I've had an interesting relationship with Christian apologetics in the last couple of years. I began with The Reason for God by Timothy Keller, went on to stuff like The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel and Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis and so on, and they were able to satisfy me intellectually at the time, but I'm ready to move on to bigger things. I'm ready to read more academic stuff that's actually discussed among scholars (which I have been), not the layman apologetics books you see on church shelves. I'm ready to read more stuff by nonbelievers so I can understand them and avoid misrepresenting them. Not that I have a problem with books like the ones I mentioned. They all helped me get started on this intellectual journey of mine. They helped me see that Christianity is something that I can think about and not just "have faith" blindly. They helped me see that I could defend my position and argue against opposing viewpoints. For that I am thankful to them. I'm going to start my major in philosophy next semester and I can't wait. It'll be a challenge, but I'll pull through.

I'm now reading Aristotle's Rhetoric and recently ordered David Hume's An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding.

Doubting Thomas

I recently read an article on USA Today by evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne called Science and Religion aren't Friends. In this rather angry article, he vilifies religious faith for supposedly being incompatible with science, supposedly being against evidence, and causing much of the violence in the world. I'm not going to talk much about the article (and there's a LOT to talk about), but I wanted to bring up something he said about faith and evidence:

"Note that almost all religions make specific claims about the world involving matters such as the existence of miracles, answered prayers wonder-working saints and divine cures, virgin births, annunciations and resurrections. These factual claims, whose truth is a bedrock of belief, bring religion within the realm of scientific study. But rather than relying on reason and evidence to support them, faith relies on revelation, dogma and authority. Hebrews 11:1 states, with complete accuracy, 'Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.' Indeed, a doubting-Thomas demand for evidence is often considered rude." (1)

First off, I think his view of Hebrews 11:1 is too simplistic, but I was more focused on what he said about Thomas. He is right that Thomas, one of Christ's apostles, is often times seen in a negative light by the church because of his demand for evidence of the resurrection. Michael Williams says that “the church has often condemned him for this doubt. The hymn 'These Things Did Thomas Count as Real' criticises Thomas as being unspiritual because he wanted physical evidence of the resurrection,” (2). Let's look at the story and go on from there:

Now Thomas, one of the Twelve, called the Twin, was not with them when Jesus came. So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord.” But he said to them, “Unless I see in his hands the mark of the nails, and place my finger into the mark of the nails, and place my hand into his side, I will never believe.”

Eight days later, his disciples were inside again, and Thomas was with them. Although the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you.” Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe.” Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!” Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” John 20:24-29

This happened after Jesus had resurrected and and showed himself to his disciples. It's true that this is sometimes talked about within the church as one of those embarassing stories of the apostles on par with Peter's denying Jesus and the disciples arguing over who's greater. But was his demand for evidence really such a vice? Let's look at what the Bible says rather than look at how Christians have reacted to it throughout history.

First, the Bible is not against evidence, it's all for it. One could deny that the Bible records any historical truth, but just looking at the text itself shows that the characters in the Bible were never given no reason to believe in God. The Israelites were given reason to believe and fear God because of the miraculous things he did before them; bringing them “out with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm” (Deut. 5:15). In 1 Peter 3:15 Peter says, “but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you...” Giving a reason, of course, means that you have a reason for your hope. Hope itself isn't its own answer, but the reason that you have that hope is. I think a few more verses will suffice:

“... for he (Apollos) powerfully refuted the Jews in public, showing by the Scriptures sthat the Christ was Jesus. (Acts 18:28)

“And he entered the synagogue and for three months spoke boldly, reasoning and persuading them about the kingdom of God.” (Acts 19:8)

“Jesus answered them, 'I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father's name bear witness about me...'” (John 10:25) (Jesus isn't just using his own words to tell people who he is, but uses his signs as evidence for who he is)

So Biblically it looks like reason and evidence are very important. So what is my point exactly? My point is this: it wasn't wrong for Thomas to want evidence for Jesus' resurrection. What Thomas asked was completely normal and expected. Michael Williams says it like this:

“Yes, Thomas wanted physical evidence. But Christians have often gotten the story wrong: Thomas was right, not wrong, to want it.” (3)

If you read the passage you'll notice that Jesus doesn't rebuke Thomas in any way. Eight days after he demanded evidence (who knows what Thomas may have struggled with in those eight days) Jesus appeared to him and said “Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe,” (v. 27). Jesus grants his request and gives him the evidence that he desires. Jesus understands the need for evidence and he understands the fallen nature of humans (Hebrews 4:15). After seeing Jesus Thomas immediately starts worshipping him. It would seem from the text that he didn't even need to touch Jesus' wounds, he was just convinced right then and there. After that Jesus says “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed” (v. 29). Again, he's not rebuking Thomas at all, but he is saying that we who have not seen Jesus in person are not disadvantaged in any way. We're blessed in a certain way because we believe without seeing him risen in person. So it would seem to me by looking at the passage that Thomas wasn't ultimately wrong for wanting evidence that he could see.

This doesn't mean Thomas' demand isn't completely without sin though. Jesus told the disciples several times that he was going to die and rise again. The disciples all told him that they saw Jesus- which is something they wouldn't have lied about considering the circumstances- but he still didn't believe them. It's obvious that sin had made his heart so hard that he wasn't letting himself be convinced by the evidence being revealed to him. Still, though his request wasn't completely righteous, as any thought and action of a person isn't, ultimately it wasn't wrong for Thomas to want to see Jesus physically to really believe. One of the things the Gospels stressed about Jesus' resurrection most was the fact that it was a physical resurrection, not simply a spiritual one. This points towards God's redemption and restoration of ALL things, not just spiritual things. And we await the day that all things are restored and made new.

“For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. For in this hope we were saved.” (Romans 8:20-24)

(1) Coyne, Jerry A. "Science and Religion Aren't Friends." USA Today. N.p., 11 Oct. 2010. Web. 5 Dec. 2010. .

(2) Williams, Michael D. Far as the Curse is Found. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2005. 3. Print.

(3) Ibid., pg. 4.

Truth and Desire

I recently watched the panel discussion that took place in Mexico debating the topic "Does the Universe have a Purpose?" It was three atheists against three theists. The most well known of the panelists were biologist Richard Dawkins and philosopher William Lane Craig. Hopefully someday those two will do a full-fledged one-on-one debate. This isn't the topic of my post though. One of the things that Dawkins said kinda struck me (actually a ton of things struck me, but I'll talk about this one thing in this post). I'm not going to be quoting the panelists word-for-word so please bear with me. Rabbi Wolpe had ended his segment saying that believing in meaning, purpose, the afterlife, etc., aren't irrational. When it was Dawkins turn again he said it is, of course, nice to believe that you're going to a better place when you die; of course it's nice to believe there's some purpose for you; but that doesn't make it true.

Dawkins makes a good point. The very act of believing something doesn't make that something true. However, I don't think this was Wolpe's point. He wasn't saying it must be true because he and so many people believe it, he was just saying it isn't irrational. Second, the argument is a double-edged sword that works just as much against atheism as it does towards theism. Some people want atheism to be true. They believe there isn't a God, but the fact that they believe it doesn't make it true.

Let's look at this a different way though. Why is it that so many people believe there's purpose and meaning and desire to have it? Why is it that so many people desire God in some way or in life after death? When I say this I don't mean that people just desire to make up their own subjective purpose, but that's part of it. However, many people also ask why they're here and what the meaning in life is. They're asking if there is an objective purpose to their existence; one that they wish to find. Could it possibly be because these things are true? Humans typically have desires that can be fulfilled in some way. We desire sustenance, so there's such a thing as food to fill that need. We desire love, so there's friends and family to fill that need. The fact that we desire these things doesn't guarantee we'll get them, but it points to the reality that there are such things that can satisfy us; otherwise why would we have those desires? Maybe the reason we desire purpose, life after death, and God is because there's a satisfaction for those desires; they're real.

C.S. Lewis put it well in his book Mere Christianity:

"Creatures are not born with desires unless satisfaction for those desires exist. A baby feels hunger: well, there is such a thing as food. A duckling wants to swim: well, there is such a thing as water. Men feel sexual desire: well, there is such a thing as sex. If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world." (1)

(1)Lewis, Clive S. Mere Christianity. New York: Harper One, 1952. 136-37. Print.