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?
Truth can’t change. Then it would cease to be true.
sure.... but evidence is not the same as proof.
And the disciples had both.
They had the miracles, the teaching, the empty tomb, they saw and observed the physical evidence.
They also had the physical, resurrected, living Jesus appear to them and allow them to touch Him and put their hands in His wounds. You can’t get much more proof than that.
But our understanding of truth does change.
I don't know, you tell me.
I was unaware I had insulted anyone.
I have doubts about that
True, I'm among the last of a vanishing breed around these parts. Most other scientists have either been banned or left in disgust.
Want to know why? Just read this thread. But I guess its better than most such threads; we haven't yet been compared to Hitler and the nazis, and I don't recall seeing someone condemning scientists to hell. But the thread is still young!
Why should people look at religion with a skeptical eye for not changing? If it is the truth, then it shouldn't change. As a matter of fact, I couldn't imagine any one in their right minds wanting it to change so the skepticism is unwarranted.
If it isn't truth and does change, then it's no different than science. Yet when people are skeptical of science, they're criticized for that.
So what's the conclusion then? Do we accept and applaud something that changes and condemn something that doesn't for those reasons alone? Is one position superior to the other?
The thing that changes is never right and cannot be presumed to be right the next time. The thing that doesn't change may not be right, but then again it might be and you wouldn't want something that's true to change. Then it wouldn't be true any more.
Yes, I see. I’m sorry and thank you.
Nor have Christians been compared to muslims or Hitler, nor called cretards or IDiots, .... yet.
The evos have no high horse to preach from. They’re guilty of the same kind of behavior you’re condemning in creationists.
I suppose taht as a moderator over at DC, you keep a tight rein on that kind of unseemly behavior and don’t allow it to happen. Right? Right?
Well if you take the way the Fundamentalists think the way the bookings will be made.
Hell gets people like Voltaire, Thomas Jefferson, Mark Twain
Heaven gets people like... well, Ken Ham.
And Mother Theresa, Ronald Reagan, John Paul II, Billy Graham,.. to name a few others.
Perhaps you could point to other non-believers of that caliber.
This may be why:
The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. ~ 1 Corinthians 2:14
marinamuffy
PS - I felt the same way through my teens & early 20's. Thankfully the Lord opened my heart to His love and grace. It's like reading a whole new book since then.
I can tell you from close personal experience that only a handful of people in 1980 believed that Pentium style processors could be built by 1986 - I was one. We did it and the rest is history. Conventional wisdom said it could not be done with the technology available. Did the semiconductor community ignore it because it happened - no they used the information and built on it. I see things like the Dead Sea scrolls to be key to a better understanding of religious positions - many churches consider them irrelevant at best and heresy at worst. Everything historical is data. Data is data some is good some is bad. Some supports the argument and some does not - whatever it is. I do not "believe" in science. Science is a tool to use in exploring the world and our universe. Is it always right - No, but neither is religion.
“It’s certainly a good thing that the moon has never been closer than it is now, and it’s certainly comforting to know it is not getting further away.”
:-)
No party/company there. They (all) are separated in hell yet, will be able to see heaven.
Remember the rich man who had it all on earth, yet, when he died he went to hell and looked up and saw Lazarus in heaven. Lazarus was the the poor beggar, who sat outside the rich man’s gate on earth and was given crumbs from him.
He asked if Lazarus would warn his brothers (on earth) and, then asked, if Lazarus would just give him one drop of water for his tongue. He was told, if they/brothers don’t believe The Word of God, they won’t believe Lazarus. (Isn’t that what we see here? If they don’t believe what God has already spoken, or not even believe in The Creator - nothing we say will change them.)
Lucifer was cast down for his pride - wanted to be like God. Likewise, it’s pride in one’s ‘own’ belief - the NEED to be right. They consider what they see and understand with their natural senses to be true vs. God’s Word. They use natural intelligence as their god, their truth vs. the Supernatural God’s Truth. That’s pride. There is good reason why God told us how/why Lucifer was cast out. God tells us about the Pharisee’s and how they stood on The Law and told Jesus He was wrong! They, too, were prideful and thus UNTEACHABLE.
Those with the robes and studied men, those in prominence do hold their ‘own’ knowledge is high esteem. Their stance: “I have studied, I have seen, I have touched, this theory works, blah, blah - all in the natural”! They CAN’T get past ‘themselves’. A true demonstration of pride.
It’s also comforting to know that earth’s orbit around the sun is not elliptical and the distance from the sun doesn’t vary by millions of miles.
I stand in awe of Freeper science.
I am pleased for you that God has given you the right and responsibility to determine who will be in hell. Guess he is also on the outsourcing train.
Only, it's too transparent to work.
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.