Posted on 02/24/2008 4:18:12 PM PST by no nau
Over the years, many people have challenged me with a question like:
‘I’ve been trying to witness to my friends. They say they don’t believe the Bible and aren’t interested in the stuff in it. They want real proof that there’s a God who created, and then they’ll listen to my claims about Christianity. What proof can I give them without mentioning the Bible so they’ll start to listen to me?’
Briefly, my response is as follows.
Evidence
Creationists and evolutionists, Christians and non-Christians all have the same evidence—the same facts. Think about it: we all have the same earth, the same fossil layers, the same animals and plants, the same stars—the facts are all the same.
The difference is in the way we all interpret the facts. And why do we interpret facts differently? Because we start with different presuppositions. These are things that are assumed to be true, without being able to prove them. These then become the basis for other conclusions. All reasoning is based on presuppositions (also called axioms). This becomes especially relevant when dealing with past events. Past and present
We all exist in the present—and the facts all exist in the present. When one is trying to understand how the evidence came about (Where did the animals come from? How did the fossil layers form? etc.), what we are actually trying to do is to connect the past to the present.
However, if we weren’t there in the past to observe events, how can we know what happened so we can explain the present? It would be great to have a time machine so we could know for sure about past events.
Christians of course claim they do, in a sense, have a ‘time machine’. They have a book called the Bible which claims to be the Word of God who has always been there, and has revealed to us the major events of the past about which we need to know.
On the basis of these events (Creation, Fall, Flood, Babel, etc.), we have a set of presuppositions to build a way of thinking which enables us to interpret the evidence of the present.
Evolutionists have certain beliefs about the past/present that they presuppose, e.g. no God (or at least none who performed acts of special creation), so they build a different way of thinking to interpret the evidence of the present.
Thus, when Christians and non-Christians argue about the evidence, in reality they are arguing about their interpretations based on their presuppositions.
That’s why the argument often turns into something like:
‘Can’t you see what I’m talking about?’
‘No, I can’t. Don’t you see how wrong you are?’
‘No, I’m not wrong. It’s obvious that I’m right.’
‘No, it’s not obvious.’ And so on.
These two people are arguing about the same evidence, but they are looking at the evidence through different glasses.
It’s not until these two people recognize the argument is really about the presuppositions they have to start with, that they will begin to deal with the foundational reasons for their different beliefs. A person will not interpret the evidence differently until they put on a different set of glasses—which means to change one’s presuppositions.
I’ve found that a Christian who understands these things can actually put on the evolutionist’s glasses (without accepting the presuppositions as true) and understand how they look at evidence. However, for a number of reasons, including spiritual ones, a non-Christian usually can’t put on the Christian’s glasses—unless they recognize the presuppositional nature of the battle and are thus beginning to question their own presuppositions.
It is of course sometimes possible that just by presenting ‘evidence’, you can convince a person that a particular scientific argument for creation makes sense ‘on the facts’. But usually, if that person then hears a different interpretation of the same evidence that seems better than yours, that person will swing away from your argument, thinking they have found ‘stronger facts’.
However, if you had helped the person to understand this issue of presuppositions, then they will be better able to recognize this for what it is—a different interpretation based on differing presuppositions—i.e. starting beliefs.
As a teacher, I found that whenever I taught the students what I thought were the ‘facts’ for creation, then their other teacher would just re-interpret the facts. The students would then come back to me saying, ‘Well sir, you need to try again.’
However, when I learned to teach my students how we interpret facts, and how interpretations are based on our presuppositions, then when the other teacher tried to reinterpret the facts, the students would challenge the teacher’s basic assumptions. Then it wasn’t the students who came back to me, but the other teacher! This teacher was upset with me because the students wouldn’t accept her interpretation of the evidence and challenged the very basis of her thinking.
What was happening was that I had learned to teach the students how to think rather than just what to think. What a difference that made to my class! I have been overjoyed to find, sometimes decades later, some of those students telling me how they became active, solid Christians as a result. Debate terms
If one agrees to a discussion without using the Bible as some people insist, then they have set the terms of the debate. In essence these terms are:
1. ‘Facts’ are neutral. However, there are no such things as ‘brute facts’; all facts are interpreted. Once the Bible is eliminated in the argument, then the Christians’ presuppositions are gone, leaving them unable to effectively give an alternate interpretation of the facts. Their opponents then have the upper hand as they still have their presuppositions — see Naturalism, logic and reality.
2. Truth can/should be determined independent of God. However, the Bible states: ‘The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom’ (Psalm 111:10); ‘The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge’ (Proverbs 1:7). ‘But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned’ (1 Corinthians 2:14).
A Christian cannot divorce the spiritual nature of the battle from the battle itself. A non-Christian is not neutral. The Bible makes this very clear: ‘The one who is not with Me is against Me, and the one who does not gather with Me scatters’ (Matthew 12:30); ‘And this is the condemnation, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than the Light, because their deeds were evil’ (John 3:19).
Agreeing to such terms of debate also implicitly accepts their proposition that the Bible’s account of the universe’s history is irrelevant to understanding that history! Ultimately, God’s Word convicts
1 Peter 3:15 and other passages make it clear we are to use every argument we can to convince people of the truth, and 2 Cor. 10:4–5 says we are to refute error (like Paul did in his ministry to the Gentiles). Nonetheless, we must never forget Hebrews 4:12: ‘For the word of God is living and powerful and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing apart of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.’
Also, Isaiah 55:11: ‘So shall My word be, which goes out of My mouth; it shall not return to Me void, but it shall accomplish what I please, and it shall certainly do what I sent it to do.’
Even though our human arguments may be powerful, ultimately it is God’s Word that convicts and opens people to the truth. In all of our arguments, we must not divorce what we are saying from the Word that convicts. Practical application
When someone tells me they want ‘proof’ or ‘evidence’, not the Bible, my response is as follows:
‘You might not believe the Bible but I do. And I believe it gives me the right basis to understand this universe and correctly interpret the facts around me. I’m going to give you some examples of how building my thinking on the Bible explains the world and is not contradicted by science. For instance, the Bible states that God made distinct kinds of animals and plants. Let me show you what happens when I build my thinking on this presupposition. I will illustrate how processes such as natural selection, genetic drift, etc. can be explained and interpreted. You will see how the science of genetics makes sense based upon the Bible.’
One can of course do this with numerous scientific examples, showing how the issue of sin and judgment, for example, is relevant to geology and fossil evidence. And how the Fall of man, with the subsequent Curse on creation, makes sense of the evidence of harmful mutations, violence, and death.
Once I’ve explained some of this in detail, I then continue:
‘Now let me ask you to defend your position concerning these matters. Please show me how your way of thinking, based on your beliefs, makes sense of the same evidence. And I want you to point out where my science and logic are wrong.’
In arguing this way, a Christian is:
1. Using biblical presuppositions to build a way of thinking to interpret the evidence.
2. Showing that the Bible and science go hand in hand.1
3. Challenging the presuppositions of the other person (many are unaware they have these).
4. Forcing the debater to logically defend his position consistent with science and his own presuppositions (many will find that they cannot do this).
5. Honouring the Word of God that convicts the soul.
Remember, it’s no good convincing people to believe in creation, without also leading them to believe and trust in the Creator/Redeemer, Jesus Christ. God honours those who honour His Word. We need to use God-honouring ways of reaching people with the truth of what life is all about. Naturalism, logic and reality
Those arguing against creation may not even be conscious of their most basic presupposition, one which excludes God a priori, namely naturalism/materialism (everything came from matter, there is no supernatural, no prior creative intelligence).2 The following two real-life examples highlight some problems with that assumption:
1. A young man approached me at a seminar and stated, ‘Well, I still believe in the big bang, and that we arrived here by chance random processes. I don’t believe in God.’ I answered him, ‘Well, then obviously your brain, and your thought processes, are also the product of randomness. So you don’t know whether it evolved the right way, or even what right would mean in that context. Young man, you don’t know if you’re making correct statements or even whether you’re asking me the right questions.’
The young man looked at me and blurted out, ‘What was that book you recommended?’ He finally realized that his belief undercut its own foundations —such ‘reasoning’ destroys the very basis for reason.
2. On another occasion, a man came to me after a seminar and said, ‘Actually, I’m an atheist. Because I don’t believe in God, I don’t believe in absolutes, so I recognize that I can’t even be sure of reality.’ I responded, ‘Then how do you know you’re really here making this statement?’ ‘Good point,’ he replied. ‘What point?’ I asked. The man looked at me, smiled, and said, ‘Maybe I should go home.’ I stated, ‘Maybe it won’t be there.’ ‘Good point,’ the man said. ‘What point?’ I replied.
This man certainly got the message. If there is no God, ultimately, philosophically, how can one talk about reality? How can one even rationally believe that there is such a thing as truth, let alone decide what it is?
byno ==
I can prove there is a GOD.
Science uses faith.
It presumes that the laws of nature are consistent and going to remain the same because of precedent.
It presumes the current interpretation of the geologic evidence is correct.
It presumes the scientific method will be able to be applied and is applied correctly when scientists run experiments.
It presumes that the peer review process works.
The thread earlier today about dark matter demonstrates that science works on faith when they state things like this: The theory, published in the journal Physical Review Letters, depends on particles that astronomers can't see, but are certain exist, and physicists have never detected. But the indirect evidence for their existence is overwhelming.
Forces can't be seen, felt, or sometimes even measured. They are believed to exist because of the behavior of other objects they are working on. It's circumstantial evidence that points to their existence.
It takes faith to believe that the universe came into being without any outside cause. There's no evidence to support that.
Completely wrong! Christianity is real. It is a real religion. The only thing you base your faith in is Yeshua. Is He who he said he claims to be? Different from evolution, people actually witnessed real events and had relationships with real people in biblical times and then wrote about it afterwards. Evolutionist on the other hand have to have much more faith that there guesstamation is somehow correct and even then they can't adaquately explain from where life originated logically.
Part of the problem is that people tend to try to prove science through the Bible. The Bible is not intented as a scientific document. For one thing, it was written in Hebrew and Greek—the translators have had a difficult time in correctly interpreting some parts of it. For example, what was the light that was refered to in Genesis 1:3
And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. But the sun was not created until the 4th day:
Ge 1:16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. u He also made the stars. I believe that the light he refered to on the first day was His Shikinha Glory—Rabbi’s say that you could see from one end of the earth to the earth by this light. I am saying that as a professional Geologist, I have no problem reconciling the Word of G-d with Science. A point of proof might be the First Law of Thermodynamics: energy cannot be created from nothing. So at some point the universe was created.
Does that make what he’s said here untrue?
We do all have the same evidence; it is interpreted based on our presumptions.
No problem. Creationists just make stuff up. That’s why they’re called creationists.
Never said there wasn't. My degrees are in science.
ML/NJ
No, if you are a scientist as I am, then you know that a lot of science is based on faith, but with a different data set.
PFLR
If you take the words Evolution, Atheism, God, Creation, etc. out of this article, he has written what most critical thinking textbooks state in the first couple chapters.
INBN.
++++++++++++++++=
Science is based on facts, that are then put into a theories, and the scientist has faith that he guess is right.
For example, evolution from species to species, is based on observed evolution, or changes with in a species.
Then on faith in a theory, a scientist says that evolution happens between species, even though we have not seen it, nor observed it.
“But it’s hard to talk with someone in denial.”
I’m in Chicago.
Give it up.
All can be said this way about religion; for those who believe an explanation is not necessary, for those who disbelieve an explanation is impossible.
Learn from Proverbs 26:4...Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. In modern terms, if you take the decision to argue with a fool soon others will not be able to tell which of you is the fool.
I would rather live my life with faith there is a God, and die to find out there isn't, than live my life as if there isn't and die to find out there is.
"Faith is different from proof; the latter is human, the former is a Gift from God." -- Blaise Pascal
My mother pointed out to me at a young age that man had a finite, or limited mind, as opposed to the infinite mind of our creator. We will never understand his realm, no matter what the “proof”, or the IQ of the inquisitor.
You want random, look in a dumpster. Our creator designed our world of beauty. I don’t know what other “proof” is required. Have faith!
I’m Irish and Catholic so I know the answers to this one. I don’t need to discuss or debate someone’s lack of faith with them. It’s them that don’t know. I already know.
Colossians 1:16
I suggest you google the text “Case for Creation” there is allot of stuff written on the matter and books available. Expecting one of Freepers who believe in Creation to come up with the perfect answer is asking too much. And these type of theological questions always invites comments from those who think God and creation is nothing but a fairy tale. Yes, even here on FR where you would expect almost all to be believers in a Creator, you will find a few who just can’t believe.
"Nothing exists.
If something does exist, its nature is ultimately infinite and can not be understood.
Assuming something to exist, and that it could be understood, you could never explain it to someone else: there simply aren't enough words."
I can never remember which text it was from...possibly the Tattvarthadhigama Sutra.
And with science there is plenty of dogma to go around as well...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.