Tuesday, October 29, 2013

Terminology Tuesday: Scientism

Scientism: The conviction that scientific knowledge, particularly that derived from the natural sciences, is the highest or even only form of knowledge. Scientism thus depreciates the possibility that ultimate truth can be derived from such areas as moral, aesthetic and religious experience, and it typically rejects the idea that truth can be derived from special revelation.1

1. C.Stephen Evans, Pocket Dictionary of Apologetics & Philosophy of Religion (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002), p. 105.

Saturday, October 26, 2013

Book Review: The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach by Michael Licona

The resurrection of Jesus is a favorite topic for many Christian apologists and a popular subject of contention among New Testament scholars. With over 3,400 academic books and articles published on the fate of Jesus in the last 35 years alone, one might doubt that anything new could be said on the subject. However, early in his own investigation of the resurrection, Mike Licona observed that the vast literature on the fate of Jesus largely failed to consider issues of historical method and hermeneutics. While this deficiency has been addressed to some extent in recent work by N. T. Wright, James D. G. Dunn, and Dale Allison, Licona contends that something is still missing. “Almost without exception,” he notes, “the literature pertaining to Jesus’ resurrection has been written by biblical scholars and philosophers,”[1] and so far the outcome has been a remarkably wide variety of conclusions on the matter. Licona wonders if part of the problem is a failure to apply the methodology of historians who lie outside the community of biblical scholars. It is precisely this methodology that Licona seeks to identify and employ in his monumental 700-page tome The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach.

Friday, October 25, 2013

Weekly Apologetics Bonus Links (10/18 - 10/25)

Here are this week's recommended apologetics links. Enjoy.
• Shopping via Amazon? If you use this link, a bit of your purchase goes to fund Apologetics 315. Thanks for those of you using the link, as it helps Ap315.
Canada here. UK here.

• Would you like to help with interview transcriptionIf so, contact Ap315 here.

Get these sorts of links and more by following on Twitter.
For daily post links, please follow on Facebook.

Apologetics Toolkit: Tips for Lifelong Learning #03

This continues the Apologetics Toolkit series on: Tips for Lifelong Learning. The goal here is to provide a sort of "apologetics toolkit" -- habits, tips, and tools the Christian apologist can use to continue to grow, learn, and develop.

Tool #03: Focus and Recall Your Reading

The Problems: Have you ever finished reading a page in a book and realized that you can't even remember what you just read? What about reading an entire book and a week later not remembering anything you read? These are two things you should discipline yourself to avoid: lack of focus and lack of recall.

The Tools: To overcome lack of focus, think of your book as an interactive learning tool. You will need a pen (or pencil) and a highlighter. If you wish, use a bookmark to scroll down the page as you read - keeping your eyes moving over the text without losing your place. Use your highlighter to spotlight key points, notable quotes, and substantial ideas. Use your pen (or pencil) to write your own ideas in the margins. If you have no pen, you will sometime lose great ideas and will fail to capture your original thoughts.

To overcome lack of recall, use your pen to write brief one sentence summaries of various sections as you go along. This helps you understand it better as you rephrase the content in your own words. When you have completed a chapter or so, go back and scan over or re-read the highlights you made in the previous chapters. This helps you retain key ideas and process the content further. Ideally you will gain the most retention by re-reading or scanning back over the highlighted points in your books with this sort of time frame:
  • 1 day: Scan over the key ideas again to retain them.
  • 1 week: Repeat the process again; this time underlining the most notable highlights with a pen.
  • 1 month: Just scan over the book and read the underlined bits.
  • 6 months: Try to crack open the book once again. The ideas will flood back again as familiar.
  • 1 year: Make a point to scan over the most meaningful books that you read.
  • NOTE: This part is most easily achieved if you have an online calendar which can schedule a reminder. Once automated on your computer (or recorded in your planner), it can serve as an excellent tool if you are serious about retaining the information.
The Benefits: Your highlighting keeps you attentive, thinking, active in your reading. The writing and summarizing helps you process the content. The reviewing helps you retain it. If you don't need to retain the information, then adapt the tool for your own needs. But if you are reading to learn and want to keep the information as your own, this sort of tool (or something like it) is invaluable. The added benefit is that it makes reviewing books a much easier task!


What reading tips do you recommend? What helps you stay focused and retain the content?

Again, this book is the most recommended for learning through reading. Looking for good apologetics books? -- Look here. Looking for some great audio for learning? Check out Learning Skills 101.

Tuesday, October 22, 2013

Terminology Tuesday: Argument from Prophecy

Argument from Prophecy: A type of apologetic argument that attempts to defend the divinely inspired character of prophets (and ultimately of the Scriptures that record the prophecies) by showing that the prophets foretold events whose occurrence could not have been humanly foreseen. Thus an argument from prophecy is essentially an argument that appeals to miracles. Sometimes the argument is used in a reverse direction. The fact that the life of Jesus fulfilled certain Old Testament prophecies, for example, is cited to support the claim that Jesus really is the Messiah. Arguments from prophecy have become less popular in an age characterized by critical biblical scholarship, which in many cases claims that apparently fulfilled prophecies were written after the events prophesied occurred.1

1. C.Stephen Evans, Pocket Dictionary of Apologetics & Philosophy of Religion (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002), p. 13.

Saturday, October 19, 2013

Book Review: Against the Gods: The Polemical Theology of the Old Testament by John D. Currid

Some of Christianity’s detractors accuse it of being a copycat religion that drew from the mythology and legends of its predecessors. It is true that there are similarities between the Old Testament (O.T.) accounts of creation, the flood and the life of Moses, for example, and the stories of other Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) religions. But there are also notable differences – differences that people have far too often overlooked.

John Currid, professor of Old Testament at the Reformed Theological Seminary, explores the relationship between the O. T. and the literature of other ANE nations in his Against the Gods: The Polemical Theology of the Old Testament. His thesis is straightforward: Yes, O.T. accounts reflect other religions, but their authors purposely use them to denounce the false gods of Babylon, Egypt, Canaan, etc. In other words, they use them polemically.

Friday, October 18, 2013

Weekly Apologetics Bonus Links (10/11 - 10/18)

Here are this week's recommended apologetics links. Enjoy.
KINDLE DEALS:
A to Z with C.S. Lewis by Lou Markos - .99
Be A People Person by John Maxwell - 2.51
Basic Christianity by John Stott - 3.60
The Case for Easter by Lee Strobel - 1.99
The Case for Christmas by Lee Strobel - 1.99
Hidden Treasures in the Book of Job by Hugh Ross 3.99
That's a Great Question: What to Say When Your Faith Is Questioned - 2.51
• "If God Is Good: Why Do We Hurt?" Randy Alcorn - 1.99
What Darwin Didn't Know: A Doctor Dissects the Theory of Evolution - 1.99
WEEKLY LINKS:
Debate Resources
Allah is not Jehovah
Undesigned Coincidences: Part 4
A Review of O'Reilly's Killing Jesus
Why Doesn’t God Answer All My Prayers?
FlimFlam of the Month: “Covert Christianity”
Gary Habermas: 10 Reasons for the Fall of Atheism
What Lawrence Krauss Could Learn from a Children's Book
Can the worldview of atheism rationally ground moral judgements?
How to falsify a religion using scientific or historical evidence
Why It’s Important to Ask the Right Questions as a Religious Seeker
Most Parents Aren't Ready to Train Their Own Kids, So Let Us Help You!
Do the Non-Canonical Gospels Challenge the Historicity of the New Testament?
Article: Archaeology and the Reliablity of the New Testmant by Peter S. Williams
James Crossley compares Joseph Atwill’s Jesus conspiracy theory to Dan Brown fiction

Apologetics 315 is a registered 501(c)(3) non-profit. Would you support us monthly?
• Shopping via Amazon? If you use this link, a bit of your purchase goes to fund Apologetics 315. Thanks for those of you using the link, as it helps Ap315.
Canada here. UK here.

• Would you like to help with interview transcriptionIf so, contact Ap315 here.

Get these sorts of links and more by following on Twitter.
For daily post links, please follow on Facebook.

Apologetics Toolkit: Tips for Lifelong Learning #02

This continues the Apologetics Toolkit series on: Tips for Lifelong Learning. The goal here is to provide a sort of "apologetics toolkit" -- habits, tips, and tools the Christian apologist can use to continue to grow, learn, and develop.

Tool #02: Use Audio Resources Effectively

The Problem: There just isn't enough time in the day to learn everything you want to learn, and books require your undivided attention to be a useful tool. In addition, not everyone has a classroom opportunity available to them. Here is where audio resources come to the rescue.

The Tool: Audio resources come in a variety of formats: podcasts, MP3 audio files, iTunesU courses, audiobooks, etc. With the help of an MP3 player (Apologetics 315 highly recommends the iPod Touch) you can take audio with you practically anywhere. Here are some ideas on how to redeem the time spent doing other things while learning theology, apologetics, and philosophy:
  • Commute time: redeem this time by going through an audio program, audio book, podcast, or sermon. Over the course of a year, this time can accumulate into hundreds of hours.
  • Exercising: use this time to engage your mind as well as your body.
  • Chores: use headphones to benefit from audio learning while ironing, doing dishes, etc.
  • Work: if you have the sort of job that allows this, then listening to audio programs while working can also be a good opportunity.
The Benefit: The idea here is that there are hundreds of hours of audio that you can benefit from simply by redeeming the time you are already spending during your commute, exercise, or other activities. You have access to some of the best content available -- take advantage of it.

What are your tips for using audio? What methods work best for you?


Get apologetics on your iPod right here!

Thursday, October 17, 2013

Edgar Andrews Interview Transcript

The following transcript is from an Apologetics 315 interview with Edgar Andrews. Original audio here. Transcript index here. If you enjoy transcripts, please consider supporting, which makes this possible.


BA: Hello this is Brian Auten from Apologetics 315. Today I interview Edgar Andrews. He is the Ameritus Professor of Materials at the University of London, and an international expert at the science of large molecules, or polymers. He has published well over 100 scientific research papers and books as well as two Bible commentaries and various works on science and religion, and on theology. In addition to an even longer list of impressive credentials and accomplishments, Prof. Andrews is also the author of Who Made God? Searching for a Theory of Everything. The purpose of our interview is to find out more about the relationship between science and faith, discuss Prof. Andrews' book, his apologetic approach, and learn from his experiences. Thank you for taking the time to speak with me today, Prof. Andrews.

EA: Well it's my pleasure.

BA: Would you mind telling our listeners a little more about yourself.

Wednesday, October 16, 2013

Free: Essential Apologetics PowerPoint Series

In partnership with The PowerPoint Apologist, Apologetics 315 is offering a series of 12 Free PowerPoint presentations, released monthly. These cover 12 essential topics in apologetics. These are free to download, modify, and use for your own apologetics presentations. (However, please retain the final two slides featuring the PowerPoint Apologist and Apologetics 315 resources.)

The tenth in the series explores the Problem of Evil:
"Why Christianity?—In An Evil World"
Download it here. Slideshare here.
Enjoy.

Tuesday, October 15, 2013

Terminology Tuesday: Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism: The ethical theory, held by such thinkers as Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, asserting that moral rightness is determined by what leads to the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Traditional utilitarians identify the greatest good with happiness and define happiness in terms of pleasure and the absence of pain, while "ideal" utilitarians are willing to include other goods other than pleasure in their calculation of benefits. The traditional view is held by many animal rights advocates, who argue that the pleasures and pains of animals have great moral weight (equal to humans, in some cases). Act utilitarians hold that what is morally right is determined by the consequences of particular acts, while rule utilitarians hold that morality is a matter of conforming to rules or principles and that the right set of principles consists of those that would, if followed, lead to the greatest good for the greatest number.1

1. C.Stephen Evans, Pocket Dictionary of Apologetics & Philosophy of Religion (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002), p. 119.

Monday, October 14, 2013

The Most Common Mistake when Talking with Skeptics

Conversational evangelism and apologetics can be very frustrating. Christians often to get to the end of a discussion with an unbeliever and think, “Well, that was a waste of time! We weren’t connecting on anything. Did we even speak the same language?  All my great points fell completely flat.”

What causes these conversations to go wrong? The most common reason is that believers launch into a defense of the faith before finding out anything at all about the skeptic.

Instead of jumping right in to address some objection or present an argument, Christians would be much better served by asking a few important questions and then listening carefully to the answers.

For example, these queries work wonderfully at the beginning of a conversation:

“Tell me a bit about yourself. Do you have a background in Christianity or some other church or religion? Have you always been a skeptic? If not, how did you arrive at your position?”

“I understand you don’t believe that Christianity is true, but what worldview do you hold, then? In other words, I realize you think that Christianity offers false answer to life’s biggest questions, but what do you think are the right answers?”

“Speaking of the answers that Christianity offers, could you tell me the Christian message from your perspective? What is the story of the Bible as you understand it?”

There are several reasons this method leads to more fruitful evangelistic and apologetic conversations.

First, it builds relationship and defuses animosity. As Hugh Hewitt writes: “When you ask a question, you are displaying interest in the person asked. Most people are not queried on many, if any, subjects. Their opinions are not solicited. To ask them is to be remembered fondly as a very interesting and gracious person in your own right.” (In, But Not Of: A Guide to Christian Ambition, p. 172).  Greg Koukl adds “[Questions] invite genial interaction on something the other person cares a lot about: her own ideas.” (Tactics, A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions p. 48)

Second, it keeps the two sides from addressing people and positions that don’t actually exist. As I write in my new book,
Too many religious conversations involve people talking past each other because they haven’t taken the time to find out what the other person actually believes. The result is that each side tries to knock down a straw-man version of the other’s position. The skeptic argues against a version of Christianity that the believer does not hold and the Christian attacks an atheistic worldview that the unbeliever does not hold. Then they wonder why the conversation never gets anywhere. (p. 49)
Third, it offers the opportunity to present the gospel without being preachy. When you ask the skeptic about what he or she believes the Christian message to be, you will inevitably find that they have some poor theology. You can then step in and gently say, “Well, that’s not exactly what Christianity teaches. In order that we can understand each other clearly, let me share with you how I understand the Bible’s message. “

Fourth, it helps bring to light some of the underlying non-intellectual reasons that people reject Christianity. Many skeptics do not base their unbelief on a hard examination of the facts or a deep analysis of the various philosophical arguments. Rather, a variety of other factors are at play, including painful experiences with Christians, anger at God over a heartbreaking loss, and the desire to rationalize immoral behavior. By asking a few questions, the Christian can become more aware of what is going on under the surface.

A conversation with skeptics that doesn’t start with some good questions will almost always lead nowhere. Avoiding that mistake will help us be much more effective at reaching the world for Jesus.


Apologetics 315 Guest Writer Donald Johnson has served in vocational ministry since 1993, including extensive experience as an inner city youth worker and young adult pastor. He has a B.A. in Theology, Missions and Intercultural Studies from San Jose Christian College, an M.A. in Christian Apologetics from Biola University, and an M.A. in Theology from Franciscan University of Steubenville. He has also done graduate work in the evangelism program at Multnomah Seminary and the philosophy of Religion program at Talbot School of Theology. His newest book is How to Talk to a Skeptic: An Easy-to-Follow Guide for Natural Conversations and Effective Apologetics. Hear his interview with Apologetics 315 here.

Sunday, October 13, 2013

Blaise Pascal on Truth

“Truth is so obscured nowadays and lies [are] so well established that unless we love the truth we shall never recognize it.”

- Blaise Pascal

Saturday, October 12, 2013

Review: Asking the Right Questions by Browne & Keeley

Asking the Right Questions: A Guide to Critical Thinking (8th Edition) by M. Neil Browne and Stuart M. Keeley, as the title suggests, is all about critical thinking through a process of simply asking the right kinds of questions. However, this is a book that has the potential to change the way a person looks at and interacts with the world. This book helps one peel back the layers to thoroughly evaluate the issues and to think carefully. The authors define critical thinking: “critical thinking, as we will use the term, refers to the following: 1) awareness of a set of interrelated critical questions; 2) ability to ask and answer critical questions at appropriate times; and the 3) desire to actively use the critical questions.”1

Friday, October 11, 2013

Weekly Apologetics Bonus Links (10/04 - 10/11)

Here are this week's recommended apologetics links. Enjoy.
• Shopping via Amazon? If you use this link, a bit of your purchase goes to fund Apologetics 315. Thanks for those of you using the link, as it helps Ap315.
Canada here. UK here.

• Would you like to help with interview transcriptionIf so, contact Ap315 here.

Get these sorts of links and more by following on Twitter.
For daily post links, please follow on Facebook.

Apologetics Toolkit: Tips for Lifelong Learning #01

This post begins an Apologetics Toolkit series on: Tips for Lifelong Learning. The goal here is to provide a sort of "apologetics toolkit" -- habits, tips, and tools the Christian apologist can use to continue to grow, learn, and develop.

Tool #01: Use Topical Reading

The Problem: Good books are imperative for learning and growing. However, many people read their good books at random. Sporadic or scattered reading may have the small benefit of keeping you interested as you jump from topic to topic -- but one problem can be that often the information hasn't saturated your mind long enough for you to think deeply on that particular subject over an extended period of time. You haven't let it simmer in your mind. You haven't developed your own thoughts on the topic. You quickly moved on to another topic when you could have gone deeper.

The Tool: The idea behind topical reading is to explore a subject deeply by using a number of books. Think about delving into a variety of books on one subject -- say, half dozen to a dozen -- and letting your mind be immersed in that subject. Throughout the process, which will last a few months, start to do a few things: 1) look for the answers to your own questions; 2) look for patterns and principles; 3) take notes and highlight meaningful passages; and 4) develop your own ideas on the subject.

The Benefit: The reward of topical reading is a deeper understanding of an area of interest that goes far beyond a piecemeal reading method. For the Christian apologist, this means gaining a better grasp on a challenging issue, developing mastery in a subject of particular interest, and going beyond the superficial knowledge that often results from scattered, non goal-directed reading. So try it -- pick a subject of interest and really delve in.

What are your tips for reading? What methods work best for you?

For the book on learning through reading, Apologetics 315 recommends How to Read a Book by Adler and Van Doren. You won't approach reading the same again.

What was last year's post? It's audio from Dan Wallace.

Thursday, October 10, 2013

DVD Series: Philosophy of Religion with William Lane Craig

The Philosophy of Religion Course by William Lane Craig is a 19 DVD, 30 hour survey course covering religious epistemology, natural theology, the coherence of theism, and Christian doctrine. It comes in a set of two DVD albums and includes a CD with course syllabus and handouts.

Content: This seminary course taught by William Lane Craig covers a great deal of material targeted to a more advanced level. Craig structures the lectures to deal first with faith: the presumption of atheism, religious belief with and without warrant. Then on to the existence of God with arguments from natural theology: cosmological, teleological, axiological, and ontological arguments are all presented in detail, complete with questions and answers from the students. The course continues on to explore the attributes of God and the concept of the trinity. Craig deals with the problem of evil, covers the doctrine of creation, and examines divine providence. The course concludes with a focus on Christ, the atonement, and Christian particularism.

Impressions: The teaching content of the DVDs is extremely stimulating and helpful. Craig is in his element and explores the subjects deeply, making use of diagrams and interacting with the students. The video quality is very good with multiple camera angles and good sound. The good production quality is to be commended. Apart from the curriculum Craig shares a series of four or five short instructional pieces of practical wisdom for the students; these little life-principles are a great added bonus.

Recommendation: This is high quality material and is worth watching more than once. Apologetics 315 would recommend this course for those who have grasped the content of Reasonable Faith and Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview and who want to delve deeper into the area of philosophy of religion.

This and other similar content can be found at the Biola Apologetics Store here.

Check it out.

Tuesday, October 08, 2013

Terminology Tuesday: Tolerance

Tolerance: A trait regarded as one of the chief virtues by contemporary Western societies. Tolerance is often confused with a relativistic refusal to criticize another view or make any substantive value judgments. However, logically, tolerance is consistent with an attitude of strong disagreement and even disapproval. There are many views I may tolerate (in the sense that I think people should be allowed to hold them) that I think are mistaken or harmful. Tolerance is also sometimes confused with respect, but the two attitudes are distinct. I may respect a committed political rebel even though I do not tolerate his behavior. I may tolerate people whom I do not respect at all.1

1. C.Stephen Evans, Pocket Dictionary of Apologetics & Philosophy of Religion (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002), p. 63-116.

Monday, October 07, 2013

Do You Really Want Answers? by Everett Piper

More than sixty years ago, in The Abolition of Man, C.S. Lewis challenged Christian scholars to enter the “town square” and the “market place of ideas.” He argued that if we failed to do so, we would become “men without chests:” a culture of heartless people satisfied with our own subjectivity and divorced from any common agreement of what is right and wrong; a culture of disconnected individuals who care little for what is immutable and enduring, accurate or true. Lewis warned of a time when life’s big questions would lie fallow in a field of disingenuous inquiry, where shallow people with shallow minds would have little interest in a harvest of meaningful and objective answers.

Today is a time of big questions:
  • Life: When does it begin, and when does it end, and who has the right to define it and take it?
  • Global warming: Is its premise scientific, political, principled or pragmatic?
  • Sexuality: What is healthy and best for our bodies, our souls, our families and our society?
  • Tolerance: Are all worldviews epistemologically, ontologically and morally equal, or are some philosophies and religions simply better and more accurate than others?
  • Marriage: Should its definition be God’s or the government’s?
  • Justice: If radical Darwinism and moral neutrality are true, isn’t the concept of justice rather arbitrary and meaningless? The strong should subdue the weak and the “fittest” should survive, shouldn’t they?  If we are all nothing more than the products of happenstance and chance then there is no reason to object to those with power prevailing over those without it.  In fact, in such a world, all “morality” is really nothing more than the imposition of bourgeois rules upon the oppressed proletariat. Right?

Sunday, October 06, 2013

William Lane Craig on What Makes for a Good Argument

"...let’s get clear what makes for a “good” argument. An argument is a series of statements (called premises) leading to a conclusion. A sound argument must meet two conditions: (1) it is logically valid (i.e., its conclusion follows from the premises by the rules of logic), and (2) its premises are true. If an argument is sound, then the truth of the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises. But to be a good argument, it’s not enough that an argument be sound. We also need to have some reason to think that the premises are true. A logically valid argument that has, wholly unbeknownst to us, true premises isn’t a good argument for the conclusion. The premises have to have some degree of justification or warrant for us in order for a sound argument to be a good one. But how much warrant? The premises surely don’t need to be known to be true with certainty (we know almost nothing to be true with certainty!). Perhaps we should say that for an argument to be a good one the premises need to be probably true in light of the evidence. I think that’s fair, though sometimes probabilities are difficult to quantify. Another way of putting this is that a good argument is a sound argument in which the premises are more plausible in light of the evidence than their opposites. You should compare the premise and its negation and believe whichever one is more plausibly true in light of the evidence. A good argument will be a sound argument whose premises are more plausible than their negations."

—William Lane Craig, The New Atheism and Five Arguments for God, 2010.

[HT: Truthbomb Apologetics]

Saturday, October 05, 2013

Review: Heaven: The Logic of Eternal Joy by Jerry Walls

In Heaven: The Logic of Eternal Joy, Jerry Walls has four goals: (1) to argue that heaven is plausibly real (based on the existence of near death experiences—henceforth NDEs) (2) to defend the concept of heaven against various objections (3) to demonstrate the central role that heaven plays in Christian theology and (4) to show how fruitful a philosophical concept heaven is. Rather than writing at length on (1), I will simply point the interested reader elsewhere[1]. For the sake of completeness I will briefly address (2) before spending the bulk of the review on (3) and most of all (4), both because (4) is of most interest to me personally and is, I think, an underexplored area in philosophy of religion. As will be seen, there are tight links between (3) and (4).

Defending heaven against objections. In regards to (2), a couple of prominent ‘counter-Heaven’ objections and their rebuttals are as follows. One involves the complaint that Christ made failing to hold a belief (Christ is the Messiah) a sin that carries the consequence of eternal damnation. With disarming simplicity, Walls explores what it means to be in Heaven—namely, to be in the direct and loving presence of God. T he upshot is that Heaven won’t be Heaven for someone who is not already in love with God.[2] Walls then turns to a discussion of soteriology, broadly speaking.[3] Throughout, he plumps for a broadly orthodox form of inclusivism[4]. What is unique about Walls (although it is not central to this particular work[5]) as an evangelical scholar is that he does not hesitate to invoke the possibility of purgatory[6] to answer many of these issues.

Friday, October 04, 2013

Weekly Apologetics Bonus Links (09/27 - 10/04)

Here are this week's recommended apologetics links. Enjoy.
• Shopping via Amazon? If you use this link, a bit of your purchase goes to fund Apologetics 315. Thanks for those of you using the link, as it helps Ap315.
Canada here. UK here.

• Would you like to help with interview transcriptionIf so, contact Ap315 here.

Get these sorts of links and more by following on Twitter.
For daily post links, please follow on Facebook.

Mark Mittelberg Interview Transcript

The following transcript is from an Apologetics 315 interview with Mark Mittelberg. Original audio here. Transcript index here. If you enjoy transcripts, please consider supporting, which makes this possible.


BA: Hello, this is Brian Auten of Apologetics 315. Today’s interview is with Mark Mittelberg, author, speaker, and evangelism strategist. Mark was the Evangelism Director at Willow Creek Community Church in Chicago for many years, and he and Lee Strobel have been ministry partners for more than twenty years. He is a lecturer and an author of a number of books including, Becoming A Contagious ChristianChoosing Your Faith, The Questions Christians Hope No One Will Ask, as well as an updated version of The Reason Why Faith Makes Sense. The purpose of our interview today is to gain some insight from his experience as an apologist and Christian communicator. Also, to talk about his newest book, and get his advice for Christian apologists.

Thanks for joining me today, Mark.

MM: Great to be with you Brian. I’m so excited about your ministry, and check in on your website every once in a while to see what’s new, and I just think you guys are doing a tremendous service for the Kingdom.

Thursday, October 03, 2013

Richard Dawkins and the ‘Absence of Belief’

Richard Dawkins and the New Atheists have popularized the idea that atheism, contrary to other positions, is not a belief; it is simply ‘the absence of belief’ in God or a supreme being.  It almost sounds esoteric. Theists believe that God exists and atheists merely lack that belief. Well, on that view, my Chevy is just as much of an atheist as Richard Dawkins, for it, too, lacks the belief that God exists. And I don’t say that lightly; I love my Chevy.

Now, there is some truth to the idea that atheists ‘lack belief.’ They do. But that’s not enough. Like I said, what is it that separates an atheist from my Chevy? My Chevy lacks belief in God. Animals lack belief in God. Newborn babies lack belief in God. There are lots of things that lack belief in God and yet aren’t atheists. It takes more than ‘lack of belief’ to define an atheist.

Wednesday, October 02, 2013

Free: Essential Apologetics PowerPoint Series

In partnership with The PowerPoint Apologist, Apologetics 315 is offering a series of 12 Free PowerPoint presentations, released monthly. These cover 12 essential topics in apologetics. These are free to download, modify, and use for your own apologetics presentations. (However, please retain the final two slides featuring the PowerPoint Apologist and Apologetics 315 resources.)

The ninth in the series explores the arguments for Jesus being the Messiah and God:
"Why Jesus?—The God-Man Jesus"
Download it here. Slideshare here.
Enjoy.

Tuesday, October 01, 2013

Two Kinds of Defeaters for Beliefs

The following excerpt from Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview by William Lane Craig and J.P. Moreland (p.88) is a helpful explanation of defeaters for beliefs:

"One factor that affects whether and to what degree a belief is justified is the presence of defeaters for that belief. Suppose Smith has a blief that Q (e.g., that a statue is blue), and suppose that R (e.g., the way the statue looks to him) is a reason or ground Smith has for holding to Q. A defeater removes or weakens justification for a belief.

There are at least two kinds of defeaters. First, there are rebutting defeaters, which directly attack the conclusion or thing being believed. In the case above, a rebutting defeater would be a reason to believe not-Q, i.e., a reason to believe that the statue is not blue. An example would be a case where the museum director and a number of reliable, honest people assure you that the statue is grey.

Second, there are undercutting defeaters. These defeaters do not directly attack the thing believed (by trying to show that it is false), but rather they attack the notion that R is a good reason for Q. Undercutting defeaters do not attack Q directly; they attack R and in some way undercut R as a good reason for Q. In the example above, an undercutting defeater would be evidence that there is blue lighting around the statue that makes everything in that room look blue to people.

In the example, the undercutting defeater removes one's reason for thinking that the statue is blue and the rebutting defeater gives one reason for thinking that the statue is not-blue. In different ways, defeaters can remove the justification for a belief."

Blog Archive

Amz