Stand Your Ground

Why I would never debate Richard Dawkins: The atheist “philosopher” cannot give us a reason why genocide is wrong. I would rather leave an empty chair than share a platform with him.

2011-10-21T06:04:00.000-07:00

Don’t feel embarrassed if you’ve never heard of Richard Dawkins. He is an atheist. Most members of my church don’t know who he is either. He calls himself a philosopher, but other distinguished philosophers like Alvin Plantinga and Antony Flew have called his work “jejune”, “sophomoric”, and even titled him a “secularist bigot.” Perhaps we should just call him a “biologist.”

For years Dawkins has been running away from debating any credible Christian apologist or philosopher with reasons such as “I don’t debate 7 day creationists” and most recently *here* he says he won’t debate William Lane Craig because he supports genocide in the Bible.

Dawkins writes in his article, “But Craig is not just a figure of fun. He has a dark side, and that is putting it kindly. Most churchmen these days wisely disown the horrific genocides ordered by the God of the Old Testament.”

But here’s the problem with Mr. Dawkins, he has admitted that he can’t unequivocally state that genocide is wrong. In an interview with Larry Taunton he said, “What’s to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question.” Why couldn’t we just insert “the ancient near east Jews” instead of “Hitler?” But Dawkins reacts to Craig’s view of genocide as though the act is absolutely, morally reprehensible. He even uses this as his sole reason why he won’t debate the man. But if he can't justify why Hitler was wrong, how can he state that the Jews were wrong in the Old Testament?

Well, would you share a platform and shake hands with a man who can’t even give evidence for why Hitler’s genocide of millions of Jews was absolutely immoral? I wouldn’t and I won’t. Sorry Richard, I’m diverting your emails to the spam folder and I’ve got my phone set to silent.

Dean Hardy is the Head of the Bible Department at Charlotte Christian School in Charlotte, NC. He earned his B.A. in Religion from Palm Beach Atlantic University and his Masters in Apologetics from Southern Evangelical Seminary. He can be reached at http://www.YouthApologetics.com/contact.php

In Response to Charlotte Observer's “Police chaplains who quit give Christians black eye”

2010-11-13T05:44:00.000-08:00

In Response to Charlotte Observer's “Police chaplains who quit give Christians black eye”
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2010/11/12/1830833/police-chaplains-who-quit-give.html

As a devoted follower of Christ, my eyes are not blackened, but they are wide open to the editor’s lack of knowledge for basic Christian principles as well as the true life of Jesus.

Jesus loved. There is no question about this assertion. He loved the common sinner; he loved the Samaritans who were a downtrodden race, he even gave women a higher sense of value, none of this can be argued. But to then transfer this to the concept that “all actions are permissible” and “we must accept everyone” is a fallacy of epic proportions. Jesus did not accept the sin of these individuals. He chastised the Pharisees for their pride, Zaccheus for his greed, and even told a lame man to “stop sinning.”

So why shouldn’t the chaplains stay? Well, unlike the editor’s conclusion that homosexuality is not a sin; there are very good reasons, philosophically and Biblically, that homosexuality is a sin. God’s Word specifically calls homosexuality immoral, most descriptively in Romans 1. So Mr. and Mrs. Editor, in whom should I trust?

In defense of the chaplains, God’s word gives specific instructions for the elders of the church. In both instances it mentions that the man must be blameless and loving toward his wife. It was obvious to the early church that homosexuality was a sin. I agree with your list of “other sins” such as cruelty and adultery, and I would hope that the chaplains would have also left their post if the Chief had appointed a chaplain who lived a continued lifestyle of committing these sins.

Dean Hardy is a Philosophy and Apologetics teacher, as well as the co-president of Stand Your Ground Ministries in Matthews, NC. He can be reached at www.youthapologetics.com

Why I am against graphic abortion demonstrations

2010-07-18T09:39:00.000-07:00

Sorry, I witnesses an abortion demonstration this morning and had to post.

The use of graphic images during abortion protests is a controversial subject. Below I have stated my basic reasons for why I wouldn’t do this myself, and why I think that this is an ineffective, un-intellectual, non-compassionate, and hyper-confrontational way to state our opinion as Christians. Thus, I simply don’t think that graphic images should be used in pro-life protests.

Protesting using graphic images:

1. Neglects to consider its negative effects on the public:

a. On post-abortion women who are overridden with guilt. (In the same way we’d feel it was inappropriate to anti-war protest with images of dead soldiers because that would offend our honored veterans. Why do we think this wouldn’t negatively affect post-abortion women no matter what their view of abortion is now?)

b. On toddlers and young children. (It doesn’t seem that “for the sake of the cause” would justify the mental anguish of showing dead babies to kids. I think any Christian would chastize a capital murder opponent who proteted with a poster depicting a dead prisoner.)

2. Using this method usually results in anger, not reconsideration of one’s own position on abortion.

a. Ineffective: While getting guttural responses usually work on Christians, they seem ineffective on the secular world. (Christians seem to get it. I've seen my share of graphic abortion pictures and it has motivated me to speak out against abortion. But for the secular world “It’s gross therefore it’s immoral” simply doesn’t fly. Many young people think homosexuality is gross, but they think that homosexuals should be able to marry.)

b. Non-Compassionate: Many think this will tug on the public’s heartstrings, but a guttural response doesn’t do this: compassion does. The fact of the matter is that I (a fervent pro-lifer) don’t think about the actual baby in those pictures, I think of the horror. A suggested solution: use compassion, reason, and artistic talent to make your point. This will tug on the passerby’s heart AND head.

c. Confrontational: The public sees the graphic images as “confrontational,” this is why verbal sparring (or worse) usually takes place with these protestors and pro-abortionists. Does this inspire dialog and discussion over the issue or does it add to the stereotype that Christians are not sympathetic?

Just a start…any suggestions or additions or even critiques would be appreciated!

New Movement Reveals the Philosophical Ineptitude of Church Leaders

2010-04-10T10:14:00.000-07:00

Right now, 12,000+ leaders of our Christian community have signed onto “the Clergy Letter,” unequivocally declaring that there is no contradiction between religion and science (please read the note hyperlinked: they are not discussing normative science vs. religion, but rather evolution vs. religion). Even more regretfully, the United Methodist Church as a whole, as well as branches of the Episcopal and Lutheran Church, have endorsed the contents of this letter.

There are multiple, crucial problems with this movement. First, the leaders agree that the historical literal translation of the Bible is improper and that many of the stories of the Old Testament are merely metaphorical. Of course, then we have to wonder how you distinguish the metaphorical stories from the literal ones, and if your only way of delineating is by comparing the Word of God to the normative world of science, then you might as well throw out the miraculous acts of Christ himself, including his resurrection. Since the stories of Genesis and of Jonah are written in a historical narrative style, then why wouldn’t you also question the writings of the Gospels?

Of course, there’s no attempt in the letter to try and harmonize the doctrines of the church and of evolution, and I think in this case, and with this bold of a claim, there needs to be some sort of explanation. For instance, if I started an online petition suggesting that the God of Israel, Christianity, and Islam were in fact the same being, I would likely need to explain myself before I’d expect anyone to take it seriously. But instead of explaining how the religion of Christianity and evolution are compatible, it is merely stated, “the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist.” I’m interested in how these leaders are explaining original sin, death as the punishment of sins, and Christ’s redemptive work as the second Adam to their followers. Dr. Zimmerman, the originator of this letter, has yet to do just that. (see here) Until I read this explanation, I will see these signatures as no more than an admittance of ignorance and the dysfunctional relationship between religion and evolution.

While the diminishing of the inerrancy of scripture is frightening, and the lack of explanation is frustrating, what scares me the most about this letter is the complete lack of understanding of the nature of truth. The end of the letter reads, “We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth.” Forms of Truth? I didn’t know that you could have different ways that things could correspond to reality. In fact, they can’t. If something corresponds to reality, then it just does. Either the Biblical stories are true or they aren’t. Either evolution is true or it’s not. God exists; or not. We’ve evolved from other species, or we are specially created in the Image of God. The core of these beliefs cannot coexist. (Of course, there can be portions of both that are true or false, but foundationally- the main doctrinal views cannot both be true at the same time and sense.)

In a Baptist sermon, you can see the problem overtly expressed. Pastor Gary McCaslin said this from the pulpit at his First Baptist Church in Painted Post, NY, “Soul liberty simply means that every person in this gathered community has a responsibility to say what is true about God from his or her heart.” (see here) Thus, truth is not founded on the natural revelation of the world around us, or special revelation of Scripture, but rather the subjective feelings on each of the hearts of his church’s constituents. Nothing should scare us more. My feelings don’t matter; God’s truth is His truth, whether it be revealed in science or scripture, God knows the truth because he has created reality, and he often chooses to reveal it to us (the Bible) or leads us to discover it (via science). These two fields are compatible, but the compatibility of evolution and Christianity is truly mistaken for explanation.

Cultural Morality....really?

2010-03-03T06:24:00.000-08:00

Last week in class a thoughtful student asked me a question, and in that question laid out his struggle with how he could not determine how he was to counter an atheist that firmly believed in cultural relativism. He explained how he noticed how, logically, cultural relativism could have come into existence given a godless world. In the evolutionary mindset, the cultural pressures and societal norms quickly form into firm “laws” that the members of that society are supposed to follow. Of course, all of us could image what would happen if we become stranded on a secluded island with 10 strangers. Pretty quickly a set of “ground rules” would be established of what is acceptable and not.

I spent most of my time during my response to this student trying to prove that this view of cultural relativism really doesn’t hold any water, but I think I missed a strategic opportunity. It doesn’t matter if the story of the origin of these laws is cohesive or not, the fact of the matter is that cultural relativism is hardly applicable. In other words, the answer to his question shouldn’t have focused on the origin of these laws (which neither side can 100% prove), but rather how or why we feel that cultural relativists think they can hold people accountable and even punishable?

For instance, take an individual who believes that humans should be able to live clothes-free publically. As an act of liberation the individual lives out this principle at a nearby mall where he is quickly detained and eventually punished for this act. But by what right do we punish? If this individual was simply living out their humble beliefs and embracing the freedom to do so, then why/how can we punish them? Is it simply because there are more of us than this individual?

In the past few weeks the television reporters have uttered a name that is now synonymous with infamy: Tiger Woods. Due to the aftershock of this revelation, there is no doubt that the American people still agree that adultery is immoral. But what right do we have to judge Tiger? Maybe he’s a part of a subculture that thinks that this sort of thing is not merely fashionable or pleasurable, but rather, it’s moral and acceptable. What right do we have to judge if cultural morality is the only standard? Is it just because there are more of us than there are of Tiger and his subculture?

It would seem that unless there are absolutes then there is no objective standard to make such judgments (or to have any sense of “rights” for that matter) and to hold people accountable, and yes even punishable, for certain immoral actions.

Please feel free to comment!

Collision: A movie review

2010-01-28T12:12:00.000-08:00

I haven’t yet reviewed an apologetics movie for the blog, so I thought I would discuss a movie I’ve just shown to my classes: Collision. Collision pits the witty, irreverent, and sometimes self-deprecating Christopher Hitchens against pastor, professor, family-man and author Doug Wilson. The two went on a debate tour while promoting their book Is Christianity Good for the World?, and this chronicles their discussions.

First, I do believe that this is the first time I’ve ever seen an apologetics movie that has the opponents at so many, and at such a variety of venues. They go from a school sponsored debate, to a bar, to a restaurant, to a taxi cab, to a helicopter, etc. etc. Yes, I do agree that the producers and directors were trying a little too hard to be “hip” with their format and music choices (see the reviews on Amazon) but I don’t think this detracted from the overall meaningfulness of the movie. While there were many critical issues raised that sparked discussions amongst my students, I found the most interesting and I daresay compelling undercurrent of the whole film was the respectful relationship that developed between the two men. It reassured to me that there are some atheists and christians that can actually disagree civally.

While Wilson comes from a different apologetic perspective of my own (he’s a presuppositionalist- where I’d take a more classical approach), I think he did a great job clarifying his position and an even better job dismantling Hitchens’ objections. The pairing could not have been better. They continually played off of each others arguments, often times with a humorous and even playful interactions that spawned giggles from the audience. Of course, not all of their dialogue was amusing, but all of it was definitely intriguing.

I would highly recommend this movie to anyone with one warning: If you are planning on showing this to a church or youth group- be forewarned that there are a couple of minor expletives. (Oh my!) The one used by the pastor started an interesting discussion in my class on the propriety of language in apologetics debates, and when, if ever, is there an appropriate time to use this sort of exclamation point.

I give it an easy 4.5 out of 5 stars. (The .5 off was because a few arguments were offered by one party- but the other party was never given the chance to answer. ) Visit http://www.collisionmovie.com/ for more details.

Our Young People are Confused.

2010-01-14T06:35:00.001-08:00

It’s no wonder that our high school and college students are so confused about God, right from wrong, and our purpose in life. We are teaching them two completely different perspectives, two opposing worldviews, then we expect them to function in a complex society with this shifting and unstable foundation.

Students spend hours a day at public school and are educated in the fundamentals of evolution. Everything came about by chance, there is no overarching purpose to their lives, they aren’t special unless they have something unique and valuable to offer society, and right from wrong is only determined socially and culturally. Beauty is relativistic and love is merely lustful attraction. Reality ends at the edge of the material.

Christian young people go to church on Sunday, and possibly one other time during the week; spending possibly two or more hours in the setting of other believers. You may expect that I’d write that these students are then taught the Christian side of the story, but often times, this doesn’t even happen. But to give the benefit of the doubt: the young person is taught that he or she is special, is divinely created for a purpose, that God is Good and that the term “good” is defined by the nature of God and his perfect and design for us. Beauty is objective, real, observable by all, and has the possibility of creating an aesthetic experience. Love is real. Its roots penetrate our soul, and God is its exemplification and embodiment.

Lets see what happens to our students. Unfortunately, we don’t have to wait to find out. You can already see it here: http://www.youthapologetics.com/video.php . Many of our young people are confused, no…very confused. How can we help?

Christmas note 2009

2009-12-19T12:00:00.000-08:00

Changing your perspective can be an expensive lesson.

God has a funny way of teaching lessons and building our character by simply tweaking our circumstances. For those of us who are stubborn, sometimes it seems that we aren’t truly grateful about our situation until our circumstances change.

We aren’t gratified by our jobs until we are laid off.
We aren’t thankful for our relationships until they are broken.
We aren’t grateful for our wealth until we lose it.
We aren’t appreciative of our homes until foreclosure is imminent.
We don’t praise God for our parents until one suddenly passes away.
We forget to thank God for his sacrifice on the cross, until we truly understand that there are real people that decide not to accept that gift.
We neglect to express thanks to God for our most basic gift, our lives, until the doctor returns with the lab results.

While the turn of events often results in immediate negativity, God uses these to change our outlook to his outlook; our perspective to God’s point of view. God wants us to depend on him for his provision and support. It’s no wonder that it’s so easy to “Trust in the Lord” when things are going so well; but the real test is to “lean not on your own understanding” when things look depressing.

For instance, while many of the trunks of our Christmas trees may be less choked out by gifts and presents this year, this may help us change our perspective. Not only may this cause us to be more appreciative of Christmases past, but hopefully about all of God’s gifts that we often neglect. G.K. Chesterton put it so cleverly, “If my children wake up on Christmas morning and have someone to thank for putting candy in their stocking, have I no one to thank for putting two feet in mine?”

This year, why not let Thanksgiving boil over into Christmas, or better yet, even into 2010. Let our humble thankfulness be witnessed by others, in whatever the circumstance. Our thankfulness can be a bold testimony concerning the faith and trust we have in our Lord Jesus. Paul reminds us, “just as you received Christ Jesus as Lord, continue to live in him, rooted and built up in him, strengthened in the faith as you were taught, and overflowing with thankfulness.” (Col 2:6-7)

Religion vs. Philosophy: Defining our terms.

2009-12-11T10:44:00.000-08:00

Is seems like many of America's quarrels could have been avoided if a simple delineation between the terms 'religion and philosophy' were established. It's quite obvious that the constitution renders the government inept in the establishing of a "national religion." It clearly reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The fact of the matter is that no true Christian would even want the constitution to be changed. We don't want a forced religion any more than we believe that an individual could be forced to love. The constitution stands, and we like that.

The problem arises when one claims that a general belief or even just a public statement (by a government official or school teacher for instance) concerning God, a creator, 'intelligent designer', or moral lawgiver somehow contradicts our constitution. The idea of God should be discussed in our schools and used in moral discussion in congress. Maybe philosophy isn't used in the science classrooms, but it should be discussed somewhere. (for my full idea on this see http://www.youthapologetics.com/philosophy.php ) Why isn't it? Because the ACLU, among others, thinks that coming from a theistic philosophy is somehow infusing religion into our governmental institutions. But is it?

The fact of the matter is that this just doesn't logically follow. The idea that "If you believe in God, then you are religious" is a non-sequitur. Here's the crux: part of your philosophy is how you answer the question "Is there a God?" and your religion is the worship of that before-mentioned God. But one doesn't cause the other. A belief in a being and worship of that being are completely separate. In a ridiculous example, I can believe that A-rod exists, but that doesn't mean I worship him.

Some may argue that this post is simply another attempt at getting Christianity taught in schools but I think that objection misses the point. First, I don't think the tenets of Christianity should be taught in public schools, but I do think the question of God, morals, and origins should be openly considered (even if an atheist teaches the class). Secondly, if we look through history, there have been a multitude of philosophers who have believed in a god, but never worshiped this being. There have been deists that believe in a creator, but think that worshipping this being is fruitless. The fact of the matter is that your philosophy does not automatically conclude in religion and philosophy need not be religious. I mean- atheism is not a religion, but it is a philosophy.

What does Jerusalem have to do with Athens? Maybe nothing. The point is that one doesn't necessitate the other. A religious believer should use philosophy, and a philosopher may indeed be religious; but philosophy doesn't necessarily lead to the worship of any divine being.