Today’s New Reason To Believe

Previously Posted on November 11th, 2008 by Kenneth Richard Samples

What factors go into making a powerful and persuasive apologetic witness to the truth of Christianity?

Biblically speaking, the ultimate reason that a person comes to faith in Jesus Christ is the efficacious work of God’s Spirit in that individual’s mind and soul (Ephesians 2:4-5; Titus 3:5). God uses the Gospel message (the “good news” concerning Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection) to call and enable a person to repent of their sin and to accept Christ as Lord and Savior (Romans 10:17; Ephesians 2:8-9).

Historic Christianity affirms grace (the unmerited favor and love of God) as the basis of salvation, whereas, faith (confident trust in Christ) is the instrument by which a person receives it. The Protestant Reformers proclaimed that salvation comes by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.

Yet God uses the limited and imperfect apologetic and evangelistic efforts of his church to bring people to this glorious new life of salvation. Apologetics is an important enterprise that helps both believer and non-believer to see the basic reasonableness and truthfulness of Christianity.

In this article I will discuss three factors that apologetically impact people in terms of persuasion concerning the truth of historic Christianity.

Christian Apologetic Logos, Ethos, and Pathos

The great Greek philosopher Aristotle (384-322 B.C.) wrote about the enterprise known as rhetoric, the art of persuasion. He introduced the modes of persuasion as including logos, ethos, and pathos. Let’s examine these dynamics of persuasion in light of Christian apologetics.

1. Logos: This Greek term, meaning word, is used in the New Testament itself (John 1:1) and has come to refer to the appeal to the rational and intellectual sphere of life. In fact, the English word logic is derived from this word. When Christian apologists appeal to reason, logic, and rationality to support the truth-claims of their faith, they are engaged in the persuasive use of logos (persuading through the use of reason). The New Testament word (apologia) from which we get the word apologetics refers to “a reasoned defense of the faith” (1 Peter 3:15). The logos aspect of persuasion focuses on the clarity, consistency, and cogency of the message being delivered up for consideration.

In applying directly to an individual’s reason, the Christian apologist shows respect for a person’s inherent rational abilities. While some contemporary Christian groups seem to devalue the place of reason in the Christian life, the clear apologetic consensus throughout church history is that the faith involves knowledge and is compatible with reason. Non-believers need to know that the Christian worldview holds together logically and makes sense of the world and life. And apologists need to be skilled in their use of reason and logic.

2. Ethos: This Greek term appeals to the sphere of moral credibility. The English word ethics is derived from ethos. People tend to believe and thus become persuaded by those whom they respect and trust, those who possess moral credibility.

The Christian apologist can sincerely convey the impression of trustworthiness when his life matches his words. A person’s character and reputation go along way in impacting believability. Peter exhorts apologists within the early church to carry on the defense of the faith with “gentleness and respect” and “keeping a clear conscience” (1 Peter 3:15-16). In terms of persuasion, the demeanor and attitude of apologists may carry as much weight as their arguments.

3. Pathos: This Greek term gave rise to the English words sympathy and empathy. This mode of persuasion appeals to emotion. When people are “touched,” or have their emotions “evoked,” they tend to relate to an issue in a personal way. When people can identify with a cause, their commitment level often runs deep.

The Gospel message of God’s love for sinners and Christ’s sacrifice on the cross tends to grip people at the core of their being. It is critical for apologists to tie the defense of the faith closely to Christian theology. People tend to love a good story and the Gospel is the greatest story ever told.

Christian apologists are in the business of persuasion, and Aristotle’s rhetorical modes of persuasion can be used as effective tools in the trade.

For more on building the skills of persuasion in the area of apologetics, see my book A World of Difference: Putting Christian Truth-Claims to the Worldview Test.

Previously Posted on November 12, 2007 by Hugh Ross, Ph.D

One of the cornerstone doctrines of the Christian faith is that humans alone among all life-forms on Earth are sinners. According to the Bible, all humans and only humans are born with the propensity to commit evil acts. That being the case, it should not be difficult for scientists to develop tests to confirm or deny this essential teaching of the Christian faith.

A team of evolutionary biologists at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology recently performed such a test.¹ The team put chimpanzees in cages where the chimps could withhold food from other chimpanzees by pulling on a rope. The researchers found that the chimpanzees would not withhold food from their compatriots out of pure spite. They would only do so, in a statistically significant manner, in response to a chimp that stole its food.

Interestingly, if a human stole its food and gave it another chimp, there was no significant response toward the chimp that received the food. Also, the team made no attempt to test whether or not chimpanzees would engage in “altruistic punishment” (punishing fellow chimpanzees who stole food from other chimpanzees with whom they had no social contact), though they hinted that they would do so in a future study.

The research team concluded that spiteful behavior appears to be unique to the human species. Only humans will engage in malicious behavior toward their compatriots for no other reason than the fact that they want to hurt someone. The team also commented on humanity’s flip side, namely, that only humans will engage in “pure altruism” (self-sacrificial acts performed to reward or rescue another human being with whom no social context has ever existed or could ever possibly exist). The team thus confirmed the Bible’s repeated commentaries on the state of humanity: uniquely evil among all life on Earth but also uniquely righteous.

1. Keith Jensen, Josep Call, and Michael Tomasello, “Chimpanzees Are Vengeful But Not Spiteful,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 104 (August 7, 2007): 13046-50.

Keith McPherson

Keith McPherson received his Master of Science in Electrical Engineering from Georgia Institute of Technology in 1993, and currently works as an electrical engineer in Melbourne, FL, in the fields of communications and signal processing.

     -------------------------------

Parts 1 through 4 of this series described such features as information-processing systems, Gray codes, even parity codes, and error-minimization techniques in biological systems. A fifth feature (not part of this series) observed an analogy of a feedback control system found in dairy cows.

What do these apparent analogies of design in nature mean? Are they really analogues and how do they relate to the popular watchmaker argument?

William Paley’s Watchmaker Argument¹

British natural theologian William Paley (1743-1805) is famous for his so-called watchmaker argument. Paley argued that in contrast to a stone, a watch found on a remote path implies a watchmaker. Unlike the stone, the watch could not be constructed by the forces of nature. Paley further argued that organisms are similar to a watch in complexity (in fact, more complex); therefore, a Divine Designer can be inferred. (See here for more details about William Paley and his watchmaker argument.)

A contemporary of Paley, Scottish philosopher David Hume (1711-1776) offered several criticisms of Paley’s argument. In Hume’s estimation, the analogical argument between organisms and a watch was weak. Hume argued that the objects being compared (living organisms and a watch) were too dissimilar to constitute a good analogy; therefore, Paley’s argument would not stand. (See here and here for more information on David Hume and his objections to the design argument.)

Modern critics have added further reasons for doubting the legitimacy of the watchmaker argument. B. C. Johnson has argued that Paley did not use a strict-enough criterion for identifying design. For Paley, design was evident when a system contained several parts “framed and put together for a purpose.” Johnson, in contrast, says “we can identify a thing as designed, even when we do not know its purpose, only if it resembles the things we make to express our purposes.”²

Logician Patrick J. Hurley demonstrates the appropriate use of analogy. To build a strong analogy, Hurley reasons that one must find sufficiently numerous and relevant attributes in both halves of the analogy to establish an analogical relationship that supports the conclusion drawn. An analogy is more firmly established when the analogous systems are diverse and abundant.³

Have these criteria been established in the examples considered in this series?

As an engineer I would submit these reasons in arguing for an undeniable “yes”:

the genetic system is, by any objective standard, an information-processing system in the same way that our modern communication systems are;

the genetic information-processing system uses discrete, symbolic alphabets and sequences just as our modern digital communication systems do;

numerous and diverse analogies directly resemble our own designs in information-processing and error-control coding;

we have found these analogies to be strict and robust between the domains— analogies that highlight techniques that are aimed to minimize errors and maximize information transfer;

we have seen analogies of Gray codes, parity codes, and even feedback control systems (see here);

the genetic code has been found to be highly optimized, literally one-in-a-million in terms of its error-minimization capacities, and the very same code simultaneously conforms to a specific and unique mathematical structure that enables, in addition, the existence of code(s) operating along the DNA strands;

statistical studies of actual DNA reveal a signature that further suggests that codes similar to the parity code may well be in operation along the DNA strands.

Thus, twenty-first century insight into the genetic system has helped settle the centuries-old debate. The analogies discussed meet the objections raised and standards set by Hume, Johnson, and Hurley. Paley’s watchmaker argument is indeed reinvigorated with this new and powerful evidence coming from the intersection of molecular biology and information theory.

This evidence buttresses the divine design component of RTB’s creation model and finds a comfortable spot within the worldview of Christian theism.

Notes/References:

1. See here for further information on Paley’s argument, and objections raised, in the context of molecular motors.

2. Fazale Rana, “Hume vs. Paley: These “Motors” Settle the Debate,” Facts for Faith, no. 2 (Q2 2000).

3. Fazale Rana, “Hume vs. Paley: These “Motors” Settle the Debate.”