This is in response to Mrs. Johnson’s article in the Opinion section of the Dallas Morning News titled Don’t bother debating faith. Her piece is in response to a debate that happened between Christopher Hitchens and William Dembski at Prestonwood Baptist Church. While she hardly mentions the substance of that debate, she used this opportunity to argue for an interesting point. Her observation of the event led her to deduce the following assertion: Namely, while she applauded Prestonwood for exposing their students to other points of view, she questioned the idea of debating religion at all.
She argued that debate or argumentation, “while exposing us to the beliefs and convictions of others, can breed animosity, partisanship and an “us against them” mentality.” In addition, she says that due to the nature of religious experience, these are probably better kept to oneself, for fear of possibly meddling with someone else’s “personal” sphere of experience.

Indeed her language highlights some of the more negative aspects of debate and argumentation by calling it a “spectacle,” that seeks to “cut down” people’s “beliefs, practices and spiritual experiences.” Moreover, she quotes Carl Jung in noting that “many of our institutions throw obstacles in the way of the individual’s self-discovery” and that through the institution of the church “people are effectively defended and shielded against immediate religious experience.” Furthermore, she solidifies Jung’s assessment by recounting of her own experience as a Christian living in a Muslim country and how this gave her a wider perspective and an appreciation of other worldviews that were not necessarily aligned with hers. However, to even think that she possessed the monopoly of truth is according to her “off the mark.” Hence, while she doesn’t have an answer to the deeper questions of life, she is convinced that “that no one else on earth does either.”

She further states that we spend too much time proving that we are right and wrong as well as who is saved or destined to doom where we could very well use this time to recognize “glimpses of God that are available each and every day in such things as expressions of love, acts of kindness and beautiful moments in nature.”

She finally concludes by highlighting the Zen Buddhists who “don’t expend energy defending dogmas or condemning those with varying practices or beliefs” but “concentrate on inclusiveness, peaceful meditation, private introspection, acceptance, and respect for people and environment.” These are Johnson where we could see glimpses of the “divine” that in her opinion, no one could argue with that.

Observations

First of all, I appreciate Johnson for pointing out some of the high level bickering that has occurred in the name of religion. I purposefully use the word “bickering” because this will help clarify an issue which I feel Johnson has somewhat gotten confused. Nevertheless, she is right that we need to be respectful of other people’s belief systems while we search for truth. In addition, ideologies such as “might is right,” will leave us with devastating results as history has showed us time and time again.

However, I think that there is a crucial difference between arguing or debating a point for sake of doing so. If the aim to debate is to do it for its own sake then yes, since it has no proper object other than itself, then this vacuum can lead to all sorts of results, including those that aim to hurt or degrade others. However, if the aim of debate is that which seeks out truth, then this changes things a bit. Could there still be animosity and partisanship in this seeking of truth? Of course, however there are two things to take into consideration when exercising this pursuit:

1. Truth can divide – Truth by its very nature is exclusive. That means that if someone is right then someone might also be wrong. Even perspectivalism can only be detected under the auspices of truth.

2. Is it wrong to be divisive? In fact, it’s not. We can divide on issues we can strongly feel about and still remain respectful about other’s views and opinions. That is why we use the phrase “respectfully disagree.”

Again, while “exposing us to the beliefs and convictions of others can breed animosity, partisanship,” etc., it doesn’t necessarily mean it will. I have seen countless debates where the debaters respectfully disagreed and left the audience to decide where the truth resided. Of course, you will have the “dirty” debates that will seek to destroy their opponent, as I have sometimes heard them say. Nevertheless, in my experience, these are exceptions. Furthermore, for those of us that are religious in persuasion and in particular followers of Christ, we also take into consideration the words of Peter where he says that we must present a defense of what we know to be the truth of the Gospel but with one caveat: it has to be done with gentleness and respect (1 Pet 3:15).

Moreover, privatizing religious ideas because they are “deeply personal” is not only unhealthy but it is contrary to what nature of a religion is all about. You see, in most religions there is a vertical as well as a horizontal relationship whereby we share in our experiences with those from in and outside the community of faith. Furthermore, what can we say of those religious movements that are considered dangerous to society? Do we say that because it is a personal experience we should not even consider the aspects or ideas under which the particular religious movement was formed? Debate is healthy for any religious entity.

Notwithstanding, even if we are to take a step back and consider the article as a whole, we can see that in essence Barbara is making an argument about a religious topic for why we should not debate religious topics. This article self-destructs by the weight of its own argument. This is akin to saying that typing words in English is a deplorable act and should be condemned. It is simply fallacious to argue for a viewpoint that you yourself are using to make that point.

I am not trying to be clever or disrespectful but I do want to point out that debating the faith is not only healthy but it is a way that we can articulate what we believe in order to persuade others to consider why this particular viewpoint is right. Even pure skepticism needs certainty to even see the light of day. Debate and argumentation is unavoidable. However, doing it in a fashion that leads to all sorts of malice is.

Finally, like Barbara Johnson, I do appreciate mystery. In fact, Deuteronomy tells us that “The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may follow all the words of this law” (Deut 29:29). However, God also invites us to reason with him (Is 1:18). This is where proverbial rubber meets the road. As one academic professor quipped, “everyone punts the football of belief.” That is true. However, to use mystery as a pretext for not searching out the truth of our beliefs is punting too soon.

That God can effectively communicate with his creation has been a question that has either blessed or plagued thinkers for some time. In a memorable debate between the philosophers Kai Neilson and J.P. Moreland, the main argument for Kai Neilson was that because God-talk is impossible, then it is reasonable to assert that God does not exist. Even though this is a non sequitur, does it lead to the impossibility of God-talk?

What Neilson did was to argue for the “denotative lack” that supported belief in God’s existence. He did not explicitly attack God’s ability to reveal himself revelationally, but decided to go straight to the root by saying that God-talk was impossible. According to Neilson, even speaking of the term “God” was non-referential and thus meaningless. What he was arguing for was regurgitated logical positivist’s theories that were long ago proven incoherent. Logical Positivism posited an empirical verificationist’s theory to identify statements within the realm of the analytic or of the synthetic. Nevertheless, it was very short lived since it suffered death at its own hands.

As you can see, this is a direct assault of whether God can be even talked about, let alone this same divine being communicating with us. The probable difficulties that usually arise when dealing with God’s revelation process will be dealt later. We must first deal with the details of how God reveals himself to us.

GOD’S REVELATION IS REVEALED TO US

As seen in what is purported to be God’s written revelation, He has revealed himself to humanity by means general revelation and special revelation. One of the greatest mysteries between God and his creation is that God did not stay hidden but decided to communicate with us. How this is reconciled with an infinite and a finite being is beyond us. What we do know is that God also revealed himself through Christ and in Christ, we see the fulfillment of the written revelation (John 1:1).

However, God does not stop there. He continues to reveal himself to humanity by various means and through various ways. To be a more specific, let us deal with one of two forms of communication.

GENERAL REVELATION

General revelation deals with what God has revealed to us by way of the created order (nature). It is through this that we see that there is a designer, a lawgiver and a creator that communicates a telos or an end that is being unveiled. In addition, his special revelation (the written Word) gives us information about both the specific revelation and general revelation (Romans 1:20, 2:12). It is through this medium that we see that God disclosing himself to humanity. The author to the book of Hebrews also talks about God speaking through many times and through many ways to many subjects (1:1). This shows how interactive God is. He not only started the communication process (through nature Genesis 1:1) and continues it (Col. 1:16) but also punctuates it by having the last word (Rev. 22:13)

Revelation in general discloses a lot about God but not all. In fact, the virtual distance between what we know as finite beings and what He is is infinite. Yet, we have from nature and from the written word information to know that God is good (Psalm 73:1, Gen. 1:4) and his goodness is communicated to his creation. He is also omnipotent (psalm 29:4) and sustains our existence (Col. 1:16). God is also perfect beauty (seen analogously through the heavens and earth), God is intelligent (the arrangement of the stars and the planets, intelligent design) and many, many other characteristics. These characteristics and attributes tell us also that God is close and personal and desires to comminute to his creation.

We will post part two next week.

Recommended Bibliography
======================================================================
Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, 1st, s.v. “Logical Positivism,” by Norman Geisler.

Battista Mondin, The Principle of Analogy in Protestant and Catholic Theology (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1963).Geisler, Norman, ed. Thomas Aquinas: An Evangelical Appraisal. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1991.

______________, “Analogous God Talk” (class discussion at Southern Evangelical Seminary, Charlotte, NC, 10/4/2000).

_______________, Come Let us reason: An Introduction to Logical Thinking (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990), 107.F. C. Copelstone, Thomas Aquinas: An Introduction to the Life and Work of the Great Medieval Thinker (London: Penguin Books, 1955), 22, 23.

Evangelical Dictionary of theology, 13th, s.v. “Analogy,” by Geisler Norman. Ed. Walter Elwell

Grenz, Stanley J. A Primer on Postmodernism. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1996.

Klein, William W., Craig L. Blomberg, and Robert L. Hubbard. Introduction to Biblical Interpretation. Dallas: Word, 1993.

McInerny, Ralph, The Logic of Analogy (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1961) and Battista Mondin, The Principle of Analogy in Protestant and Catholic Theology (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1963).Moreland, J. P., and Kai Neilson.
Does God Exist – The Great Debate. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1990.

The Works of Aristotle. 2nd. Edited by E.M. Edghill. Translated by W. D. Ross. London: Oxford University Press, [1937].

Wenham, John W., Edwin A. Blum, Gleason L. Archer, and J. Barton Payne, eds. Hermeneutics, Inerrancy, and the Bible. Edited by Earl D. Radamacher and Robert D. Preus. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984.

Existen muchos tipos de apologética. Pero de acuerdo con la apologética clásica, existen ciertos pasos lógicos dentro de todos los argumentos en defensa de la fe cristiana. El argumento general en defensa de la fe cristiana puede ser puesto en doce proposiciones básicas. Estos fluyen lógicamente de uno al otro:

1. La verdad acerca de la realidad es conocida.
2. Los opuestos no pueden ser verdaderos.
3. Dios existe.
4. Los milagros son posibles.
5. Los milagros realizados en conexión con una afirmación de la verdad son actos de Dios para confirmar la verdad de Dios a través de un mensajero de Dios.
6. Los documentos del Nuevo Testamento son confiables.
7. Como el Nuevo Testamento lo testifica, Jesús afirmó ser Dios.
8. La afirmación de Jesús respecto a su divinidad fue probada por una convergencia única de milagros.
9. Por lo tanto, Jesús fue Dios en carne humana.
10. Todo lo que Jesús (quien es Dios) afirmó como verdadero, es verdad.
11. Jesús afirmó que la Biblia es la Palabra de Dios.
12. Por lo tanto, es verdad que la Biblia es la Palabra de Dios y todo lo que es opuesto a cualquier
verdad bíblica es falso.

La Aplicación.
Si un Dios teista existe y los milagros son posibles y Jesús es el Hijo de Dios y la
Biblia es la Palabra de Dios, entonces se deduce que el cristianismo ortodoxo es verdadero. Todas
las demás doctrinas ortodoxas esenciales, tales como la Trinidad, la expiación del pecado de Cristo,
la resurrección física y la segunda venida de Cristo están enseñadas en la Biblia. Dado que todas
estas condiciones están apoyadas por una buena evidencia, se deduce que existe una buena evidencia para concluir que el cristianismo ortodoxo es verdadero.

Y dado que proposiciones mutuamente exclusivas no pueden ser ambas verdaderas, entonces todas
las religiones de estes mundo que son opuestas al cristianismo, son religiones falsas. Esto es, el
budismo, el hinduismo, el islam y otras religiones son falsas en la medida en que se oponen a las
enseñanzas del cristianismo. Por lo tanto, sólo el cristianismo es la verdadera religión.

November 5th and 6th, 2010
Friday: 7:00pm to 9:30pm
Saturday: 8:30am to 4:00pm
DBC

Denton Bible Church is excited to host the 2010 On Guard Christian Apologetics Conference in Denton, Texas.

* Can you trust your Bible?
* Did Jesus really rise from the dead?
* Is evolution true?

We have invited some of the finest Christian thinkers of our day to address these issues and more at our Fall Conference. GET EQUIPPED to engage the world in the serious spiritual task of explaining and defending the truths of the Bible and the Christian worldview.

We have now confirmed that some of the greatest defenders of Christianity in the world are available and interested in this event! Some of the names include: William Lane Craig, J.P. Moreland, Craig Hazen, Mike Licona and Sean McDowell!

As exciting as this is, we need the help of each of you on this email to make this happen.

To date we have mostly had a small group of larger amount donors. We really appreciate their generosity! We now need a large group of smaller amount donors. If each person receiving this email could just sacrifice $20 – $50 we could quickly achieve our goal. Please consider contributing to this important cause. To make a tax-deductible donation please reply to this email indicating the amount you would like to contribute.

If you are thinking to yourself “why should I support this?”, then please read the below story. This is just one example of how Christianity is under enormous attack today. Sadly, our youth are being hit the hardest. The stats show that up to 75% of them lose their faith while in college. I frequently hear stories about young people that have left the church because a college professor, book, documentary, etc. presented evidence against Christianity. With a weak foundation to begin with, they no longer believe it is true. This is our opportunity to do something about this!

Dad links son’s suicide to ‘The God Delusion’
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=81459

For any questions please feel free to contact Chris at chris@reasonablefaithdallas.org or 214-924-6103.

Alarcon who is,

Es Presidente de la Fundación Tomás de Aquino, y Director del proyecto Corpus Thomisticum.

Es también el Editor de Thomistica: An International Yearbook of Thomistic Bibliography.

Es Subdirector primero de Anuario Filosófico, la revista del Departamento de Filosofía de la Universidad de Navarra, y ha pertenecido a los Comités Editoriales de «Doctor Angelicus» (revista de la Deutsche Thomas-Gesellschaft), y de la colección «Quaestiones Thomisticae» (Bonn, Alemania).

Just a quick query on “Plato” returned some very impressive results.

http://www.corpusthomisticum.org/bt/

This is definitely a resource worth keeping. Now they need to work on an app for that.