshly paradise (what, no 72 virgins?) as long as they keep filling their pews, feeding the tithe coffers, and nodding their pointed little heads in abject agreement… does that mean that those who mentally cannot understand the concept of their godly fantasies will be “left behind” to suffer with the rest of us filthy, rotten atheists who like to help people in this real life?” What would you say to this writer? One thing that struck me was his comments about atheists helping people in this world. Isn’t he aware of how much good religious people have done – education, health care, orphanages, poverty relief, AIDS clinics, literacy groups, etc.? What atheist group has reached out to the weaker members of our world? It’s thanks to Christianity in particular that the writer enjoys the fruits of science, has civil liberties, and partakes in capitalism. We shouldn’t be taken in by those who demean the role religion has played in making our lives safer, more valuable, and more noble.

A Short Challenge to Atheism

The following is a great summary of the problems with atheism. It suggests Christians and other theists can turn the tables on atheists who criticize the idea of God's existence. The author is associated with Ravi Zacharias, a noted apologist (no relation, darn it). Next time you hear Christopher Hitchens snidely attack theists, think about this article--what does he offer in theism's place? What joy, what answers, what satisfaction is there is his position?


A Hearty Offense for the Atheistic Worldview

“The story I have to tell is the history of the next two centuries....For a long time now our whole civilization has been driving, with a tortured intensity growing from decade to decade, as if towards a catastrophe: restlessly, violently, tempestuously, like a mighty river desiring the end of its journey, without pausing to reflect, indeed fearful of reflection....Where we live, soon nobody will be able to exist."(1)

Friedrich Nietzsche penned these words as he looked out onto a world devoid of God. His vision casts a bleak view of humanity and paints a frightening portrait of atheism. Nietzsche’s vision directly contrasts with the optimistic musings of a world without God penned by John Lennon:
Imagine there’s no heaven
It’s easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today
Imagine there’s no countries
It isn’t hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace.(2)

In fact, the twentieth century told a far different tale than a life of present bliss and peace without God. Under atheistic regimes like Stalin in Russia or Pol Pot in Cambodia millions of people were slaughtered. Indeed, Nietzsche offers a healthy critique of the optimistic atheism of Lennon or the current popular British slogan that there is probably no God so we should stop worrying about it and enjoy life. In reality, there is great cause for worry if Nietzsche’s picture of a world without God is allowed full sway. That world is a very grim place filled with darkness, amorality, and despair.

Nietzsche’s vision in and of itself helps the theist formulate a healthy offensive to the typical onslaught of the atheist’s critique of religion. But it also provides an impetus to ask additional questions of those who see a positive view of atheism. If there is no God, for example, “the big questions” remain unanswered. Where did everything come from and why is there something rather than nothing? Why is there conscious, intelligent life on this planet and is there any meaning? Does human history lead anywhere or is it all in vain since death is merely the end? How does one come to understand good and evil, right and wrong? If these concepts are merely social constructions or human opinions, where does one look to determine morality?

Second, we not only have a crisis of morality, we have a crisis of meaning without belief in God. Without God, as Nietzsche articulated, meaning becomes nothing more than one’s own self-interests, pleasures, or tastes. Without God, the world is just stuff, thrown out into space and time, going nowhere, meaning nothing.

In addition, the problems of evil and suffering are in no way solved without God. Where does one find hope for the redemption of suffering and evil? Suffering is just as tragic, if not more so, without God because there is no hope of greater meaning. Without God it is neither redemptive nor redeemable, since no interventions in this life or reparations in an afterlife are possible. It might be true that there is no God to blame now, but neither is there a God to reach out to for strength, transcendent meaning, or comfort. There is only madness and confusion in the face of suffering and evil.

Moreover, without God or any sort of transcendent standard, how can atheists critique religions or religious people in the first place? Whose voice will be heard? Whose tastes or preferences will be honored? Without God, human tastes and opinions have no more weight than we give them, and who are we to give them meaning anyway? Societies might make things “illegal” and impose penalties or consequences, but human cultures have at various times legally or socially disapproved of everything from believing in God to believing the world revolves around the sun, from slavery to interracial marriage, from polygamy to monogamy. Human taste or opinion, societal laws or culture are hardly dependable arbiters of truth.

Finally, if there is no God, we don’t make sense. How does one explain human longings and desire for the transcendent? How do we explain human questions for meaning and purpose or inner thoughts of unfulfillment or emptiness? Why do humans hunger for the spiritual? How can we understand these questions if nothing exists beyond the material world? How do we get laws out of luck or predictable processes out of brute chance? If all that makes us different from animals is learning and altruism, why do the brutish still widely outnumber the wise in our world?
Nietzsche argued that the death of God would bring the upheaval of all morality and meaning and not its preservation. By raising these questions, Christians remind atheists who see the possibility of morality, meaning, and hope without God of their own prophetic heritage.

Margaret Manning is a member of the speaking and writing team at Ravi Zacharias International Ministries in Seattle, Washington.
(1) As quoted by Erich Heller in The Importance of Nietzsche (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988), 5.
(2) John Lennon, Imagine (September, 1971).
Author: Margaret Manning