Today’s New Reason To Believe

Kenneth Richard Samples

In his famous play No Exit the French atheistic existential philosopher and writer Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980) wrote:

Hell is other people.

Engaging in apologetic discourse sometimes involves talking with people who have very strong opinions and who are not favorably predisposed toward Christianity. A clash of worldview ideas can sometimes result in a confrontational personal encounter. Often people who hold antithetical positions concerning the big philosophical questions of life end up doing little more than simply talking past each other. And after such an encounter we are sometimes left feeling there is an element of truth in Sartre’s description.

In parts one and two of this series, I discussed the biblical ethical principle known as the “Golden Rule.” This article continues to demonstrate the importance of following this principle while engaging the critical enterprise of Christian apologetics (the defense of the faith, Jude 3).

The Golden Rule in a Debate

To be candid, I like to argue. My fellow RTB scholars who regularly meet with me for lunch at Subway can attest to the truth of this admission. I enjoy formulating and presenting logical arguments as well as critiquing the arguments made by others. However, I have to say that I don’t always enjoy it as much when others critique my arguments.

When I’m in the midst of a truly heated dialogue I am usually not concentrating upon understanding in a dispassionate manner my opponent’s argument. Rather I’m thinking about what to say next once he or she stops talking (in order to stay ahead in the debate). I’ll bet many of you “A-type personality” apologists can relate to my somewhat temperamental condition.

Yet I have discovered an application of the Golden Rule that often helps when engaged in such a debate where you and your antagonist seem to be moving in different conceptual directions.

I stop, take a breath, listen carefully to my opponent and then seek to accurately repeat his argument back to him. I will say something like, “Your central claim seems to be _ _ _ _ _ and your support for it consists of _ _ _ _ _. Now, am I correct in my understanding of your argument?”

Being able to repeat your opponent’s argument usually produces four direct benefits.

First, it ensures that you are not misrepresenting your opponent’s argument (fallacy of the “straw man”). You show that you respect them enough to fully consider their case.

Second, people like to know that they have been heard and that their argument has been correctly recognized. They may even be more open to criticism of their argument when they know that you have endeavored to understand their position correctly. Attitude and demeanor directly affect personal persuasion.

Third, you can only effectively criticize an argument when you have a correct understanding of it. By first seeking understanding you inevitably help your subsequent apologetic critique.

Fourth, this practice helps illustrate to your opponent (as well as to others who may be listening) that you care more about understanding truth than you do about winning an intellectual argument.

After getting a handle on what my opponent is genuinely arguing, I will then ask them if they can repeat my argument back to me. Because I have sincerely sought to understand their perspective, they will often attempt to return the favor in kind. And if they cannot or will not, then it becomes quite evident who is really seeking truth in the dispute.

In ensuing articles I will address other ways in which the Golden Rule of apologetics can be applied.

For more on building intellectual virtue in the area of apologetics, see chapters 3 and 4 of my book, A World of Difference: Putting Christian Truth-Claims to the Worldview Test.

Hugh Ross, Ph.D.

The rare planet doctrine—the conclusion that Earth has many unique, apparently designed, features that enable it to support life and in particular advanced life—is now well established within the scientific community. Likewise, the discovery of over 300 extrasolar gas giant planets combined with spacecraft missions to explore the outer solar system is beginning to establish the rare gas giant planet system doctrine.

In the August 22, 2008 Science News Flash podcast, I reported on a claim made by a team of astronomers that HD 154345b was a Jupiter twin.¹ HD 154345b, which orbits the star HD 154345, is the only known extrasolar planet that comes anywhere close to manifesting the characteristics of Jupiter. However, it is far from being able to make possible the existence of planet capable of sustaining advanced life. For example, HD154345b is too close to its star and it lacks a gas giant partner like Saturn. (For why gas giant planetary companions are essential for advanced life to exist, see my book The Creator and the Cosmos. ²) A new set of theoretical models for planet formation explains why the solar system’s array of gas giant planets is so rare.³

Depending on their birthing circumstances, many medium- and small-sized stars, richly endowed with elements heavier than helium, will form a disk of gas and dust during their first few million years of existence. Detailed numerical simulations of this process showed that if the disk mass is low and the disk viscosity high, the disk will produce no gas giant planets at all. On the other hand, if the mass is high and the viscosity low, the disk will produce numerous gas giant planets with most, if not all, the gas giant planets undergoing significant inward migration and acquiring large eccentricities in their orbits. During and after planet formation, the chaos generated by the migration and eccentricities results in many of the planets either being ejected from the planetary system or being absorbed into the star.

The simulations demonstrated that a set of gas giant planets akin to Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune requires exquisite fine-tuning. For one, the time required for the first gas giant planet to form in the system must equal the time for gas and dust to be depleted from the disk (plus a specified tiny time difference). Thus, naturally forming planetary systems will rarely, if ever, duplicate our solar system’s array of gas giant planets.

These computer simulations were the most detailed performed to date. They were the first giant planet formation simulations to deliver results that matched the statistics of all the planets discovered beyond the solar system. This outcome confirmed the basic reliability of the simulation. Thus, it shows that natural processes alone are unlikely to produce the advanced-life essential properties manifested in Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune. Evidently, the solar system’s collection of gas giants was exquisitely designed by a supernatural, super-intelligent Creator in order to provide a bountiful home on Earth for human beings.

1. J. T. Wright et al., “The Jupiter Twin HD 154345b,” Astrophysical Journal Letters 683 (August 10, 2008): L63 - L66.
2. Hugh Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos, 3rd ed. (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 2001), 183, 192.
3. Edward W. Thommes, Soko Matsumura, and Frederic A. Rasio, “Gas Disks to Gas Giants: Simulating the Birth of Planetary Systems,” Science 321 (August 8, 2008): 814 - 17.

David H. Rogstad, Ph.D.

I just finished reading a book that has been on my shelf for some time. It is William Lane Craig’s apologetic for the Christian faith entitled Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics (This is actually a newly published 3rd edition; I read the 2nd edition). It sat there as long as it did because I had the impression it would not be an easy read. I was right. But upon my perusal, it proved to be a rich source of material on a variety of apologetic topics. The summaries that he added to the end of each chapter are particularly helpful, giving suggestions to the reader on how to make use of the arguments presented.

Two sections in particular caught my attention. The first (found toward the end chapter 1) was his discussion of the self-authenticating witness of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer. It is unusual for a book this intently intellectual to call attention to this (in my view) most important argument for our faith. The second section (in chapter two) was his discussion of the absurdity of a life without God.

He opens this chapter summarizing the comments of a number of authors, including Pascal, Dostoyevsky, Kierkegaard, and Schaeffer, who have written about the “human predicament” of a life without God. All of these authors addressed the despair humanity faces in such circumstances.

Then Craig begins his assessment of what the human predicament entails: “If God does not exist, then both man and the universe are inevitably doomed to death.” Life has no ultimate meaning, value, or purpose. As he expands on each of these areas, he paints a grim picture of life without immortality and God. To communicate the power of his style, I quote from the text.

On meaning he says:

If each individual person passes out of existence when he dies, then what ultimate meaning can be given to his life? Does it really matter whether he ever existed at all? It might be said that his life was important because it influenced others or affected the course of history. But this shows only a relative significance to his life, not an ultimate significance.

On value:

If life ends at the grave, then it makes no difference whether one has lived as a Stalin or as a saint. Since one’s destiny is ultimately unrelated to one’s behavior, you may as well just live as you please…In a world without a divine lawgiver, there can be no objective right and wrong, only our culturally and personally relative, subjective judgments.

On purpose:

If death stands with open arms at the end of life’s trail, then what is the goal of life? To what end has life been lived?…Is it utterly pointless? If its destiny is a cold grave in the recesses of outer space, the answer must be yes—it is pointless. There is no goal, no purpose, for the universe…If there is no God, then our life is not fundamentally different from that of a dog.

In the closing sections of his chapter, Craig then addresses the practical impossibility of living, consistently, a life of atheism, and at the same time, to remain happy. It is either one or the other. Philosophers will say, in the face of this dilemma, we should create meaning by following a chosen course of action. But how can we, on the one hand, believe life is absurd, and on the other, try to create meaning? It makes no sense. It is a game of pretense. How can a person be a social critic, like Bertrand Russell, denouncing war and restrictions on sexual freedom, and at the same time admit that these things are just a matter of personal taste? If there is not God, then all the evil acts of men go unpunished and all the sacrifices of good men go unrewarded. Who can live with such a view? Craig argues that many who live a life of atheism, in fact, subconsciously borrow belief in immortality from those who held to it in the past. But they have no ground for believing now. In summary, he says:

Man cannot live consistently and happily as though life were ultimately without meaning, value, or purpose. If we try to live consistently within the framework of the atheistic worldview, we shall find ourselves profoundly unhappy. If instead we manage to live happily, it is only by giving the lie to our worldview.

Craig then points out that if the Christian worldview is correct, God does exist, life does not end with the grave, and we do have meaning, value, and purpose. Because of this, we can live both a consistent and a happy life!

Altogether, I find his discussion provides a powerful apologetic for biblical Christianity.