Great post. Reason matters, but faith counts. There was a universe before we were around to think about it, and somehow it has managed to develop, all without our guidance. We know more and more about what the universe is, but we still know nothing about WHY it is. That leaves plenty of room for thought. It's thought that many atheists can't be bothered with, yet they sometimes think they're the smart ones.
Oops, maybe I shouldn't have titled my last book "Science and Faith in Harmony". Dr. Lennox is probably not happy with it. But then again, the target audience is mostly Christians, (atheists don't read my books)
Yeah, and that was pretty much his point. We can use Christianese with each other. But if we're trying to be persuasive with atheists, he thinks it's best if we use something other than "faith."
I understand the word faith to mean unconditional trust and acceptance. I prefer to reserve faith for religion.
I do not want to have faith in government. I would _like_ to have _confidence_ in government; trust backed up by experience. I figure that people who want us to have faith in government at some level want us to worship it.
My experience is that, irrespective of terms, atheists can and will denigrate anything and everything a believer says, when a believer shares the truth in love. The atheist’s heart is blinded to the truth. It takes the work of the Holy Spirit. Of course, as Christians, we aim to speak as wisely as possible. What is the background of who you are trying to reach? I’d have a different approach for one who clearly knew the gospel, but lashed out at it, than one who never heard it before. I’ve encountered both in my research career.
From an article, “Nazi Rocket Scientist Wernher von Braun Converted to Christ, Interviewed by C. M. Ward”
“In Germany, von Braun had been nominally Lutheran but functionally atheist. He had no interest in religion or God. In Texas, while living at Fort Bliss, a neighbor invited him to church. He went, expecting to find the religious equivalent of a country club. Instead, he found a small white frame building with a vibrant congregation of people who loved the Lord. He realized that he had been morally adrift and that he needed to surrender himself to God. He converted to Christ and, over the coming years, became quite outspoken in his evangelical faith and frequently addressed the complementarity of faith and science.”
Another word is truth, which–based on the examples you gave on how physical laws work despite our emotions/feelings about it–is something which has been tried, tested and proven!
“Faith” and “Belief” have become synonymous in our culture. That’s why “Trust” is such an excellent choice. Understandable, but not easily trivialized.
The argument, that faith is the act of holding onto a belief you once accepted through reason in spite of your transitory emotions, is B.S.- bad science. I have never encountered a Christian whose belief in God was based on compelling evidence or sound reasoning.
Basic reason leads us to just four possibilities about God: 1) there is no god, 2) the pagan belief in capricious gods, 3) the deist belief in an indifferent god or 4) a god that loves us. Even a militant atheist like Richard Dawkins would agree that the last one would be the best, but without evidence he can’t accept it. Christians believe in alternative four because they feel a great need to.
But a belief in God has not been reasonable since the time of Darwin. When I was in high school and college during the 1960s, all the evidence and all the sciences were contrary to Christian beliefs. I was taught that cosmology showed the universe was eternal and uncaused. That meant the first ten words of the Bible were totally wrong. Why should anyone trust a book that starts off with a lie? The Bible goes on to say that our world and everything in it were created in six days which was scientifically ridiculous. Modern geology proved that the earth is billions of years old. Modern biology showed that we are descendants of apes rather than higher beings created in the image of some mythical god. Modern astronomy demonstrated that we inhabit a planet that amounts to little more than a tiny chunk of rock hurtling through a vast and uncaring universe. None of the sciences gave my generation any indication of a God who had gone out of His way to provide us with a special home. Choosing to be an atheist was the only reasonable thing to do.
Despite the science, some people continue to believe in God because that is how they were brought up or what they need to believe to find comfort. Most Christians today do not even attempt to justify their belief in God with any evidence or actual reasoning. The few who have tried only managed to cobble together some weak arguments. Of these, the finely tuned universe has gained the most interest and support. But, at best, it unconvincingly ‘suggests’ that some kind of ‘intelligent designer’ ‘might’ exist. None of the so-called evidence that Christians present to support their faith in God is compelling.
That is why Christians are losing badly to the atheists. That is why Christians will become a marginalized minority in America within a generation. Christians need to ask themselves a crucial question – how can the faithful servants of an almighty God be failing so badly? Either their god is not almighty, or they are not the faithful servants they think they are.
One answer to this question of why Christianity is failing can be found online in a 14 second video titled Ricky Gervais Brilliantly Explains Atheism. “Can you prove it?” Until Christians can give a different answer to this question, they are, in the language of the 60s, just a bunch of losers blowing smoke.
We appear to live in a cruelly indifferent world where there is so much suffering, and our existence ends in the utter annihilation of death. So, yes, we all want to believe in the fourth possibility – a God who loves us. This desperate emotional need is the real ‘reason’ Christians believe in God. Their ‘faith’ is not based on any actual reasoning or sound evidence. They are simply trying to get over all the terrible doubt, fear and apparent hopelessness of our existence.
You can sense the lack of reason and evidence to support their faith in God in the way Christians are so sadly compelled to write a never-ending stream of feel-good books, have feel-good religious ceremonies and hold feel-good events. It is all part of what is proving to be a futile effort to sustain each other’s’ unreasonable belief in a loving deity.
Dr. Salviander, you have presented no compelling scientific evidence to support your faith in God. It is therefore unreasonable. The atheists are right that at its core your belief amounts to blind faith based on the need to feel certain that you are loved by a being that somehow has the power to make everything turn out well for you.
Until you can scientifically prove that your God exists, you should quit spouting nonsense about Christian faith being based on reason and evidence.
With all due respect, that is exactly what your article was about. You began by arguing against the atheist view that all faith is 'blind faith' based on a belief in God that either has no supporting evidence or is held in spite of evidence to the contrary. That charge has to be answered because atheists have offered significant scientific proof against a belief in God. When I went to school and college in the 1960s, almost all established science was against faith in God. The only reasonable thing for people of my generation was to choose agnosticism or atheism. My question to you is what has changed?
You imply there is sufficient evidence to make a belief in God reasonable, but you don't provide any. You say that people would be justified in having faith if they think something is likely true in spite of their inability to prove it. This is the same argument Richard Dawkins uses in The God Delusion to promote atheism.
You then argue that sometimes you just need to have faith in something even though you have no idea if it is true or not. But the matrix example you give is disturbing. If that's true, the only reason to believe in a loving God instead of amoral, soulless machines is which one appeals more to our emotions. This is not a convincing argument in favor of Christian faith.
You finish your article with the statement that it is necessary to convince atheists that Christian beliefs are reasonable and compatible with modern science. Your solution is to find more persuasive words than 'faith'. I say what is needed is for Christians to provide compelling evidence that people can use to reason their way to a belief in God. And I agree with Lewis that it needs to be convincing and enduring enough to survive any emotional turmoil they may experience in their lives.
I don’t think faith is a bad word, however, I define faith as a trust in what we have reason to believe is true, i.e. it is built on reason. I define science as an unrestricted search for truth about nature based on reasoning from physical evidence. In addition to scripture and faith, in cases where ‘answers’ cannot be given in terms of logic or a rigorous mathematical proof, we can use the standard of proof called ‘beyond reasonable doubt’, i.e. abductive reasoning. So, I think a word that could be used is 'indubitable', as it implies a high level of certainty or conviction. My next choice of word would be 'undeniable'. However, as a straight swap-out for the word faith, I agree with Sarah and would use the word 'trust'. Finally, I have not heard of the statement Jon at (https://scientificproofgodexists.com/) ... that the highest level of proof we are capable of - proof beyond any scientific doubt.
There has been a second stage of the scientific revolution over the last 60 years mostly due to amazing new technology. It has completely changed the relationship between science and Christian scriptures. To the point that it is now possible to build a proof of God's existence that is far beyond any reasonable or scientific doubt. For example, the chance that the Big Bang Theory is wrong has been calculated by scientists to be 1 out of 3.5 million. The chance that God does not exist is less than 1 out of 10 octillion. Go to scientificproofgodexists.com and you will be the third person in the world that knows the proof.
Well, let’s not bank too much on the Big Bang theory. It is helpful to literal biblical interpretation only in that it points toward a definite beginning to the universe.
Interesting points, but let's also consider the following.
This world is not the kind of world God originally created it to be because "God saw all that he had made, and it was very good." (Genesis 1:31a NIV)
Creation has undergone a profound alteration and aberration, "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23 NIV).
But God has undertaken to redeem this broken world into a glorious one.
"For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope • that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God."
(Romans 8:20-21 NIV)
And when all is accomplished, He will return again to enjoy the restored world with His redeemed people.
"But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, where righteousness dwells." (2 Peter 3:13 NIV)
We can believe this report of Scripture and have hope or continue in our despair in this broken world as the Apostle Paul pointed out:
"If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied." (1 Corinthians 15:19 NIV)
The whole of 1 Corinthians 15 touches on most of the questions many have.
To Jon Hampton: From your blog "Stupified" (acknowledging I've only had the chance to review it briefly), you appear to be some sort of apologist for God. Yet from your comment I initially thought the opposite.
I would like to say this to you. First, you can no longer make the claim that you've "never encountered a Christian whose belief in God was based on compelling evidence or sound reasoning" because you've just met one. Actually though, I've heard of others who came to Christianity by studying the evidence.
I think your basic problem is that you have NOT studied the evidence--you've just read all the hearsay. What you're citing are all talking points, not actual evidence or scientific fact.
I can't claim to have seen all the evidence, but I've looked deeply enough into certain key questions in apologetics to know that what is taught as science in schools is riddled with bad science, misdirection, and downright fraud. Do you seriously believe that science proves we're all descended from apes? You really don't know much about science at all, do you?
It is absolutely true that Christianity no longer has the influence in the world it once had. However, it's decline does not seem to be based on lack of evidence, but rather upon a persistent anti-Christian campaign that has been waged now for over 100 years. What's amazing to me, as I've watched this go on now for over half a century, is that the very object of that campaign corroborates the truth of the Bible. Why such an intensive, coordinated, and expensive campaign if the Bible is not true? Why is it that the core objectives of this campaign are always, without exception, directly opposed to some biblical text or teaching? Why not some other religion or teaching?
You've also fallen for the fallacy that it is up to Christians to prove the existence of God. Just think about how ridiculous that is. Do I have to prove the existence of anyone else? How about people in the past? There is more than sufficient evidence to make a prima facie case for the existence of God despite the fact we can't see spiritual beings. You obviously know about it because it's on your blog. Therefore, the burden is on atheists to demonstrate the non-existence of God. Why should I NOT believe the evidence?
That is the point Sarah seems to be making here. Listening to atheists' responses strikes many reasonable people as in "bad faith." They are always twisting things, avoiding important points, hyper-focusing on some detail they think benefits their position to the exclusion of everything else, often misrepresenting facts, and relying heavily on straw man and ad hominem arguments. It becomes obvious they are doing exactly what the Bible says, "suppressing the truth in unrighteousness."
I agree with you that many Christians today are ignorant of both the Bible and science. That is sad. If Christians are to be blamed for their loss of influence, therein lies the problem. They are often living on blind faith when they should take the time and effort to investigate the evidence. Atheists generally target such people and avoid those who can fight back to create the perception that their side has the upper ground, when in fact it does not.
We do currently "live in a cruelly indifferent world where there is so much suffering." As somebody else commented, the Bible provides the reason for that. However, what evidence do you have that "our existence ends in the utter annihilation of death?" Just think about this for a second. When a person dies, their body is still there, but their being is not. Isn't that evidence against annihilation?
I challenge you to do two things. First, read the Bible. Don't stop until you've read it cover to cover. When you're done, start over again, because every time you'll learn more. Second, stop reading all the tabloid science and start investigating the actual scientific evidence. I bet it will surprise you.
In the 1960s, the science I was taught 'proved' God doesn't exist, the Bible is silly superstition, and Christianity is harmful. Millions of people of my generation have lived by those beliefs for the last 60 years. Then about ten years ago I was made aware of a second stage of the scientific revolution that has completely changed the relationship between science and faith.
It is now possible to prove all of the following beyond any scientific doubt: God exists, the first page of the Bible is the most remarkable scientific document ever written, and Christianity is the spiritual and intellectual basis of almost all human progress. But almost no one knows this because atheists control our schools, colleges and media, and because Christian apologists are so ineffective.
The terrible truth is that Christians are losing, and atheists are winning. This is happening because Christians are woefully ignorant of current science and the atheist are relentless in their efforts to continue spreading false science.
Christians need to learn the new scientific proof of God's existence, and then use it courageously destroy atheism completely and forever. Go to scientificproofgodexists.com
Fair enough. I am very concerned about young people these days because I think they are being misled and they don’t have as much access to better information that was available to prior generations.
I appreciate your zeal. I don’t see the point of being so harsh towards Sarah though—she’s on her own spiritual journey.
By the way, I think the case for the Bible is even stronger in some respects than what I saw on your blog…
Can't think of anything more important than "faith" when it comes to the afterlife. Ok, how about "belief"-- the foundation and structure of the afterlife?
I don’t think the problem is word choice. Biblical faith has a “faithful” component. Our faith is derived from what we know of YHWH God and what He’s done in the past. “Faithful” in the sense that we don’t abandon that knowledge and relationship in hard times but rather stand firm in the hope that the same God will fulfill His promises and remain unchanged.
Great post. Reason matters, but faith counts. There was a universe before we were around to think about it, and somehow it has managed to develop, all without our guidance. We know more and more about what the universe is, but we still know nothing about WHY it is. That leaves plenty of room for thought. It's thought that many atheists can't be bothered with, yet they sometimes think they're the smart ones.
Lennox is being too charitable if he assumes the atheists are attempting to understand. It's Jesus they don't like, not faith.
Oops, maybe I shouldn't have titled my last book "Science and Faith in Harmony". Dr. Lennox is probably not happy with it. But then again, the target audience is mostly Christians, (atheists don't read my books)
Yeah, and that was pretty much his point. We can use Christianese with each other. But if we're trying to be persuasive with atheists, he thinks it's best if we use something other than "faith."
I think it was Aquinas who called faith a "deliberately irrational act", which I think nicely captures the notion of "surrendering" to faith.
I imagine the term an atheist scientist would be looking for is “quantifiable probability”. They’re analytical types you know.
I understand the word faith to mean unconditional trust and acceptance. I prefer to reserve faith for religion.
I do not want to have faith in government. I would _like_ to have _confidence_ in government; trust backed up by experience. I figure that people who want us to have faith in government at some level want us to worship it.
My experience is that, irrespective of terms, atheists can and will denigrate anything and everything a believer says, when a believer shares the truth in love. The atheist’s heart is blinded to the truth. It takes the work of the Holy Spirit. Of course, as Christians, we aim to speak as wisely as possible. What is the background of who you are trying to reach? I’d have a different approach for one who clearly knew the gospel, but lashed out at it, than one who never heard it before. I’ve encountered both in my research career.
From an article, “Nazi Rocket Scientist Wernher von Braun Converted to Christ, Interviewed by C. M. Ward”
“In Germany, von Braun had been nominally Lutheran but functionally atheist. He had no interest in religion or God. In Texas, while living at Fort Bliss, a neighbor invited him to church. He went, expecting to find the religious equivalent of a country club. Instead, he found a small white frame building with a vibrant congregation of people who loved the Lord. He realized that he had been morally adrift and that he needed to surrender himself to God. He converted to Christ and, over the coming years, became quite outspoken in his evangelical faith and frequently addressed the complementarity of faith and science.”
Wow, this is deep and thought-provoking.
Another word is truth, which–based on the examples you gave on how physical laws work despite our emotions/feelings about it–is something which has been tried, tested and proven!
“Faith” and “Belief” have become synonymous in our culture. That’s why “Trust” is such an excellent choice. Understandable, but not easily trivialized.
Shane Rosenthal's "Humble Skeptic", (podcast, substack), does a great job here as well.
The argument, that faith is the act of holding onto a belief you once accepted through reason in spite of your transitory emotions, is B.S.- bad science. I have never encountered a Christian whose belief in God was based on compelling evidence or sound reasoning.
Basic reason leads us to just four possibilities about God: 1) there is no god, 2) the pagan belief in capricious gods, 3) the deist belief in an indifferent god or 4) a god that loves us. Even a militant atheist like Richard Dawkins would agree that the last one would be the best, but without evidence he can’t accept it. Christians believe in alternative four because they feel a great need to.
But a belief in God has not been reasonable since the time of Darwin. When I was in high school and college during the 1960s, all the evidence and all the sciences were contrary to Christian beliefs. I was taught that cosmology showed the universe was eternal and uncaused. That meant the first ten words of the Bible were totally wrong. Why should anyone trust a book that starts off with a lie? The Bible goes on to say that our world and everything in it were created in six days which was scientifically ridiculous. Modern geology proved that the earth is billions of years old. Modern biology showed that we are descendants of apes rather than higher beings created in the image of some mythical god. Modern astronomy demonstrated that we inhabit a planet that amounts to little more than a tiny chunk of rock hurtling through a vast and uncaring universe. None of the sciences gave my generation any indication of a God who had gone out of His way to provide us with a special home. Choosing to be an atheist was the only reasonable thing to do.
Despite the science, some people continue to believe in God because that is how they were brought up or what they need to believe to find comfort. Most Christians today do not even attempt to justify their belief in God with any evidence or actual reasoning. The few who have tried only managed to cobble together some weak arguments. Of these, the finely tuned universe has gained the most interest and support. But, at best, it unconvincingly ‘suggests’ that some kind of ‘intelligent designer’ ‘might’ exist. None of the so-called evidence that Christians present to support their faith in God is compelling.
That is why Christians are losing badly to the atheists. That is why Christians will become a marginalized minority in America within a generation. Christians need to ask themselves a crucial question – how can the faithful servants of an almighty God be failing so badly? Either their god is not almighty, or they are not the faithful servants they think they are.
One answer to this question of why Christianity is failing can be found online in a 14 second video titled Ricky Gervais Brilliantly Explains Atheism. “Can you prove it?” Until Christians can give a different answer to this question, they are, in the language of the 60s, just a bunch of losers blowing smoke.
We appear to live in a cruelly indifferent world where there is so much suffering, and our existence ends in the utter annihilation of death. So, yes, we all want to believe in the fourth possibility – a God who loves us. This desperate emotional need is the real ‘reason’ Christians believe in God. Their ‘faith’ is not based on any actual reasoning or sound evidence. They are simply trying to get over all the terrible doubt, fear and apparent hopelessness of our existence.
You can sense the lack of reason and evidence to support their faith in God in the way Christians are so sadly compelled to write a never-ending stream of feel-good books, have feel-good religious ceremonies and hold feel-good events. It is all part of what is proving to be a futile effort to sustain each other’s’ unreasonable belief in a loving deity.
Dr. Salviander, you have presented no compelling scientific evidence to support your faith in God. It is therefore unreasonable. The atheists are right that at its core your belief amounts to blind faith based on the need to feel certain that you are loved by a being that somehow has the power to make everything turn out well for you.
Until you can scientifically prove that your God exists, you should quit spouting nonsense about Christian faith being based on reason and evidence.
That's not what this article is about.
With all due respect, that is exactly what your article was about. You began by arguing against the atheist view that all faith is 'blind faith' based on a belief in God that either has no supporting evidence or is held in spite of evidence to the contrary. That charge has to be answered because atheists have offered significant scientific proof against a belief in God. When I went to school and college in the 1960s, almost all established science was against faith in God. The only reasonable thing for people of my generation was to choose agnosticism or atheism. My question to you is what has changed?
You imply there is sufficient evidence to make a belief in God reasonable, but you don't provide any. You say that people would be justified in having faith if they think something is likely true in spite of their inability to prove it. This is the same argument Richard Dawkins uses in The God Delusion to promote atheism.
You then argue that sometimes you just need to have faith in something even though you have no idea if it is true or not. But the matrix example you give is disturbing. If that's true, the only reason to believe in a loving God instead of amoral, soulless machines is which one appeals more to our emotions. This is not a convincing argument in favor of Christian faith.
You finish your article with the statement that it is necessary to convince atheists that Christian beliefs are reasonable and compatible with modern science. Your solution is to find more persuasive words than 'faith'. I say what is needed is for Christians to provide compelling evidence that people can use to reason their way to a belief in God. And I agree with Lewis that it needs to be convincing and enduring enough to survive any emotional turmoil they may experience in their lives.
People need evidence, not vacuous arguments.
I don’t think faith is a bad word, however, I define faith as a trust in what we have reason to believe is true, i.e. it is built on reason. I define science as an unrestricted search for truth about nature based on reasoning from physical evidence. In addition to scripture and faith, in cases where ‘answers’ cannot be given in terms of logic or a rigorous mathematical proof, we can use the standard of proof called ‘beyond reasonable doubt’, i.e. abductive reasoning. So, I think a word that could be used is 'indubitable', as it implies a high level of certainty or conviction. My next choice of word would be 'undeniable'. However, as a straight swap-out for the word faith, I agree with Sarah and would use the word 'trust'. Finally, I have not heard of the statement Jon at (https://scientificproofgodexists.com/) ... that the highest level of proof we are capable of - proof beyond any scientific doubt.
There has been a second stage of the scientific revolution over the last 60 years mostly due to amazing new technology. It has completely changed the relationship between science and Christian scriptures. To the point that it is now possible to build a proof of God's existence that is far beyond any reasonable or scientific doubt. For example, the chance that the Big Bang Theory is wrong has been calculated by scientists to be 1 out of 3.5 million. The chance that God does not exist is less than 1 out of 10 octillion. Go to scientificproofgodexists.com and you will be the third person in the world that knows the proof.
Well, let’s not bank too much on the Big Bang theory. It is helpful to literal biblical interpretation only in that it points toward a definite beginning to the universe.
Interesting points, but let's also consider the following.
This world is not the kind of world God originally created it to be because "God saw all that he had made, and it was very good." (Genesis 1:31a NIV)
Creation has undergone a profound alteration and aberration, "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23 NIV).
But God has undertaken to redeem this broken world into a glorious one.
"For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope • that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God."
(Romans 8:20-21 NIV)
And when all is accomplished, He will return again to enjoy the restored world with His redeemed people.
"But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, where righteousness dwells." (2 Peter 3:13 NIV)
We can believe this report of Scripture and have hope or continue in our despair in this broken world as the Apostle Paul pointed out:
"If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied." (1 Corinthians 15:19 NIV)
The whole of 1 Corinthians 15 touches on most of the questions many have.
A perfect response
We bless God. 🙌
To Jon Hampton: From your blog "Stupified" (acknowledging I've only had the chance to review it briefly), you appear to be some sort of apologist for God. Yet from your comment I initially thought the opposite.
I would like to say this to you. First, you can no longer make the claim that you've "never encountered a Christian whose belief in God was based on compelling evidence or sound reasoning" because you've just met one. Actually though, I've heard of others who came to Christianity by studying the evidence.
I think your basic problem is that you have NOT studied the evidence--you've just read all the hearsay. What you're citing are all talking points, not actual evidence or scientific fact.
I can't claim to have seen all the evidence, but I've looked deeply enough into certain key questions in apologetics to know that what is taught as science in schools is riddled with bad science, misdirection, and downright fraud. Do you seriously believe that science proves we're all descended from apes? You really don't know much about science at all, do you?
It is absolutely true that Christianity no longer has the influence in the world it once had. However, it's decline does not seem to be based on lack of evidence, but rather upon a persistent anti-Christian campaign that has been waged now for over 100 years. What's amazing to me, as I've watched this go on now for over half a century, is that the very object of that campaign corroborates the truth of the Bible. Why such an intensive, coordinated, and expensive campaign if the Bible is not true? Why is it that the core objectives of this campaign are always, without exception, directly opposed to some biblical text or teaching? Why not some other religion or teaching?
You've also fallen for the fallacy that it is up to Christians to prove the existence of God. Just think about how ridiculous that is. Do I have to prove the existence of anyone else? How about people in the past? There is more than sufficient evidence to make a prima facie case for the existence of God despite the fact we can't see spiritual beings. You obviously know about it because it's on your blog. Therefore, the burden is on atheists to demonstrate the non-existence of God. Why should I NOT believe the evidence?
That is the point Sarah seems to be making here. Listening to atheists' responses strikes many reasonable people as in "bad faith." They are always twisting things, avoiding important points, hyper-focusing on some detail they think benefits their position to the exclusion of everything else, often misrepresenting facts, and relying heavily on straw man and ad hominem arguments. It becomes obvious they are doing exactly what the Bible says, "suppressing the truth in unrighteousness."
I agree with you that many Christians today are ignorant of both the Bible and science. That is sad. If Christians are to be blamed for their loss of influence, therein lies the problem. They are often living on blind faith when they should take the time and effort to investigate the evidence. Atheists generally target such people and avoid those who can fight back to create the perception that their side has the upper ground, when in fact it does not.
We do currently "live in a cruelly indifferent world where there is so much suffering." As somebody else commented, the Bible provides the reason for that. However, what evidence do you have that "our existence ends in the utter annihilation of death?" Just think about this for a second. When a person dies, their body is still there, but their being is not. Isn't that evidence against annihilation?
I challenge you to do two things. First, read the Bible. Don't stop until you've read it cover to cover. When you're done, start over again, because every time you'll learn more. Second, stop reading all the tabloid science and start investigating the actual scientific evidence. I bet it will surprise you.
In the 1960s, the science I was taught 'proved' God doesn't exist, the Bible is silly superstition, and Christianity is harmful. Millions of people of my generation have lived by those beliefs for the last 60 years. Then about ten years ago I was made aware of a second stage of the scientific revolution that has completely changed the relationship between science and faith.
It is now possible to prove all of the following beyond any scientific doubt: God exists, the first page of the Bible is the most remarkable scientific document ever written, and Christianity is the spiritual and intellectual basis of almost all human progress. But almost no one knows this because atheists control our schools, colleges and media, and because Christian apologists are so ineffective.
The terrible truth is that Christians are losing, and atheists are winning. This is happening because Christians are woefully ignorant of current science and the atheist are relentless in their efforts to continue spreading false science.
Christians need to learn the new scientific proof of God's existence, and then use it courageously destroy atheism completely and forever. Go to scientificproofgodexists.com
Fair enough. I am very concerned about young people these days because I think they are being misled and they don’t have as much access to better information that was available to prior generations.
I appreciate your zeal. I don’t see the point of being so harsh towards Sarah though—she’s on her own spiritual journey.
By the way, I think the case for the Bible is even stronger in some respects than what I saw on your blog…
Yes, we all crawled out of the slime. Now that's faith.
FAITH…Forsaking All I Trust Him.
BIBLE…Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth
Can't think of anything more important than "faith" when it comes to the afterlife. Ok, how about "belief"-- the foundation and structure of the afterlife?
There's nothing more important. Lennox was saying we need to encapsulate what faith is when talking to atheists, but package it in a different word.
Structure
I don’t think the problem is word choice. Biblical faith has a “faithful” component. Our faith is derived from what we know of YHWH God and what He’s done in the past. “Faithful” in the sense that we don’t abandon that knowledge and relationship in hard times but rather stand firm in the hope that the same God will fulfill His promises and remain unchanged.