JUST THINKING VOL 19.3 JUST THINKING VOL 19.3

| 2 | Stephen Hawking and God

By John Lennox

| 18 | Jesus: God’s Tangible Sign

By John Dickson

Just Thinking: The Triannual Communiqué of Ravi Zacharias International Ministries

Just Thinking is a teaching resource of Ravi Zacharias International Ministries and exists to engender thoughtful engagement with apologetics, Scripture, and the whole of life.

Danielle DuRant, editor STEPHEN HAWKING AND GOD By John Lennox

In his latest book, the world’s most eminent physicist Stephen Hawking argues that the laws of physics, not the will of God, provide the real explanation as to how life on earth came into being. Yet physical laws on their own cannot create anything; they are merely a description of what normally happens under certain given conditions. Although Hawking's argument is being hailed as controversial and ground-breaking, it is hardly new.

This article is based on one that appeared laws: “because there is a law such in the Daily Mail, September 3, 2010. as gravity, the Universe can and It is an initial response to Stephen will create itself from nothing.” Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow’s book . This article Hawking’s book (co-authored may not be placed on the Internet with Caltech physicist Leonard or reproduced without permission. Mlodinow) is entitled The Grand © John Lennox, September 2010. Design, which for many people will suggest the existence of a In his latest book, the world’s Grand Designer—but that is most eminent physicist Stephen actually something that the book Hawking challenges belief in the is designed to deny. Hawking divine creation of the universe. claims: “Spontaneous creation According to him, the laws of is the reason there is something physics, not the will of God, rather than nothing, why the provide the real explanation as to universe exists, why we exist. It how life on earth came into being. is not necessary to invoke God The , he argues, was the to light the blue touch paper inevitable consequence of these and set the universe going.” 1

2 3 Just Thinking www.rzim.org Although Hawking's argument is both created the universe and philosophy, he does not appear existence of X in the first place in being hailed as controversial and constantly sustains it in existence. to understand the first thing order to bring Y into existence. If ground-breaking, it is hardly new. Without Him, there would be about it, nor its commitment I say “X creates X,” I presuppose For years, other scientists have nothing there for physicists to to the elementary rules of the existence of X in order to made similar claims, maintaining study. In particular, therefore, logical analysis. For Hawking’s account for the existence of X. that the awesome, sophisticated God is the creator both of the statement is itself a philosophical To presuppose the existence of complexity of the world around bits of the universe we don’t statement. It is manifestly not the universe to account for its us can be interpreted solely by understand and the bits we do. a statement of science; it is a existence is logically incoherent. reference to the basic stuff of the And it is, of course, the bits we philosophical statement about One might add for good measure universe (mass/energy) or to its do understand that give the most science. Therefore, because it the fact that when physicists physical laws such as gravity. evidence of God’s existence says that philosophy is dead, it talk about “nothing” they often and activity. Indeed, just as I can contradicts itself. It is a classic mean a quantum vacuum which is In the excerpts I have seen from admire the genius behind a work example of logical incoherence. manifestly not nothing. Could this the book (at this writing it is of engineering or art the more I Not only that, Hawking, insofar be “much ado about nothing”? not yet in the shops) there are understand it, so my worship of as he is interpreting and what appear to be a number of the Creator increases the more I applying science to ultimate Hawking here is using the same misunderstandings and logical understand what He has done. questions like the existence of incoherent “argument” as Oxford errors. Firstly, Hawking’s view God, is doing metaphysics. chemist , also a well- of God is inadequate. From Hawking’s inadequate view of known atheist, who believes what I cited above, it would God could well be linked with Saying philosophy is dead is very that “Space-time generates its seem that he thinks of God his attitude to philosophy in dangerous especially when you own dust in the process of its as a “God of the Gaps” put general. He writes, “Philosophy yourself engage in it. Take, for own self-assembly.” 3 Atkins dubs forward as an explanation if is dead. It has not kept up with instance, Hawking’s statement this the “Cosmic bootstrap” we don’t yet have a scientific modern developments in science, quoted above: “Because there principle, referring to the self- one—hence his conclusion that particularly in physics. As a result is a law of gravity the universe contradictory idea of a person physics has no room for God scientists have become the can and will create itself from lifting himself by pulling on his own as it has removed the last place bearers of the torch of discovery nothing.” Clearly, he assumes that bootlace. His Oxford colleague, where He might be found— in our quest for knowledge.” 2 gravity (or perhaps only the law philosopher of religion Keith for the moment of creation. of gravity?) exists. That is not Ward, is surely right to say that What an astonishing statement! nothing. So the universe is not Atkins’s view of the universe is But this is certainly not what any Apart from the scientistic hubris created from nothing. Worse still, as blatantly self-contradictory as of the great monotheistic religions of this statement, it constitutes the statement “the universe can the name he gives to it, pointing believe. For them, God is not only wonderful evidence that at least and will create itself from nothing” out that it is “logically impossible to be found at creation; He is the one scientist, Hawking himself, is self-contradictory. If I say, “X for a cause to bring about some author of the whole show. God has not only not kept up with creates Y,” this presupposes the effect without already being in

4 5 Just Thinking www.rzim.org existence.” Ward concludes: jet engine. Both explanations are For, not only did scientists cannot themselves even cause “Between the hypothesis of God necessary: they do not conflict, not put the universe there, anything, let alone create it. and the hypothesis of a cosmic but complement one another. neither did science or the laws bootstrap, there is no competition. of mathematical physics. Yet It seems to me delightfully ironic We were always right to think That category mistake was not Hawking seems to think they that, if I dare mention it, no that persons, or universes, who made by a previous holder of did. In A Brief History of Time he other than William Paley said as seek to pull themselves up Hawking’s chair at Cambridge, Sir hinted at this kind of explanation much long ago. Speaking of the by their own bootstraps are Isaac Newton. When Newton in suggesting that a theory might person who had just stumbled forever doomed to failure.” 4 discovered his law of gravitation he bring the universe into existence: on a watch on the heath and did not say, “Now I have gravity, picked it up, he says that such What this shows is that nonsense I don’t need God.” What he did The usual approach of science a person would not be remains nonsense even when was to write Principia Mathematica, of constructing a mathematical talked by world-famous scientists. the most famous book in the model cannot answer the less surprised to be informed, history of science, expressing the questions of why there should that the watch in his hand was hope that it would “persuade the be a universe for the model nothing more than the result thinking man” to believe in God. to describe. Why does the of the laws of metallic nature. It universe go to all the bother of is a perversion of language to False Alternatives The laws of physics can explain existing? Is the unified theory assign any law, as the efficient, Because Hawking has both an how the jet engine works but so compelling that it brings operative cause of any thing. A inadequate concept of God and not how it came to exist in about its own existence? Or law presupposes an agent; for of philosophy, he blunders into a the first place. It is self-evident does it need a creator, and, it is only the mode, according further series of errors by asking that a jet engine could have not if so, does he have any other to which an agent proceeds: us to choose between God and have been created by the laws effect on the universe? 5 it implies a power; for it is the the laws of physics. Here he of physics on their own—that order, according to which that confuses two very different things: task needed the intelligence and The idea of a theory or physical power acts. Without this agent, physical law and personal agency. creative engineering work of laws bringing the universe into without this power, which are The choice he asks us to make is Whittle. Indeed, come to think existence strikes me as a serious both distinct from itself, the between false alternatives. This of it, the laws of physics plus misunderstanding of the nature law does nothing; is nothing. 6 is a classic category error. His Frank Whittle could not on their of such laws—or am I missing call for us to choose between own produce a jet engine. There something? Scientists expect Physical laws on their own cannot physics and God is as manifestly needs additionally to be some to develop theories involving create anything; they are merely a absurd as demanding that we material around the place that mathematical laws that describe (mathematical) description of what choose either the laws of physics is subject to those laws and that natural phenomena, and have normally happens under certain or aeronautical engineer Sir Frank can be worked on by Whittle. done so with spectacular success. given conditions. Newton’s Law Whittle in order to explain the However, the laws that we find of Gravitation does not create

6 7 Just Thinking www.rzim.org gravity. It does not even explain arithmetic, 1+1 = 2, never brought the laws can produce it is like concrete reality. Book-keeping, gravity, as Newton himself realized. anything into being by itself. It thinking that you can create real continued to all eternity, could In fact, the laws of physics are certainly has never put any money money by simply doing sums. never produce one farthing. 9 not only incapable of creating into my bank account. If I first put For every law, in the last resort, anything, they cannot even cause £1,000 into the bank and then says: “If you have A, then you anything to happen. For instance, later another £1,000, the laws of will get B.” But first catch your Newton’s celebrated laws of arithmetic will rationally explain A: the laws won’t do it for you. motion never caused a snooker how it is that I now have £2,000 Science Fiction ball to race across the green baize in the bank. But if I never put Laws give us only a universe of The world of strict naturalism in table: that can only be done by any money into the bank myself Ifs and Ands: not this universe which clever mathematical laws all people using a snooker cue and and simply leave it to the laws of which actually exists. What by themselves bring the universe the actions of their own muscles. arithmetic to bring money into we know through laws and and life into existence is pure The laws enable us to analyze the being in my bank account, I shall general principles is a series (science) fiction. Theories and motion and enable us to map the remain permanently bankrupt. of connections. But in order laws do not bring matter/energy trajectory of the ball’s movement for there to be a real universe into existence. The view that they in the future (provided nothing C. S. Lewis saw this long ago. the connections must be nevertheless somehow have that external interferes), 7 but they Of the laws of nature he says: given something to connect; a capacity seems a rather desperate are powerless to move the ball, torrent of opaque actualities refuge (and it is hard to see what let alone bring it into existence. They produce no events: they must be fed into the pattern. else it could be but a refuge) from state the pattern to which every If God created the world, then the alternative possibility implied Yet well-known physicist Paul event—it only it can be induced He is precisely the source of by Hawking’s question cited above: Davies appears to agree to happen—must conform, this torrent, and it alone gives “Or does it need a Creator?” with Hawking: just as the rules of arithmetic our truest principles anything state the pattern to which all to be true about. But if God If Hawking were not so dismissive There’s no need to invoke anything transactions with money must is the ultimate source of all of philosophy he might have supernatural in the origins of the conform—if only you can get concrete, individual things and come across Wittgenstein universe or of life. I have never hold of any money. Thus in one events, then God Himself must statement that the “deception liked the idea of divine tinkering: sense the laws of Nature cover be concrete, and individual in of modernism” is the idea that for me it is much more inspiring to the whole field of space and the highest degree. Unless the the laws of nature explain believe that a set of mathematical time; in another, what they leave origin of all other things were the world to us when all they laws can be so clever as to bring out is precisely the whole real itself concrete and individual, do is to describe structural all these things into being. 8 universe—the incessant torrent nothing else could be so; for regularities. Richard Feynman, of actual events which makes up there is no conceivable means a Nobel Laureate in physics, However, in the world in which true history. That must come whereby what is abstract or takes the matter further: most of us live, the simple law of from somewhere else. To think general could itself produce

8 9 Just Thinking www.rzim.org …the fact that there are rules going,” I am tempted to ask: where the Gaps are themselves highly there are so many universes (some at all to be checked is a kind did this blue touch paper come speculative and untestable. suggest infinitely many, whatever of miracle; that it is possible from? It is clearly not part of the that means) that anything that to find a rule, like the inverse universe if it set the universe Hawking, like every other can happen will happen in some square law of gravitation, is going. So who lit it, if not God? physicist, is confronted with universe. It is then not surprising, some sort of miracle. It is powerful evidence of design, so the argument goes, that there not understood at all, but Allan Sandage, widely regarded as as he explains in his book: is at least one universe like ours. 13 it leads to the possibility of the father of modern , prediction—that means it tells discoverer of and winner Our universe and its laws We note in passing that Hawking you what you would expect of the Crafoord Prize, astronomy’s appear to have a design that has once again fallen into the to happen in an experiment equivalent of the Nobel Prize, is both is tailor-made to support trap of offering false alternatives: you have not yet done. 10 in no doubt about his answer: us and, if we are to exist, leaves God or the multiverse. From little room for alteration. That a theoretical point of view, as The very fact that those laws can I find it quite improbable that is not easily explained and philosophers (that despised race) be mathematically formulated was such order came out of chaos. raises the natural question have pointed out, God could create for Einstein a constant source of There has to be some organizing of why it is that way…. The as many universes as he pleases. amazement that pointed beyond principle. God to me is a mystery discovery relatively recently The multiverse concept of itself the physical universe to that “spirit but is the explanation for the of the extreme fine-tuning of does not rule God out. In addition vastly superior to that of man.” miracle of existence—why there is so many of the laws of nature to that, forgetting other universes, Hawking has signally failed to something rather than nothing. 11 could lead at least some of the physical constants in this answer the central question: Why is us back to the old idea that universe are fine-tuned. They could there something rather than nothing? Trying to avoid the clear evidence this grand design is the work have been otherwise, so that the He says that the existence of for the existence of a divine of some grand designer…. theory of the multiverse does not, gravity means the creation of the intelligence behind nature, atheist That is not the answer of in any case, annul that evidence universe was inevitable. But how scientists are forced to ascribe modern science…our universe of God’s “Grand Design” that is did gravity come to exist in the first creative powers to less and less seems to be one of many, to be perceived in the universe. place? What was the creative force credible candidates like mass/ each with different laws. 12 behind its birth? Who put it there energy and the laws of nature. But back to Hawking’s multiverse. with all its properties and potential In fact, Hawking not only has Here, once more, he moves for mathematical description? not got rid of God, he has not out beyond science into the Similarly, when Hawking argues, even got rid of the God of the very realm of philosophy whose in support of his theory of Gaps in which no sensible person The Multiverse Theory death he announces in the spontaneous creation, that it was believes. For the very theories he Thus we arrive at the multiverse. very same book. Furthermore, only necessary for “the blue touch advances to banish the God of The idea here, roughly speaking as Hawking claims to be the voice of paper” to be lit to “set the universe there are several theories, is that modern science. This gives a false

10 11 Just Thinking www.rzim.org impression where the multiverse to believe that every other universe eight papers with him says, “I and beautiful mathematical is concerned, since there are that can possibly exist does exist, certainly would agree that even if construct, and in fact only one weighty voices within science that including one in which Richard M-theory were a fully formulated of a number of candidate TOE’s do not support Hawking’s view. Dawkins is the Archbishop of theory (which it isn’t yet) and were [Theories of Everything]. Canterbury, correct (which of course we don’t For instance, John Polkinghorne, the Pope, and Billy Graham has just know), that would not imply that Hawking is rightly critical of himself an eminent been voted atheist of the year! God did not create the universe. 15 those with religious who theoretical physicist, rejects regard the fine-tuning of the the multiverse concept: Although it does not, therefore, Universe to suit us as evidence affect my argument at all, it is of a supreme designer. But Let us recognize these Hawking’s Ultimate Theory worth recording that not all to use the same argument as speculations for what they To be serious once more (but physicists are as convinced as evidence of the correctness of are. They are not physics, perhaps I was serious), Hawking’s Hawking about the validity M-theory is, in my view, not but in the strictest sense, ultimate theory to explain why of his theory and have been that much more convincing. 16 metaphysics. There is no purely the laws of physics are as they quick off the mark to say scientific reason to believe are is called M-theory, a theory of so. For instance, theoretical Paul Davies, whom we cited above, in an ensemble of universes. supersymmetric gravity that involves physicist Jim Al-Khalili says, says of M-theory, “It is not testable, By construction these other very sophisticated concepts such as not even in any foreseeable future.” 17 worlds are unknowable by us. vibrating strings in eleven dimensions. The connection between this Oxford physicist Frank Close goes A possible explanation of equal Hawking confidently calls it the multiverse idea and M-theory is, further: “M-theory is not even intellectual respectability—and “unified theory that Einstein was however, tentative. Advocates defined… we are even told ‘No to my mind greater economy expecting to find.” If it is, it will be of M-theory such as Witten and one seems to know what the M and elegance—would be that a triumph of mathematical physics. Hawking would have us believe stands for.’ Perhaps it is ‘myth.’” this one world is the way it But, for the reasons given above, that it is done and dusted. But Close concludes, “I don’t see that is, because it is the creation far from administering the death- its critics have been sharpening M-theory adds one iota to the God of the will of a Creator who blow to God, it will give us more their knives for a few years debate, either pro or con.” 18 purposes that it should be so. 14 even more insight into his creatorial now, arguing that M-theory is Jon Butterworth, who works wisdom. Don Page, a theoretical not even a proper scientific at the Large Hadron Collider in I am tempted to add that belief physicist from the University of theory if it is untestable Switzerland, states that “M-theory in God seems an infinitely more Alberta who is a former student experimentally. At the is highly speculative and certainly rational option if the alternative is of Hawking and has co-authored moment it is just a compelling

12 13 Just Thinking www.rzim.org not in the zone of science that the laws of nature that were then intelligent source of that capacity. quietly asserting for millennia we have got any evidence for.” 19 being discovered and defined We live in an information age and that there was a beginning, reflected the influence of a divine we are well aware that language- has proved to be correct. A move to advance the cause law-giver. One of the fundamental type information is intimately of atheism by means of a highly themes of is that the connected with intelligence. For It is important finally to say speculative, untestable scientific universe was built according to a instance, we only have to see that rational support for the theory which, even if it were true, rational, intelligent design. Far from a few letters of the alphabet existence of God is not only to could not dislodge God in any case, belief in God hindering science, spelling our name in the sand to be found in the realm of science, is not likely to be very effective. it was the motor that drove it. recognize at once the work of an for science is not (as some think) intelligent agent. How much more co-extensive with rationality. The fact that science is (mainly) a likely, then, is the existence of an History supplies us with powerful rational activity leads us to another intelligent creator behind human evidence that God revealed flaw in Hawking’s thinking. He, DNA, the colossal biological himself to mankind through Jesus Science and Religion like so many atheists, wants us to database that contains no fewer Christ two millennia ago. This Much of the rationale behind believe that we human beings are than 3.5 billion “letters”—the is well-documented not just in Hawking’s argument lies in the nothing but “mere collections of longest “word” yet discovered? the biblical record; there are idea that there is a deep-seated fundamental particles of nature.” important extra-biblical sources conflict between science and He does not seem to realize that, It is fascinating that Hawking, in and a wealth of archaeological religion. But this is not a discord if this were true, it would not only attacking religion, feels compelled findings that confirm the reliability that I recognize. For me, as a undermine belief in God, it would to put so much emphasis on of the biblical narrative. My faith Christian believer, the beauty undermine the very rationality we the Big Bang theory. Because, in God rests not only on the of the scientific laws reinforces need to study science. Indeed, if even if the non-believers don’t testimony of science but also my faith in an intelligent, divine it were true, how could we even like it, the Big Bang resonates on the testimony of history, Creator. The more I understand know it? After all, if the brain is powerfully with the Christian particularly to the fact that Jesus science, the more I believe in thus merely the end product of a narrative of creation. That is Christ rose from the dead. God because of my wonder mindless unguided process then why, before the Big Bang gained at the breadth, sophistication, there is no reason to believe in currency, so many scientists Moreover, the religious experience and integrity of his creation. its capacity to tell us the truth. were keen to dismiss it, since of millions of believers cannot Hawking’s view makes no sense— it seemed to support the Bible lightly be dismissed. I myself and Indeed, the very reason that in every sense of that word. story. Some clung to Aristotle’s my own family can testify to the science flourished so vigorously view of the “eternal universe” uplifting influence that faith in in the sixteenth and seventeenth The existence of the capacity without beginning or end; but Christ as Lord has had on our lives, centuries under men like Galileo, for rational thought is surely a this theory, and later variants something which defies the idea Kepler, and Newton was precisely pointer, not downwards to chance of it, are now discredited. that we are nothing more than a because of their conviction that and necessity, but upwards to an The Bible, which has been random collection of molecules.

14 15 Just Thinking www.rzim.org Just as strong is the obvious God-created planet. But there is 1 Excerpt from Stephen Hawking 9 C. S. Lewis, Miracles (London: reality that we are moral beings, no proof that other life forms are and Leonard Mlodinow’s The Grand Fontana, 1974), 63, 90-91. capable of understanding the out there, and Hawking certainly Design in The Times Eureka, Issue 10 difference between right and does not present any. It always 12 (September 2010), 25. Richard Feynman, The Meaning of wrong. There is no scientific route amuses me that atheists often It All (London: Penguin, 2007), 23. 2 to such ethics. Physics cannot argue for the existence of extra- Ibid.,18. 11 Allan Sandage as quoted in J.N inspire our concern for others, terrestrial intelligence beyond 3 Peter Atkins, Creation Willford, “Sizing up the Cosmos: or the spirit of altruism that has earth. Yet they are only too eager Revisited (Harmondsworth, An Astronomers Quest,” The New existed in human societies since to denounce the possibility that UK: Penguin, 1994), 143. York Times (12 March 1991), B9. the dawn of time. The existence there exists a vast, intelligent of a common pool of moral being “out there”—God. 4 , God, Chance and 12 Hawking in The Times Eureka, 24. values points to the existence Necessity (Oxford: One World 13 of a transcendent being beyond Hawking’s fusillade will not shake Publications, 1996), 49. For more on this concept, see mere scientific laws. Indeed, the the foundations of an intelligent John Lennox’s God’s Undertaker: message of atheism has always faith that is based on the 5 Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time Has Science Buried God? (Oxford: been a curiously depressing one, cumulative evidence of science, (London: Bantam Press, 1988), 174. Lion UK, 2009), 69-77. portraying us as selfish creatures history, the biblical narrative, 6 William Paley, Natural Theology 14 John Polkinghorne, One World bent on nothing more than survival and personal experience. (London: Wilks and Taylor, 1802), 7. (London: SPCK, 1986), 80. and self-gratification. Atheism is a hope-less faith. By contrast, the John Lennox is Professor of 7 I am well aware that chaotic 15 Private communication, Christian message, based solidly Mathematics at the University of considerations (sensitivity to initial reproduced with permission. on the resurrection of Jesus Christ Oxford, Fellow in Mathematics conditions) make this prediction 16 from the dead, gives real hope. and the Philosophy of Science, practically impossible for all but the Hawking, 23.

and an adjunct lecturer with the first few ricochets of the ball. 17 Hawking also thinks that the RZIM team at the Oxford Centre As quoted in Hannah Devlin, potential existence of other life for Christian Apologetics. 8 See Clive Cookson, “Scientists “Hawking: God did not create Universe,” forms in the universe undermines who glimpsed God,” Financial The Times (4 September 2010). Times (April 29, 1995), 20. the traditional religious conviction 18 Hawking, 23. that we are living on a unique, 19 As quoted in Devlin, The Times.

16 17 Just Thinking www.rzim.org JESUS : GOD’S TANGIBLE SIGN By John Dickson

No one embraces faith in Jesus Christ based solely on factual evidence. Equally, no one rejects Christianity or loses their faith solely because of a lack of facts. A combination of intellectual, personal and social factors is at work. I would ask readers, whether Christian or not, to explore the life of Jesus fully aware that we form our views on the big questions (and the small ones) through a range of factors. After all, if there is a God, surely we should expect his truth not only to be factually verifiable but also personally satisfying and socially relevant.

Taken from Life of Jesus: Who He Is the next two thousand years, and Why He Matters by John Dickson right up until the 18th century. (Zondervan, 2010). Copyright © 2010 Long before our postmodern by John Dickson. Used by permission of love of deconstructing viewpoints Zondervan. HYPERLINK "http://www. and seeing through media spin zondervan.com" www.zondervan.com readers of Aristotle delighted in learning from one of history’s Three hundred years before Christ greatest minds about why some the Greek philosopher Aristotle messages seem compelling made an observation about you to us and others do not. and me that I think has stood the test of time. In his book On Rhetoric he laid out a theory about how people form their beliefs, The Way We Believe that is, how they come to be Aristotle said that people form persuaded by political, religious, their beliefs on the basis of a ethical and cultural argument. His combination of three factors: work, incidentally, was literally what he called logos, pathos and the textbook on persuasion for ethos. Logos is the intellectual

18 19 Just Thinking www.rzim.org dimension. It is the part in us (or reasonable expectation that what alone (logos). Professional climate developed partly through logos, in the argument we are listening is true should also be attractive scientists aside, most of us do not partly through pathos and partly to) that corresponds to logic and and personally satisfying. This is have firsthand knowledge of the through ethos. No one embraces commonsense. As rational beings another way of saying that people data. We become climate change faith in Jesus Christ based solely we like to know that our beliefs rarely change their minds on big believers or deniers not just on factual evidence. Equally, no are generally factual, reasonable issues based only on information. because of formal evidence but one rejects Christianity or loses and grounded in something other also because of personal (pathos) their faith solely because of (a than wishful thinking. I’m sure Finally, there is ethos. This is the and social factors (ethos). On lack of) facts. A combination most of us would agree so far with social dimension of persuasion. the one hand, those of us with of intellectual, personal and the great Athenian philosopher. What we believe is hugely slightly activist temperaments or social factors is at work. influenced by our upbringing, “apocalyptic” personalities will But it is a foolish person, Aristotle our education and the circle of find ourselves drawn toward What I find so interesting as I argued, who thinks we form friends we find ourselves in. It dramatic climate change scenarios. ponder Aristotle’s insight is the our beliefs only on the basis of is part of our human nature to On the other hand, those who way contemporary believers intellect. In addition to logos there accept more readily the views of like a good conspiracy theory readily admit the multifaceted is pathos. This is the personal or people we know, admire, trust will easily suspect that the guild nature of their faith. When emotional dimension of belief and love. In Aristotle’s own words: of climate change scientists Christians talk about how they and it is just as real as the rational “we believe fair-minded people have some ulterior motive in “became Christians,” they will part. An argument with pathos is to a greater extent and more presenting their case. This is often mention an intellectual one with a beauty and poignancy quickly than we do others on all pathos at work. More simply, component, a personal component that resonates with our deepest subjects in general and completely chances are we all find ourselves and a social component. They self. A message of this kind meets so in cases where there is not influenced by social factors on will talk about some book they our passions and longings. Don’t exact knowledge but room for this question (ethos). Our political read or sermon they heard that misunderstand me. Aristotle was doubt.” 1 Since the 1960s this has bias, the university we attended, laid out the facts about God not talking about mere frivolous been known as the “sociology of the friends we talk to about the and Christ. Their intellect was artistry. He hated what he called knowledge”—the way our social topic: each of these will have had nourished and impressed. But mere “sophistry”—a message that context informs and frames our some impact on our thinking. they will also happily tell you, was all style and no substance. perspective—but Aristotle put for example, how one day while Part of the reason he wrote his his finger on it millennia ago. What’s this got to do with the life pondering the significance of Jesus book was to criticize this form of Jesus—the man and why he they felt a deep resonance with of persuasion. Nevertheless, Take climate change. How do we matters? Put simply, on a topic as the Christian gospel. The message Aristotle was adamant that there form our views on this fraught complex and far-reaching as this somehow became attractive and was a good pathos, in which topic? It would be unrealistic to we ought to acknowledge that personally satisfying. It answered a well-made argument also assume that you and I hold our our current beliefs—whether deep longings and clarified certain corresponds to our perfectly respective views based on facts positive or negative—will have confusions. And very often such

20 21 Just Thinking www.rzim.org people will admit to having that their reasons for resisting verifiable but also personally respondents describing themselves been drawn into a community Christ are more complex than satisfying and socially relevant. as “atheist” 2 in surveys do not of Christians, at school, church first acknowledged. An event necessarily deny the existence or wherever, whose lives had in the past called into question of God. A significant proportion an authenticity and goodness the fairness or existence of the of them admit in post-survey that was hard to argue with. Almighty. A Christian they once analysis that the tag “atheist” knew turned out to be an ugly The God-Question functions more as a protest against But what I find especially fascinating hypocrite and it spoiled their The world is a very religious place, formal religion than a description is the way many skeptics of religion appreciation of anything coming and the much-heralded renaissance of their disbelief in any kind of today will not admit that they are out of the mouth of believers. of skepticism dubbed the “new god. 3 Openness to the divine is skeptics for the same combination Personal and social factors prove atheism” is unlikely to change more dogged and widespread of reasons. Instead, they claim important for unbelief, after all. things. An important minority of than we sometimes realize. to resist Christianity for logical Westerners identifies as atheists reasons only. There is not enough The point of all this is to ask but it is much smaller than the Even in my own country of proof for the reality of God, they readers, whether Christian or not, publicity suggests. The last World Australia, which has often been say. Books and documentaries to explore the life of Jesus fully Values Survey (2005-06), the described as the first post- on Jesus have undermined his aware that we form our views on most reliable data set available, Christian society in the world, uniqueness or even existence. the big questions (and the small found that 10.4% of Britons, surveys continue to reveal “I would believe,” I have heard ones) through a range of factors. 9.9% of Australians, 7% of New very high levels of spiritual, and my skeptical friends say, “if only We are complex people. We Zealanders and 3.6% of Americans specifically Christian, belief. you gave me some proof.” are intellectual, emotional and accept the tag “atheist.” And even Sixty-eight percent of Australians social beings, and each of these these numbers may be inflated. believe in a God or a Universal I don’t doubt that evidence is components plays some part Olivera Petrovich is an expert in Spirit, and 63% believe in the important to many people. So it in how we respond to material the psychology of religion from possibility of miracles today. 4 should be. (Personally, I’d give up like this. I will definitely be laying the in the Slightly more than that (75.9%) Christianity tomorrow if I thought out what seem to me quite UK. In 2008 she caused a stir by believe that Jesus himself the facts stacked against it.) But I robust arguments for the life and presenting empirical evidence that performed miracles (while only do doubt that this is the only factor significance of Jesus, but I have no infants naturally incline toward 6% think he never existed). 5 in people’s unbelief—or even that intention of hiding the fact that belief in some kind of Creator: Most surprising for those of it is always the main factor. I have some of what follows appeals to atheism, in other words, is not the us who live in this supposedly had too many conversations over the personal and social dimensions default position. More relevantly, godless country, when asked to the years with avowed “atheists” of our lives. After all, if there is in a recent interview for the Centre rate out of 10 “How important who, after some deeper discussion a God, surely we should expect for Public Christianity (CPX) she is God in your life?” (1 being and growing friendship, admit his truth not only to be factually outlined research revealing that “not important at all;” 10 being

22 23 Just Thinking www.rzim.org “very important”) 57.4% of belief in some kind of divinity. Put deduction people make only after over why they do not perceive the Australians selected 6 and simply, most of us perceive in the analyzing evidence and weighing truth and beauty found in some above; 28% selected 10. 6 physical world and in ourselves a arguments. It is far more basic, form of “rule.” I am not suggesting larger intention. The whole thing more instinctive. It is something a connection here between Despite the fact that atheist seems arranged not accidental, most of us perceive directly by living atheism and anarchism or between writers such as created not a product of chance. in a world that seems strangely atheism and disdain of the arts. I and Christopher Hitchens are on And so we imagine there must be rational in the way it is put am just observing that some ideas the bestseller lists worldwide, the a Creator. The ancient Hebrew together. This is not to deny that can be fabulously compelling to larger point remains: the world poet describes the sentiment well: countless professional philosophers most thinking people and not at all remains a very religious place. For go beyond this intuition to provide obvious to a minority of equally most people throughout most The heavens declare sophisticated arguments for thoughtful people. Intellectually, I of human history the stunningly the glory of God; belief in God. 9 All I am saying puzzle over atheism just as I puzzle rational universe we see out there the skies proclaim the here is that the perception seems over anarchism and a-artism. and the uncannily rational mind work of his hands. to be a fundamental thing for we experience within suggest Day after day they most of us, which is probably At this point, my atheist friends like the existence of some kind of pour forth speech; why infants, whether in Britain to throw in a favorite rhetorical Divinity or Deus responsible for night after night they or Japan (where Dr Petrovich flourish: “You Christians reject all this reality. (I’ll discuss in a moment display knowledge. did her comparative research), the gods of history except one— whether this Deus is an impersonal They have no speech, work out themselves that the we atheists just deny one god Mind or a personal God involved they use no words; world was made by “someone.” more.” The suggestion here is that in the affairs of the world.) no sound is heard from them. when Christians reflect on why Yet their voice goes out I realize that some people do they reject Zeus, Ra, Isis, Vishnu, into all the earth, not “perceive” these things. I et al., they will come to see the their words to the am not sure I have an adequate good sense of the atheist who ends of the world. 7 explanation for this, other than to simply adds one more deity to Perceiving God point out that some of humanity’s the rubbish bin. 10 This is cute and I am not trying to prove the The same point was made by St other grand ideas also sometimes repeated surprisingly often, but a existence of the Deus or God. This Paul in his hugely influential Epistle go unacknowledged. Some people moment’s thought shows it to be is not that sort of book, and nor do to the Romans: “Since the creation dislike music, for instance, and rather silly. For one thing, believers I think it is really possible. Frankly, I of the world God’s invisible others hate art. I cannot explain in any particular religion do not am trying to get the God-question qualities—his eternal power and this. Plenty of people are anarchists reject other gods in toto. They deny out of the way, so I can focus on divine nature—have been clearly too. They honestly believe that only the particular manifestations the history and relevance of Jesus. seen, being understood from cultural mores, ethical standards and stories of the other deities. A I offer these comments simply to what has been made.” 8 Belief and systems of government are Christian, for instance, can happily point to the near-universal human in God, in other words, is not a bad things, mere inventions which acknowledge the wisdom of the hinder human flourishing. I puzzle ancient Egyptians or Indians in

24 25 Just Thinking www.rzim.org positing the existence of a powerful between my rejection of particular claims as true. The story doesn’t conviction of deism that behind the Intelligence which orders the marriage partners and the celibate’s provide a unique answer to any rational world lies a rational Mind, universe, whether Ra or Vishnu, rejection of marriage itself. There is outstanding philosophical question, but it goes further, insisting that and then beg to differ with these an equally large difference between so its explanatory power is limited. some things can be said about the ancient cultures when it comes a Christian’s denial of particular Nor is there any historical data Deus. In a sense, religions begin to the elaborations and add-on manifestations of the divine and an confirming Arjuna’s visitation or with the assumption of deism and characteristics of these particular atheist’s rejection of divinity itself. It his battle or even his existence. I then move beyond it to theism gods. There is an irreducible will take more than neat rhetorical am left with no reason to accept as they start talking about the conviction shared by all worshipers: flourishes to undermine the this particular manifestation of Deus as benevolent, righteous the rational order of the universe is tenacious, near-universal conviction divinity, even though I concur or angry, or that it has spoken in best explained by the existence of that there must be some kind with my Hindu friends that there some sacred text, or that it has an almighty Mind (or Minds) behind of Deus behind our world. must be some mighty, preserving revealed itself in history, or that it all. Atheists, then, are simply Being behind the universe. On the it can hear our prayers, and so wrong to liken their rejection of all reality of a Deus we agree, but as on.11 Here, the Deus is thought divinity to a Christian’s rejection we start telling stories about this of not in impersonal terms but of particular versions of divinity. Being we go our separate ways. as a thinking, personal Theos. Commonsense Deism The analogy of marriage might Where believers of the various This is probably the place to With all due respect to committed help. True, I have rejected all other part ways is in the flag the philosophical distinction atheists, it seems to me that deism potential spouses in favor of my particularization of the Deus. between deism and theism. Deism is the only responsible conclusion darling Buff, but this does not mean While I can happily endorse the accepts that there is a powerful one can draw from simply I have rejected the idea at the logic behind a deity like Vishnu— Mind behind the universe, but pondering the uncannily rational core of everyone else’s marriage. It that a powerful, intelligent being it stops short of saying anything nature of the universe. Whether would be a rather zealous celibate preserves the universe—I cannot descriptive about that Deus. A soft the Deus cares for us, what its who ventured to say, “When you see a good reason to believe, for deist would simply plead ignorance moral views are, whether it hears consider why you reject Amelia, example, that Vishnu appeared about the personal qualities of the our prayers, whether it guides Michelle and Heather (the wives (as the avatar Krishna) to Prince Deus; a hard deist would insist the human history—i.e., whether the of some of my colleagues at CPX), Arjuna on the eve of his great Deus has no personal qualities as Deus is a Theos—are second then you will see the good sense battle with the Kauravas to such: people who say they believe order questions that lie beyond of rejecting marriage altogether; strengthen him and disclose the in a “universal spirit” probably simple rational observation of we celibates just go one partner paths of salvation. This story fall into this latter category. the physical world. Please don’t further.” As if the difference comes from the Bhagavad-Gita misunderstand me: personally, I between committed monogamy and, unless I already accept the Theism, on the other hand, from am a theist not just a deist. But and deliberate celibacy is one of authority of this sacred Hindu text, the Greek word “god” (theos), I will happily acknowledge that degree! There is a huge difference I fail to see how I can accept its is deism plus. It accepts the core my theism rests not on rational

26 27 Just Thinking www.rzim.org observation of the physical world I sometimes wonder if even the “the three items of evidence we Do we really have to enquire into but on other factors I will discuss avowed atheist Richard Dawkins have considered in this volume— whether the Deus is a Theos? in a moment. What I am saying is sympathetic to some form the laws of nature, life with its Part of the answer is: it’s the is that thoughtful reflection of deism. “My title, The God teleological organization, and the obvious next question. If there is on the origin and nature of Delusion,” he writes, “does not existence of the universe—can a great Mind behind the universe, existence will lead you only as far refer to the God of Einstein and only be explained in light of an common sense compels me to as deism, i.e., to the conviction the other enlightened scientists Intelligence that explains both ask whether (and what) that Mind that behind the orderliness of of the previous section … In the its own existence and that of thinks and, in particular, thinks of us. nature and the corresponding rest of this book I am talking only the world.” 18 Christians were Sure, I may reject all the answers rationality of the human mind about supernatural gods” (original jubilant, almost claiming him as a currently on offer, whether must lie some immense Mind. emphasis). 14 Einstein was critical convert; atheists were outraged, concerning Krishna or Jesus or of atheism just as he was critical suggesting Professor Flew’s old whatever; I may even decide Albert Einstein was a deist, so of personal theism, so I am left age had got the better of him. the question is beyond human far as we can tell from his own wondering what exactly Dawkins Neither is appropriate. Flew had knowing. But it is still a sensible statements and from those who is approving and disapproving just joined the commonsense question. And most cultures knew him. He rejected both of here. 15 Whatever the case, ranks of the vast majority of have had a go at answering it. theism and atheism, preferring to recently an even more influential people throughout history in acknowledge some kind of eternal skeptic than Dawkins moved from perceiving that the rationality The question of whether the Deus spirit whose rational nature was atheism to overt deism. Antony of the universe and of our own is actually a personal Theos cannot imprinted on the physical universe Flew was professor of philosophy minds can only be explained by be answered by mere rational (he frequently used the word at the University of Keele (and the existence of some sort of observation of the universe. This is “God” but only in this nebulous, Reading) in the UK and author of a divinity. Deism is common sense. not like looking at the orderliness deistic sense).12 Other famous number of important textbooks on of nature and the rationality of the physicists like Professor Paul philosophical atheism, including God human mind and concluding that Davies of Arizona State University and Philosophy and The Presumption Intelligence is a better explanation (formerly of Australia) also admit of Atheism. 16 Flew has been as of our existence than coincidence. to something like deistic views. influential among professional The Obvious It is not a scientific problem at Davies even wrote a book called philosophers as Dawkins has in Next Question all; it is a personal and historical The Mind of God in which he the general public. But in 2007 he If deism is the commonsense question. It is more like asking openly discussed his conviction surprised many by publishing There position, why bother going further Does my wife truly love me? or Did that the order of the world and, Is a God: How the World’s Most and speculating about the nature Alexander the Great really reach in particular, the emergence of Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind. and involvement of the Deus? India? Science contributes little our own rational minds cannot 17 Actually, Flew stops short of Why not just feel the occasional to such discussions. But does have been an accident but were in saying he believes in “God” in the moment of awe and reverence this mean I cannot still arrive some meaningful way intended. 13 personal sense, but he is clear that toward “it” and get on with life? at confident answers to both

28 29 Just Thinking www.rzim.org questions (in the affirmative)? No. many that God is truly present tangible way. Evidence of such a combined could not adjudicate on In the first case I rely on personal in their lives. They have personal divine-human encounter would evidence of God’s involvement in experience of my wife. While this knowledge. Of course, talk like provide grounds for thinking history, since such evidence would will not be probative for those this will not convince those who that God was interested in us. have little to do with universal who do not share my experience, have not experienced such things; It would give us a reason for constants; it would involve it is nonetheless utterly compelling skeptics often scoff at claims of moving from deism to theism, historical particulars. The brilliance to me. In the second case I rely “religious experience.” But for from a rational intuition that of an Einstein or a Davies might on multiple ancient sources people who have actually felt the the universe was intended to a confirm our suspicion that atheism which tell me about Alexander’s divine in this way, it provides a very warranted belief in a personal God. is very probably false and that the exploits in India. These two ways compelling reason to think that the This involves historical questions universe was in fact “arranged,” of knowing—personal experience Deus is a Theos. The great Mind more than scientific ones. but scientific expertise cannot and historical testimony—are they intellectually know to exist is help us assess whether Krishna perfectly adequate paths to encountered in daily experience Science can only really test what appeared to Arjuna on the plains drawing firm conclusions. Neither personally. Whole books have been is observable and/or repeatable: of Kurukshetra or whether Jesus is “scientific” in the normal sense. written on this personal dimension chemical reactions, fossil records, lived, taught, healed, died and rose of knowing God (only some of cosmic background radiation and again in first century Palestine. Such What has this got to do with which I would recommend19 ). so on. But, almost by definition, things are said to have happened God? Many people “sense” God This is not one of them. historical events are unobservable at particular times and particular personally. They find themselves and unrepeatable: Alexander’s places. That means we are looking getting to know him in a way But what about the historical march to India, Pontius Pilate’s not for a verifiable principle analogous to befriending someone. dimension of the God-question? execution of Jesus, the mugging of of mathematics or a theory Here, things like meditation, Beyond personal experience, we a certain Dionysius son Zoilus at testable in a lab but for a “dent” personal prayer, reading Scripture might also look for some indication the bath-house of Aristodemus.20 in the historical record matching and the transformation of their on the world stage that the Deus The vast knowledge of Einstein, the claims. We are looking for moral and emotional life convince has touched the Earth in a public, Davies, Dawkins and Flew independent sources written close

30 31 Just Thinking www.rzim.org in time to the purported events by lone spiritual insight, a mystical in the affairs of the world. Does it seem true? Many religious people sufficiently free of impure story from the dawn of time or a Imagine that the rest of Life conversions operate at this motives. This is exactly how we dictation of divine words in a holy of Jesus were an exposition instinctive level. People hear know that Alexander reached book, but a series of events which of a revelation I received in a a message (or are brought up India. It is an important part of are said to have taken place in dream in which my great, great hearing it) and they find that it assessing claims about God acting public, in datable time, recorded by grandfather spoke to me about fits with their personal situation on the stage of human history. a variety of witnesses. For better the true nature of divinity, the or meets some felt need. So or worse, Christian Scripture mysteries of the afterlife and they accept it as truth. (People is fundamentally different from the proper way to conduct my reject faith or drift away from it other holy books. In the events of life. How would you judge (a) for equally subjective reasons.) The Odd Thing about Jesus Jesus’ life, death and resurrection whether I really did experience This book explores the daring believers claim to observe a the dream and (b) whether the Many religious claims are as claim made by the world’s two tangible, testable sign directing content of the dream was true? immune to external testing as my billion Christians. Uniquely among us to the “kingdom of God.” Part (a) you could only take on hypothetical dream concerning the great faiths, Christianity goes Christians are therefore claiming to trust. By definition, a dream is the Dickson patriarch. Did Prince out on a limb by making claims possess not just a “dogma” – a set imperceptible to all but the one Arjuna see Lord Krishna and learn which can, to a significant degree, of divine truths – but a verifiable who experienced it; independent from him the highest path of be investigated historically. history. As a result, the beliefs corroboration is impossible. Bhakti or devotional religion? We and texts of Christianity become How would you assess part cannot rule it out. But nor can we All religions claim some sort of uniquely open to public scrutiny. It (b), the content of the dream? apply any objective assessment. “revelation.” Buddhism depends is as if Christianity places its neck You could take the subjective As I said, this story comes to us on the profound insights gained on the chopping block of academic path and just see if what my in the Bhagavad-Gita and has no by Siddhartha Gautama (the scrutiny and invites anyone who great, great grandfather taught historical corroboration. We may Buddha) during his moment of wishes to come and take a swing. “resonates” with you, whether it read the Hindu scriptures and find enlightenment while meditating Which is why historians and feels right. But what if my divine them “speaking” to us of eternal under a Bodhi tree. Hinduism looks biblical scholars of all religious disclosure did not immediately truths, but we cannot point to to the Vedas passed on to the first (or non-religious) persuasions in resonate with you: could you any near contemporary Indian man at the dawn of time. Islam universities around the world feel still make an assessment of text or archaeological evidence says that the angel Gabriel dictated at liberty to view the Christians’ the truth or falsehood of its confirming the battle on the plains to the Prophet Muhammad holy book, the New Testament, content? It is difficult to see how. of Kurukshetra or the existence of the very words of God. 21 as a simple historical text. Without some “this-worldly” Arjuna, let alone the appearance of sign supporting the truthfulness Krishna. The Bhagavad-Gita itself But Christianity claims something Let me illustrate the difference of the dream’s content, it cannot is not even written in historical very different. At the heart of this makes to our search for be verified. And so you are left prose. It is a poem. All hope of the world’s largest faith is not a evidence of God’s involvement with the subjective assessment: identifying historical sources within

32 33 Just Thinking www.rzim.org the text—a normal part of the looking for a reason external to scholarly analysis of Tacitus or the faith to accept the Bible as true. Gospels—must be abandoned. That said, there is one portion Please don’t misunderstand my of the Bible that is historically point. I am not criticizing my verifiable to a high degree, and Hindu friends or even saying that it happens to be the central part their stories are false. Indeed, of the story. The life of Jesus is they cannot be proved false. I am completely unlike Abraham’s making the broader philosophical epiphany or the visions of point that the claim at the heart Revelation. It is in a category of the Bhagavad-Gita cannot be altogether different from Krishna’s tested in any external way. The appearance to Arjuna. Jesus has appearance of Krishna to Arjuna left a “dent” in the historical turns out to be an a-historical record, and a significant one. The claim that can be believed central claims about him belong to only by taking it on faith. the same category as the claims Isn’t Christianity in the same about Alexander reaching India. position? Yes and no. Much of the We can test them. We have Bible is as untestable as the Krishna data and methods, external to story. Millions of people believe it personal faith, for demonstrating and feel that God speaks to them the events of Jesus’ life. through it, but if they are asked “What is the evidence that God revealed himself to Abraham?” or “How do you know the book of Revelation reveals the future?” What We Can Know Christians usually reply, “I just Confidently do” or “It makes sense to me” or As we will see throughout this “I know it in my heart.” I do not book, the vast majority of scholars dismiss the validity of this approach. investigating Jesus—whether If God has revealed himself in they are Christian, Jewish or a book, you would expect it to atheist—are confident about the “resonate” in this manner. The following historical details: Jesus problem is: that doesn’t help those was born during the reign of

34 35 Just Thinking www.rzim.org emperor Augustus, grew up to you even find courses in Classics to arrive at a reasonable judgment though it took place in much be a famous teacher and healer or Ancient History departments about its truth or falsehood. You the way the Gospels say it did. in Galilee, called a small group of on things like “New Testament would be able to decide whether disciples, scandalized the religious History” and “The Historical Jesus.” the claim is supported by the kind The reason for pointing all of leadership by closely associating Australia’s largest department of of evidence you would expect if this out is to underline that in with “sinners,” clashed with the ancient history is at Macquarie such an event had taken place. If the claims about Jesus we have Jerusalem elite over his sharp University. It offers no fewer than you found no evidence at all, you a reasonable indication that criticisms of the Temple, was eight units on Jesus, Paul, the New would be well within your rights the God of our hunches has arrested, tried and crucified by the Testament and early Christianity. to dismiss it. If you found good touched the earth in a tangible Roman prefect Pontius Pilate and, evidence, or at least more evidence way. His story is the kind of shortly afterwards, was declared by My earlier analogy of a dreamlike than you would expect if the story thing you would expect to find his first followers to be the Messiah revelation does not apply to the were a fiction, then you could quite if God really were interested risen from the dead. All of this we story of Jesus. A more appropriate rationally accept it as true. This is in us. It is a story that not only can affirm without recourse to illustration might run like this. what I mean by a testable claim. resonates at the personal and religious faith. We have enough Imagine I came to you claiming that cultural level—which is why so sources close in time to the events my late great, great grandfather The central claims of Christianity many think of Jesus as the most themselves to declare at least these revealed himself not in a dream are to a degree testable. You influential figure of history—but things to be historical fact, and only but in Times Square, New York, can apply the normal tests of one that, objectively speaking, someone employing avoidance last Monday during the morning history—the same ones applied looks as though it is true. I remain strategies would dispute them. rush hour. His appearance stopped to Alexander’s campaign in a devoted theist rather than a the traffic and left witnesses India—and find that we do in commonsense deist because Many of the great public dumbfounded as he explained to fact possess exactly the sort I am convinced that the great universities of the world, such them the truth about the spiritual of evidence you would expect Mind standing behind the rational as Oxford and Cambridge in realm. Leaving aside the comical if the core of the Jesus story order of the universe has entered the UK or Harvard and Yale in nature of the analogy, the claim is true and decidedly more into human affairs in a concrete the US, offer undergraduate itself is one you could test to some evidence than you would expect way in the life of Jesus. (I also and postgraduate units on New degree. You could watch the news if the story were fabricated. freely admit to experiencing Testament and early Christianity. services, read eyewitness accounts, The evidence is not probative, God personally through my Such courses are not “theology” check the New York traffic reports so skeptics still have plenty of reading of the Bible, answered in the confessional sense found in and so on. You might not be able wiggle room. But the “dent” in prayer and the slow but real seminaries and theological colleges. to prove it beyond all doubt, the historical record is significant transformation of my life under They are what is called “biblical since there is always room for enough for any fair-minded the influence of his presence.) studies,” the historical analysis skepticism about things you have person to accept that, whatever Of all the religious claims in the of Christian Scripture free from not personally experienced, but a its explanation and significance, world, I believe that Jesus’ life dogmatic constraints. Sometimes fair-minded person would be able the life of Jesus really looks as provides interested observers

36 37 Just Thinking www.rzim.org with the most plausible, strikingly rational laws of nature But this cannot obscure the fact 8 Romans 1:20. externally testable reason for and the uncannily rational capacity that whenever one investigates the 9 moving beyond intellectually of human minds to comprehend figure of Jesus, life’s most profound Two respected contemporary respectful deism to a heartfelt those laws are best explained questions sit invitingly in the corner. philosophers of religion are Professor (but no less intellectual) theism. by the existence of an immense Keith Ward of the University of Oxford, Intelligence behind the universe. John Dickson is Senior Research Why There Almost Certainly Is a God I call Professor Antony Flew as Whether or not that Deus has Fellow of the Department of (Lion, 2009), an entry level book; witness again. In the main part of revealed itself to the world is the Ancient History at Macquarie and Professor Alvin Plantinga of the There Is a God Flew simply outlines next obvious question, and the University, co-director of the Centre University of Notre Dame, God and how an avowed philosophical claims about Jesus of Nazareth for Public Christianity in Australia, Other Minds: A Study of the Rational atheist came to join the vast provide the most compelling and an adjunct apologist with Ravi Justification of Belief in God (Cornell majority of men and women affirmative answer available. Zacharias International Ministries. University Press, 1990), an advanced in believing in “a self-existent, book. Interviews with both scholars can immutable, immaterial, omnipotent, Flew admits to a certain be found at www.publicchristianity.org. 1 and omniscient Being” 22 —in other excitement about this possibility 24 Aristotle, On Rhetoric 1.2.4. 10 Richard Dawkins repeats the words, a Deus. But at the back of but he remains undecided 2 2005-2006 World Values Survey. For argument, complete with, “I just the book (Appendix B) there is an about the reality. Of course, I methodological details and raw data go one god further,” in The God extraordinary little essay by the go further. I am not just excited see www.worldvaluessurvey.org. Delusion (Bantam Press, 2005), 53. British biblical scholar and Bishop but confident that Jesus is God’s of Durham, N. T. Wright. Flew tangible disclosure. He is exactly 3 See the full interview, including the 11 I am aware that not all religions accept invited Wright to pen something what interested observers need discussion about the beliefs of infants, the existence of a Deus. Theravada on the historical nature of Jesus. in order to confidently move from at: http://www.publicchristianity. Buddhism is traditionally atheistic. It Flew explains, “If you’re wanting a vague acknowledgement of com/Videos/petrovich.html. is curious, however, that Mahayana omnipotence to set up a religion, it the divine to a sincere trust in a Buddhism, the largest form of Buddhism 4 seems to me that this is the one to personal God. What follows in Life “Faith in Australia,” Nielsen today, reintroduced the notion of gods. beat!” 23 He says he still has doubts of Jesus, then, carries somewhat Poll (www.nielsen-online.com/ about the resurrection of Jesus, more significance than if this were intl.jsp?country=au), 2009. 12 Probably the most reliable account of but he admits that if such a thing a Life of Alexander (as interesting Einstein’s religious views (and there are 5 “Here Comes Christmas: A National as a tangible revelation from God as that would be). In the events of some unreliable ones) comes from Max Representative Research-only exists, Jesus is the best candidate. Jesus we find God himself publicly Jammer, Professor of Physics at Bar-Ilan Panel Survey.” McCrindle Research I hope I am not misrepresenting at work in the world. That is the University in Israel: Einstein and Religion (www.mccrindle.com.au), 2009. Antony Flew’s position when I say basic claim of Christianity. Once (Princeton University Press, 1999). that these opening chapters and we get going in our historical 6 2005-2006 World Values Survey. 13 Paul Davies, The Mind of God: his closing one share a similar line analysis, the God-question will Science and the Search for Ultimate of reasoning. There is a Deus: the fade into the background a little. 7 Psalm 19:1-4. Meaning (Simon & Schuster, 1992).

38 39 Just Thinking www.rzim.org Helping the Thinker Believe and Helping the Believer Think 14 Dawkins, , 20. 17 Antony Flew, There Is a God: How the See pages 15-20 for Professor World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed Dawkins’ ambivalent discussion His Mind (HarperOne, 2007). Please address all correspondence to: of Einstein and deism. 18 Flew, There Is a God, 155. Asia-Pacific Middle East 15 Dawkins seems to think that the 19 451 Joo Chiat Road [email protected] classical philosophical arguments for the One such book I would recommend #04-01Katong Junction existence of the divine, such as Thomas is Ravi Zacharias, The Grand Weaver: Singapore 427664 Aquinas’ “Five Ways,” are attempts to How God Shapes Us through the Events 65.6247.7695 76 Banbury Road prove a “supernatural god” complete in Our Lives (Zondervan, 2007). Oxford with personal qualities, moral opinions, 20 We know of this through a chance Canada Oxfordshire revelations and miraculous involvements. discovery of Dionysius’ letter to the city 50 Gervais Drive, Suite 315 OX2 6JT They are not. They are simply an guard. See New Documents Illustrating Toronto, Ontario M3C 1Z3 United Kingdom articulation of the reasonableness of Early Christianity vol.9, edited by S. R. Canada 44.1865.203.951 believing the universe was caused by Llewelyn (Eerdmans, 2002), 42-44. 416.385.9199 an immense Intelligence. Perhaps this is why Dawkins finds the arguments 21 For a brief account of the major faiths India 4725 Peachtree Corners Circle for God’s existence so fatuous, when see my A Spectator’s Guide to World Plot #211, 212, V.G.P. Nagar, Suite 250 professional philosophers—even the Religions: An Introduction to the Big Five Mogappair, Chennai 600 037 Norcross, Georgia 30092-2586 atheist ones—find them quite compelling. (Lion, 2008). Previously published 91.44.26562226 770.449.6766 by Blue Bottle Books in 2005. 16 Antony Flew, God and Philosophy (Hutchison, 1966); The Presumption of 22 Flew, There Is a God, 155. Hong Kong / China Atheism and Other Philosophical Essays 21/F Sunshine Plaza 23 on God, Freedom, and Immortality Flew, 157. 353 Lockhart Rd. RZIM is a member of the Evangelical Wanchai, Hong Kong Council for Financial Accountability and the (Barnes & Noble, 1976). 24 Flew, 213. Canadian Council of Christian Charities.

40 41 Just Thinking www.rzim.org 4725 Peachtree Corners Circle NON-PROFIT Suite 250 ORGANIZATION Norcross, GA 30092 | rzim.org U.S. Postage PAID Stone Mtn, GA Permit No. 1050