¶1Well, as we record this podcast, Bill, it's the time of year when students and parents are getting ready for school to start uh across the nation, across parts of the world. So, we've come up with about 10 common back to school questions and uh we've done podcast on every one of these. You've got to work on them. Uh these come up most often in science and philosophy classes, but you know, also in dorm room and lunchroom discussions. I've had many late night dorm discussions on just about every one of these these questions.
¶2And looking at these 10 questions, I noticed that they're the same questions I uh begin asking in middle school, Bill, and and those the same questions continued um all the way through college. Bill, how old do you think you were when you started pondering these? I I know that you started feeling that that you know that angst >> um um and your your mortality and things like that. Uh a lot of that was in high school. >> Um yes, and really even younger.
¶3I I think I felt that existential dread of my own death and the meaninglessness of life if it simply ends at the grave. I I felt that very early on. And then I do remember in high school biology classes uh thinking about evolutionary theory and uh how that would impact the stories of Adam and Eve and things of that sort. >> Sure. And I bring it up because I'm willing to bet that uh with the advent of the internet that uh that age is probably younger maybe fifth, sixth, seventh grade uh kids run into profound questions.
¶4And so they're in no particular order, but I think the first question is certainly um at the top of the list. [snorts] Does evolution show that the Bible is false? I think that the only people who need to be worried about the biological theory of evolution is uh young earth creationists uh who believe that the Bible teaches that the world was created a few thousand years ago in six uh literal consecutive 24-hour days. uh on that interpretation of Genesis 1, the theory of biological evolution certainly presents a challenge. But if you are not such a literalist about Genesis 1, then what is striking is that the narrative says absolutely nothing about how God created animal [clears throat] and plant life on this planet.
¶5Um instead it actually suggests that God did use means that they were not simply created out of nothing. For example, it says of the vegetation, let the earth bring forth vegetation uh trees bearing fruit after their kind and so forth. And then of the animals, it says, "Let the earth bring forth these animals after their kinds." So the Genesis narrative actually seems to contemplate God using means to bring about the various life forms. So unless you're a young earther, I think you can simply uh allow the evidence to lead you to wherever it points. uh any doubts that I have about the biological theory of evolution would be scientific doubts not theological doubts.
¶6I don't think there is any theological objection to the theory. Uh indeed I think that the narrative of creation in Genesis 1 gives indications itself that it is not to be interpreted in this wooden literalistic way. But mention just one fact, the seventh day is clearly not a 24-hour period of time because the seventh day never ends. We're still in God's day of Sabbath rest. So if that day need not be uh a literal 24-hour period of time, what confidence can you have that the others are?
¶7So I don't think that the bibleelving Christian is obligated to take a literal interpretation of the creation story in Genesis 1. Do you agree with me, Bill, when I when I said that that's probably uh at least that category is pretty close to the top of the list? It's always Yeah. What about evolution? Uh do you agree [clears throat] with that?
¶8>> And I think for many students, it's not a matter of raising an objection to the Bible, which is properly the way the question should be framed, but they think that it's an argument for atheism. uh they think that this somehow disproves God's existence which is just wholly misconceived. >> Yeah. Uh number two is a variation of the problem of evil. Um if God exists and doesn't want evil in the world, then why in the world is there evil?
¶9I think that it's possible that there is no world of free persons feasible for God in which nobody ever sins. I suspect that in any world of free persons that involves as much good as the actual world, there will also be this much evil. uh and therefore uh evil is part of the costbenefit analysis of creating a world in which uh millions and millions of people come to know God and his love and salvation forever. So I think that it's a function of the free will of creatures. Let me just do a little promo here.
¶10We have a podcast coming up on uh that deals with this this topic in a little more depth. And so stay tuned for that. That'll be in a in a couple of weeks. Number three, um if there is a mistake in the Bible, does that mean Christianity is false? All or nothing?
¶11>> No, not necessarily. Um the great American philosopher W. Vo Quin spoke of a person's world view as being like a web of beliefs. And beliefs that are closer to the center of the web are more deeply ingrained and are less easily given up. Because if you were to pluck out one of those strands near the center of the web, the whole web would be disrupted and and might even be destroyed.
¶12But as you move farther and farther and farther out toward the periphery of the web, then those beliefs are not so deeply ingrained. And to remove one of those beliefs would not cause great reverberations through one's web of beliefs. Well, now if we think of Christianity as like a web of beliefs, what would be the beliefs that would be right at the center of the web? It seems to me it would be beliefs like the existence of God, the deity of Christ, Jesus resurrection from the dead, the trinity, his death for our sins. These are beliefs that are right at the center of our web of beliefs.
¶13So that if one of those were to be falsified or given up, I think the web would be destroyed. But belief in the inspiration and inherency of the Bible is one of those more peripheral beliefs. Uh it is a belief that is held by some Christians but not by all. And if you were to abandon that belief by being convinced that there's a mistake in what the Bible teaches, that would cause you to revise your beliefs a little bit, but it wouldn't cause a tremendous reverberation throughout the the web of your beliefs. So the short answer to the question is if someone were to show that the Bible is mistaken in its teaching in some respect, that would not mean that Christianity is false.
¶14Um, unless you're talking about one of those core beliefs at the center of our web of beliefs. Number four, how could God blame us for sinning if he already knows what we're going to do? I I think that needs a little unpacking, Bill. There's kind of a question behind the question, and that is, uh, if he knew we were going to sin, then why did he create us? That's one version of it.
¶15Um, you know, knowing what we were going to do in advance, well, then he shouldn't have let us ever be born and and and and be separated from him in hell and things like that. So, this is uh kind of multiaceted perhaps. >> Yes, it is. I I took it to mean that if God knows in advance what you're going to do and God is infallible, then can you really do it freely? Aren't you constrained to do it?
¶16So that divine fornowledge robs you of freedom? Um everything becomes set in concrete because of God's infallible fornowledge. The fallacy of this reasoning is that God's fornowledge does not determine what we will do. Rather, what we will do determines what God fornows the arrow of influence doesn't go from God's fornowledge to our choices. Rather, it goes from our choices to God's fornowledge.
¶17So God's fornowledge has been very aptly compared to an infallible barometer of the weather. If you had an infallible barometer of tomorrow's weather, then you would know exactly and with certainty what the weather will be like tomorrow. But does the barometer determine the weather? No, of course not. The weather determines the barometer.
¶18And similarly with God's fornowledge, God's fornowledge is based upon what we will freely choose to do. So at the time of our choice, we are free to either do A or to refrain from doing A. And if it is true, if God knows that we will do A, then we will do A, but we could do not A instead. And if we were to choose not A, then God's fornowledge would have been different. So we have the power to do A or not A.
¶19And whichever one we choose, God will have fornown. >> I love that question. I really do. I think it's great. Um, the Gospels, number five, were written way after Jesus died.
¶20And how can we be sure that Jesus actually rose from the dead if all we have are stories written decades later? >> New Testament historians have developed quite a number of tools for um excavating the historical Jesus and and figuring out exactly what can be known historically about Jesus. You see, the gospels are historical documents about real people, uh, real events, real places that you can read about in secular literature of the first century. And these events in the gospels in the life of Jesus are multiply attested by different sources. Um, in addition to that, some of them uh would be embarrassing for the early Christian church and therefore unlikely to have been made up or invented.
¶21Um, others are quite dissimilar to either antecedent Judaism or subsequent Christianity and therefore most likely go back to the historical Jesus. Um, one of the most important uh, considerations is that these texts were written within the first generation of the events uh, within the lifetime of the eyewitnesses and therefore have a very good claim to go back to eyewitness testimony. Now compare this with secular literature concerning events of the ancient world. For example, the earliest biographies of Alexander the Great were written by Aryan and Plutarch around 400 years after Alexander's death. And yet classical historians still regard them as largely reliable accounts of the life of Alexander.
¶22So when you come to the gospels, we're talking about multiple biographies of Jesus and letters of Paul that are written within the first generation of the events in the lifetime of the eyewitnesses. Moreover, one of the most exciting features of contemporary historical Jesus research is the identification of the sources that the New Testament authors used. The sources that lie behind the New Testament documents and these go back even earlier than the gospels do. So for example, the uh material that Paul transmits in 1 Corinthians 15 about the death, burial, resurrection and appearances of Christ have been dated to within five years of Jesus crucifixion. Similarly, the uh passion story that Mark relates goes back, I think, to uh around AD40 or so, around 10 years after uh Jesus death.
¶23So, we're not talking here about narratives that developed over the centuries and over the decades uh long after the eyewitnesses were dead and gone. We are talking about events and sources that go right back to the first few years after Jesus' death. Uh, and that are multiply attested and exhibit many other signs of historical veracity. >> I like these questions because they're they're just like they're kind of how kids talk and and uh how what kids usually ask like this one. If Christianity is true, why are there so many different religions in the world?
¶24>> Yeah. Well, think about that for a moment. Um, for most of human history on this planet, various populations have been very isolated from one another. There was no sort of communication between these cultures. So, think of the people in what is today South America and North America.
¶25Until uh Columbus or at least the Vikings, there was no contact of these peoples with peoples in the Middle East or in Europe. Think of the peoples in Africa uh and the peoples in Central Asia and the South Pacific. For most of human history, these populations were very isolated from one another. And so, of course, um, different religions grew up in those different areas. And when they finally did come in contact with each other, these differences became uh evident.
¶26So uh for example, Shintoism grew in Japan. Uh Buddhism in China and um the uh Indochina, Hinduism in India, polytheism of various sorts in Africa. Uh so it's quite natural that there would be many different religions in the world. Even if Christianity is true, Christianity didn't originate until around 2,000 years ago, it was focused in Israel. And then over the centuries, it gradually expanded and spread and spread and spread until today, Christianity has filled the entire globe with its influence.
¶27But that's been a gradual process. And so naturally, Christianity would then encounter the native religions in these other lands. And so really the question I think here, Kevin, to be asked is, is there any good reason to think that Christianity is true? And of course at Reasonable Faith, that's what we're all about. giving good reasons to believe that a personal creator God exists and that he's revealed himself especially in Jesus of Nazareth and has vindicated Jesus radical personal claims by his resurrection from the dead.
¶28You've already addressed most of this, Bill, but it's come up again. U the Bible says everything was created in six days, but scientists say the universe is billions of years old. Who's correct? >> I think that the evidence does indicate that the universe is around 13.8 billion years old and that the Earth is older than 4 billion years. So there is a long history of life on this planet regardless of whether or not you think that all of this life is interconnected uh with one another and goes back to common ancestors.
¶29So I think there is a long history of life on planet earth. Uh what I would question though is whether Genesis 1 teaches that the world was created in six consecutive uh 24-hour days. And as I've already indicated, I think that there are uh clues in the text itself that indicate this isn't to be taken literally. When you look at the type of literature that Genesis 1 belongs to, it is the type of literature rather like poetry that isn't intended to be taken literally. Uh and so while Genesis has important truths to teach us, we need not regard it as a scientific account of the origin of life on this planet.
¶30>> Here's a good one, Bill. Your ministry is called reasonable faith. But isn't faith believing in something without evidence? >> No, it is not. That is not the biblical conception of faith.
¶31Faith is trusting in what you have good reason to think is true. Let me repeat that. Faith is trusting in what you have good reason to think is true. So faith is not a way of knowing something. Faith is trusting in something.
¶32It's a repose of the heart and mind in something that you are justified in believing to be true. So faith can be quite reasonable if you have good justification for what you believe. Question number nine, and it's a variation, Bill, of where did God come from or who created God? >> I think that the answer is that God is a selfexistent being or what philosophers call a metaphysically necessary being. That is to say, he exists by a necessity of his own nature.
¶33So that it is metaphysically impossible for God not to exist. Now if that's right, that means that God could never begin to exist and never cease to exist. He will exist eternally or permanently. And therefore the idea that God could be created by anything is precluded. uh God as a maximally great being has the property of self-existence and therefore is both uncreated and unccreatable.
¶34>> Here's number 10. Can we use scientific experiments or evidence that God exists? >> I would put it this way, Kevin. Science can provide evidence in support of a premise in a philosophical argument for God's existence. Again, let me repeat that science can provide evidence in support of a premise in a philosophical argument for God's existence.
¶35So to give a couple of examples, take the cosmological argument. It goes like this. Premise one, whatever begins to exist has a cause. Premise two, the universe began to exist. Three, therefore, the universe has a cause.
¶36And then you unpack what it means to be a cause of the universe. And a number of theologically striking properties of this first uncaused cause emerge. Now the second premise of that argument, the universe began to exist, is a proposition to which scientific evidence is certainly relevant. You will find that proposition discussed in any contemporary textbook on astrophysics and astronomy. Did the universe begin to exist or is it past eternal?
¶37What is the evidence for the beginning of the universe? So this would be an example of scientific evidence that can be aduced in support of a premise in a philosophical argument for God's existence. Another example would be the argument from finetuning. It goes like this. The finetuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance or design.
¶38Premise two, it is not due to physical necessity or chance. Three, therefore, it is due to design. So, this is an argument for a cosmic designer of the universe. Now, again, notice that second premise. The finetuning is not due to physical necessity or to chance.
¶39That is a premise to which scientific evidence is relevant. For example, Richard Dawkins, no friend of theism, argues against physical necessity as an explanation of fine-tuning. Roger Penrose, the eminent cosmologist, argues against chance as an explanation for the origin of the finetuning. So, scientific evidence again can be brought to bear on a premise in a philosophical argument for the existence of God. Well, that's just 10 questions and but I think and we could keep going, but I think that these 10 cover >> [snorts] >> uh variations of some of the most common things that are asked, Bill, and as we conclude, um this probably will take your pastoral and your academic side.
¶40Do you have any advice for parents who hope to prepare their children intellectually and spiritually for the school year? Well, I think that one thing parents need to do is to prepare themselves to give answers. As I said with our own children, I would often wait to hear their questions and then I would address them. But I think many parents, many laymen in our churches are not themselves intellectually engaged. uh and therefore they're ineffective in answering the questions that their children confront in school.
¶41So I would say the very first thing they need to do is to equip themselves uh and then worry later about equipping their kids. [snorts]