The
Skeptic's Questionaire
By John C. Orlando, Jr.
Below is a list of question’s posed to me by a skeptic. I try to give
concise, and hopefully cogent answers, and in many cases I try to get the
skeptic to reflect on his own presuppositions.
1. What do you think of
self-determination? How much of it do we have today?
Answer: First, we must define what we mean by self-determination.
In the philosophy
textbook Questions That Matter, edited by Ed. L. Miller, it states:
“Our actions and choices are determined--by our desires, inclinations, attitudes, or in a word our character.”
The philosophy textbook Invitation To Philosophy, edited by Honer, Hunt, and Okholm, also states with regard to self-determination that it is:
“a compromise position between the extremes of determinism and indeterminism…our actions are indeed determined but not solely by external forces or conditions. It is the nature of the self…that controls our choices.”
To summarize, we can say that the key principle of self-determinism is
that human beings have the ability to make moral choices according to
their desires. As I
understand it, this
is precisely what the Christian worldview affirms, and I believe that
self-determination (as well as knowledge and logic for that matter) is impossible
without first presupposing the Christian world-view, because in order for those
things to be possible, there must be a source outside of them that accounts and
allows for their existence. The only way self-determination (and knowledge
and logic) would be possible is if the God of the Bible existed. If God did not
exist, and the natural world was all there was, and we were only a collection
of colliding molecules and chemical reactions, then we would not have any
self-determination, since we would not be moral creatures (how does mere matter
come to posses morals!), and our whole course would be wholly determined by the
chemical reactions of our bodies. There would be no rhyme or reason to anything.
Why? Well, how does one
bring order out of chaos? If all that existed was the material realm, and we were driven
merely by chemical reactions, how could those things ensure the unity and order
in our persons and in the universe that we all take for granted?
Again, the only way to account for that unity and order is to presuppose
the existence of a Mind that designed and sustains the unity and order we see, because
matter is incapable of bringing about order by itself.
And one cannot posit an impersonal force of some kind as the thing that
exerts influence on matter to ensure that order (or self-determination) is
brought about, because an impersonal force is just that:
impersonal. It has no mind;
it has no consciousness at all to even know what order is, and would be utterly
incapable therefore of directing things in such a way as to bring about the
order and unity we see among the “one and the many.”
Then there is the fact that self-determination relates to our ability to
make moral choices which we are accountable for.
Advocates of self-determinism consider the concept absolutely necessary
for morality. In other words, we can only be held accountable for
our choices and actions if they
actually reflect our intentions, desires, attitudes, etc. (ref Questions
That Matter). This raises
the question about ethics. How do
we account for morality? Where does
it come from? How do we know what
is right and wrong, and why do we have an innate compulsion, if you will, to
discover and know right and
wrong? If we were merely a
collection of molecules and chemicals, why would we be concerned with such lofty
matters as right and wrong? A piece of
wood could care less about right and wrong. If we are in essence no different
from a piece of wood, we shouldn't care about right and wrong either. Once
again, the only way to properly account for morality, and the reason we are
moral creatures, is to first presuppose the existence of a Moral Law Giver who
is outside of ourselves.
The truth is that we are much more than the collective chemical
reactions that take in place in our bodies in response to various stimuli.
The Bible states that we are created in the image of God, and as such we
are moral creatures endowed with rationality and have the ability to make moral
choices, something that is necessarily impossible for mere inanimate matter
(such as a piece of wood) to
do. Thus, the only way one can even begin to speak of such thing’s as
self-determination is to first presuppose that we are more than just material
beings. We must possess an
immaterial essence as well, such as a mind, emotions, will, etc., and we cannot
properly account for those things without first presupposing the existence of
God.
With those things being established, we now move to the essence of
self-determination: the ability to choose according to our desires. Again, This is
precisely what the Christian worldview maintains. Man, according to the Christian worldview, always makes
choices according to the strongest inclination or desire at the time, and he
only desires what is in accordance with his nature.
It is in this sense that we can speak of being
"self-determined." Some people find difficulty with this because
they realize that the Christian worldview also maintains that the God of the
universe is also absolutely sovereign, and they maintain therefore that there is
an inherent inconsistency in Christianity in that on one hand it states we make
real moral choices, yet on the other hand God is absolutely sovereign. To
be sure, there is a degree of difficulty in reconciling these two truths,
however, it is not impossible to do so, and many have advanced cogent
explanations of how those two things can and do co-exist. Briefly, just because God is sovereign over those choices doesn’t mean that
those choices are not real, or that the person himself did not make the choice
according to his nature. Rather,
our ability to make choices could only be true if God were in fact sovereign,
because He would ensure the ability of persons to make choices.
God’s sovereignty here ensures that the universal laws, so to speak,
that He has instituted will continue, and that chaos does not ensue.
In this sense God ensures the freedom of man to make choices according to
his nature, i.e., God ensures self-determination.
Thus we discover that a person’s “self-determination” ultimately
has a source outside of the individual that both accounts and allows for its
existence, and that source is God. The
only way one can experience the ultimate sense of "self-determination"
is to come into a personal relationship with the One who determines, and
ultimately gives purpose, to all things. To
read a more detailed response to reconciling God's absolutely sovereignty and
the will of human beings, see my article here ______.
2. Do you really think, in spite of the scientific evidence, that the Earth
is only 8,000 years old?
Answer:
Do you really think, in spite of scientific evidence, that the earth is really
20 billion years old? What seems to get lost in this debate is that there is a
large volume of objective facts that would serve to demonstrate what the Bible
seems to teach, i.e., that the universe is relatively young, not old.
Also, the question assumes that the only position that Christians hold is
the young earth view. This is
simply not the case. While I
personally believe that the Bible teaches a literal 6, 24-hour day creation, and
that the universe is relatively young (thousands of years old versus millions or
billions of years old), I do not
consider it to be the determining test of whether a person is a Christian or
not, and I do not believe that a person must embrace the young earth view to be
a Christian. There are many
well-respected Evangelical proponents of the view that the earth is billions of
years old. Ultimately though, the issue isn't how old the earth is.
The issue is "Who made the earth, and what does this Creator require
of me?"
3. Do you feel that science is covering up the truth about the real facts
concerning the Earth and the people on it?
Answer: It
depends what you deem as credible science and who are the credible scientists.
If we're talking about evolutionary "scientists," then there is no
question that there were times when certain ones have covered up the truth, and
in some instances outright lied or twisted the truth in order to have the
evidence fit their worldview. The Ape-man intermediate hoaxes are a prime
example. Now, I do not believe that the majority of evolutionary
scientists are willfully trying to deceive the masses. Rather, they are
simply interpreting the things they observe through the presuppositional grid
that they impose unto those things. For example, they presuppose that
evolution must be true (and, therefore, the universe must
be billions of years old), and everything they observe in nature they interpret
through an evolutionary framework or grid (even if the findings militate against
their "framework").
Now, in fairness, evolutionists are not the only ones that do this.
We all do that; we just use different frameworks and grids to interpret the
facts we encounter. So, the sticking point is which "framework"
is the correct one to use in interpreting the facts we observe. I
believe that the facts we observe and can repeat and test (true objective
science), under-girds the Biblical model/framework for creation, while
consistently undermining the evolutionary model. True objective science
has done so much in recent years to discredit the theory of evolution, so much
so that in an age of such dramatic scientific enlightenment, it is really
incredible that anyone, who is honest with the facts, would hold
to Darwinian "particles to people" evolution as a credible theory.
Recent argumentation from "irreducible complexity"
I think really puts the entire issue in perspective, if not settles it once and
for all:
"By irreducibly complex I mean a single
system composed of several
well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the
basic function,
wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the
system to
effectively cease functioning. [It] cannot be produced
. . . by slight,
successive modification . . . because any precursor . .
. missing a part is
by definition nonfunctional." M. Behe,
Darwin's Black Box, 1996
4. Do you think that our lives are already predetermined? If not, then
how do you explain these passages:
"9:15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I have
mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.
9:16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him
that runneth, but of God that hath mercy.
9:17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, For this
very purpose did I raise thee up, that I might show in thee my power, and that
my name might be published abroad in all the earth.
9:18 So then he hath mercy on whom he will, and whom he
will be hardeneth.
9:19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he still find
fault? For who withstandeth his will?
9:20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against
God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why didst thou make me
thus?
9:21 Or hath not the potter a right over the clay, from
the same lump to make one part a vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor?
9:22 What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to
make his power known, endured with much longsuffering vessels of wrath fitted
unto destruction:
9:23 and that he might make known the riches of his
glory upon vessels of mercy, which he afore prepared unto glory,
9:24 [even] us, whom he also called, not from the Jews
only, but also from the Gentiles?
Answer: Before
I answer it should be stated that this is a very complex, and even mysterious
aspect of Biblical truth, and overly simplified answers are really not possible,
nor are they even advised. With that said though, I will attempt to provide a
response in as brief a manner possible, with the caveat that I really am just
skating over the surface, and I would advise anyone reading this to study this
issue much more earnestly and carefully. I highly recommend this source on the
internet: http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/topic/predestination.html.
Now for my response: In a
word, yes--I believe that the passage speaks for itself; our lives are
"predetermined." All that means is that the future has been
determined before it happens. As far as God determining whom He will and
will not give mercy to, as God, He
exercises Divine prerogatives. He has the right to have
mercy on whomever He will have mercy. He is under absolutely no obligation
whatsoever to show mercy to any individual.
As the Potter, He exercises the right to with the clay as He sees fit.
The point is that God did "ordain all things that
comes to pass" and He did so before time even began, and He did so in such
a way as to ensure that we are still accountable for our choices, even though
those choices were foreordained from before the foundation of the earth.
This is what Theism is all about. To
deny this is not only to deny the Christian concept of God, but it is to deny
any concept of any God that can truly be said to be
Divine. It is, in
word, the difference between Atheism and Theism. God, by definition, must have
the power and right to do with His creation and His creatures as He sees fit.
The Westminster Confession of Faith speaks of this truth where it reads, "God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and Holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creature; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established." (Chapt 3: Of God's Eternal Decree).
Let me just note in passing some key points mentioned in that passage:
1. God’s foreordination
of all things was done from all eternity (i.e., before time even began).
2. God’s foreordination
of all things was done in accordance with His most wise and holy will.
In other words, it wasn’t done in a capricious manner, nor was it done
in a way that is somehow lacking in moral uprightness.
We can take solace in the fact that the eternal decree’s and plans of
the all wise and all holy God of the universe are just that:
wise and holy. We may not be
able to understand all of the details, but we can trust that God’s course of
action is, by far, the most desirable.
3. God’s foreordination
of all things does not make Him the author of sin.
The author of sin is the one who actually performs the sin.
4. God’s foreordination
of all things does not violate the will of the creature, but actually
establishes the reality of volitional creatures whose actions cause things to
happen. This is where people see a
big problem. However, God has
foreordained all things, and one of the things He foreordained was to create
volitional creatures that had the ability to makes real choices in accordance
with their desires and nature, and God has purposed to accomplish His eternal
decrees and sovereign will through the free choices (a free choice being the
ability to choose according to the strongest desire at the time) of moral agents.
Now, with all of that said, does that mean that we are fatalistically predetermined? Well, only if God were not a Personal Being, and we were not created as volitional creatures. As discussed in question 1, God endows us with the ability to choose. If there is no God, and everything that exists is due to the blind random processes of evolution, then we are both fatalistically and blindly predetermined. At most we would be nothing more than the sum of a series of cause and effects that find their "genesis" in an impersonal force exerting its direct influence blindly and "fatalistically" to bring us to the next inevitable stage in evolutionary development. The Westminster Confession states that it is only in God that we find the establishment of true volitional choices and secondary causes. While God has determined what would take place in space-time history before time even existed, He did so with a view to accomplishing His purposes through the free choices of volitional creatures. Precisely how God does that ultimately remains a mystery, however, we know that He does, and since He is a personal Being and we are personal creatures, there is no such thing as fatalism in the Christian worldview. We must simply submit to what the Bible teaches, even when we cannot full understand or explain it. This is why I say that the absolute sovereignty of God forces us to trust God absolutely. We should state clearly what the Bible teaches about predestination, because it is really at the heart of Christian belief and the Gospel itself, and we should not try to water it down to make it make it more appealing to inquirers. In a word, let God be true and every man a liar. John Calvin sums this all up nicely in the following quotes:
“The Word of the Lord is the sole way that can lead us in our search or all that it is lawful to hold concerning him, and is the sole light to illumine our vision of all that we should see of him, it will readily keep and restrain us from all rashness; Let this, therefore, first of all be before our eyes: to seek any other knowledge of predestination than what the Word of God discloses is not less insane than if one should purpose to walk in a pathless waste, or to see in darkness.” (Institutes, III, XXI, 2, p. 923).
"Scripture
is the school of the Holy Spirit, in which, as nothing is omitted that is both
necessary and useful to know, so nothing is taught but what is expedient to
know. Therefore we must guard against depriving believers of anything disclosed
about predestination in Scripture, lest we seem either wickedly to defraud them
of the blessing of their God or to accuse and scoff at the Holy Spirit for
having published what it is in any way profitable to suppress; Whoever, then,
heaps odium upon the doctrine of predestination openly reproaches God, as if he
had unadvisedly let slip something hurtful to the church.”
(Institutes, III, XXI, 3-4, pp. 924, 926).
5. Do you feel that a role of
a woman is secondary to that of a man?
Now that aside, I believe that saying secondary in role must be
qualified. The reason I say that is because there are many times when the
woman's role will be primary and a man's secondary. For example, if a woman has
a burden for participating in a mercy ministry, such as feeding the poor, and I
do not, then for that particular endeavor her role is primary. My role
would be secondary if I supported it financially, etc. God created all of us
with different gifts. The hand cannot be a foot, nor is the hand any
better in importance than the foot (ref 1 Cor 12:12 - 26) in terms of ultimate
value. Each is simply responsible for doing what it is designed
to do, and is rewarded based on how it performed in relation to that.
The other issue that is really implied in the question though is
authority. The ideal model for authority in the Bible, or leadership, is
one marked by servitude and what I call "Biblical love" (see 1 Cor
13:1-8) and is never to be
oppressive in its expression. It could also be stated that the one with
the most "authority" is also the one who is most accountable. So
God, as was His Divine right to, placed man before woman in
terms of authority. God did not do this to demean women, but to
establish an order and structure within the family unit (and the church, I might
add)--He is not a God of confusion or chaos. While establishing this, the
Bible makes it very clear that there is no difference in terms of ontological
equality between man
and woman. We are all equal as human beings. However, though we are
equal, we do have different functions. The onus most heavily falls to men in the
sense that he is held to a higher degree of responsibility for the spiritual
well being of his family and the church.
Finally, the relational aspects of the family unit seems to be
purposefully designed to be quasi-reflective of the relationship we see in the
Godhead Himself, where differences in role and authority are clearly seen.
God the Father has a different function than God the Son, and God the Holy
Spirit differs in role from the Father and Son. We see the Father sending
the Son, the Son willingly submitting to the Father, and the Spirit flowing from
Both and testifying of the Son. There is no ontological difference, for
they are One, however, there is a "rank and order" so to speak.
When Jesus said that the Father was greater than He was, He was referring to
this very point. Jesus says that He and the Father are One (speaking of
ontology), yet the Father is greater (speaking of function/role).
The relationship between men and women is similar.
We are equal in nature, but we have differing roles and functions.
Both the man and the woman have been given primary roles that they are
responsible for, and that does not demean or diminish the role or position of
the other.
6. Do you feel that, even though authored independently by several
authors, the Bible is free of any contradiction?
Answer:
Absolutely! We must remember some key points though. First, we must
apply the proper rules of Biblical hermeneutics (i.e., interpretation). Second, understand that
the Bible is a complete record of events (in other words, you must consider the
whole of the message). Third, understand that God used each person to
write the events as they saw them. Thus, there may be certain accounts
that appear to contradict one another on the surface, but if we take these
principles into account, we understand that there is no contradiction, but
complete, reliable accounts of the events that took place free from any
collusion on the part of the writers. The fact that there are differences
in the accounts under-girds the reliability of the texts! If it were all
"cooked up," one would expect to find exactly the same
detail in every account. Fourth, you must understand what we mean when we
say that the Bible is "inerrant" or "infallible."
Biblical inerrancy and infallibility simply asserts that the Bible, in the
original manuscripts, speaks truthfully about whatever it is discussing.
Fifthly, keep in mind that we are dealing with translations.
In other words, the Bible was written in different languages (Hebrew,
Aramaic, and Greek), and any translation carries a degree of imprecision.
Finally, your question only goes to support the Divine nature of the
Bible in the sense that here we have a collection of 66 books, written over a
span of 1,500 years, by 40 different authors, on 3 different continents, from
every walk of life; yet we find a cohesiveness in the message! I'd say that fact
alone, duly considered, demonstrates the Bible to be Divine rather than human in
orgin. To read more on these
issues, check out this link:
7. Do you think it is fair that a little infant is born into world with sins
on its soul already? If so, how can this be?
Answer: Who
determines what is fair, and what is not? What "guide" do you
use that is completely objective to determine what is "fair" or
"just?" What authority do you point to as being able to
administer "justice?" Just the very use and application of the
words and concepts of "justice" and "fairness" presupposes,
at the very least, the existence of an objective and transcendent standard, and
that necessarily, by reason of its objectivity and transcendence, points us to
God. Unbelievers have no objective standard by which to determine anything.
Now, for your question "is it fair?" Absolutely!
God could have not given anyone life at all after the fall, or
given no one any chance of salvation, yet, He has given us both!
And let me ask you, do you think it is fair for a just person to be unjustly
condemned for the crimes of another? Well,
this is precisely what Christ did. Christ died for us, the just for the unjust, that we might
have eternal life. Don’t blame
God or charge Him with being unfair if you refuse to obey His command to turn
from your sins and receive Christ as the only sufficient provision for your
sins. The infant who is born into
the world with original sin and dies does not catch God by surprise.
Though the Bible does not explicitly teach that all such infants will go to
Heaven, I personally take comfort in knowing that they are in the hands of a
just and loving God.
8. Why do you think most people believe in God?
As to why most people believe in God, I believe it
is really something that is innate to us as human beings, and people actually
have to work against that innate understanding, if you will, in order to be an
Atheist. We must understand that belief in God is the foundational element and
starting point of all epistemology (the study of knowledge, i.e., how we know
things). To state it another way, belief in God is
really a matter of common sense. Abraham
Lincoln said, "I cannot conceive how a man can look up at the stars and
say, 'There is no God.'" The Apostle Paul remarks: "since
what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to
them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities-His
eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from
what has been made, so that men are without excuse." (Romans 1:19 - 21;
NIV).
So, the first thing is that belief in God is a matter of necessary presuppositional truth. Secondly, logic demands it in order to account for the creation, the order we see in creation, and even logic itself. In terms of the creation, we understand through logical deduction that if there is a creation, there must be a Creator. If the creation is finite, that means it had a beginning, and if it had a beginning, that means that there was a time when it was not. And if there was a time when the creation was not, we must ask the question “what was?” If there was nothing, then how do we get something, i.e., the creation, out of nothing? You see, there has always been something, because if there were ever a time when there was nothing, all that there would be now is nothing, because you can’t get something from nothing. Some might counter that conclusion and reason that maybe the universe was self-created, but that is really impossible and is a contradiction in terms. In order for something to be self-created, it must both exist and not exist at the same time and in the same relationship, which is simply impossible. The only valid option that is open to us is that the creation came into existence through the power of something else that has always existed and is self-existent.
Thirdly, science demands it: From the ordered structure of the
universe, to the intricate functions on the earth (and in our bodies) that make
life itself possible, to the irreducibly complex microscopic cells and molecules
that make up life, to the basic "laws" of science, it is clear that
true science overwhelmingly supports exactly what the opening sentence in the
Bible says: "In the beginning, God…"
It would be impossible to do science if we did not first presuppose the
existence of God.
9. Why do people have a need to believe in a God?
Answer: I
touched on this briefly above making mention of the fact that we are first of
all born with an innate sense that there is a God. The Bible teaches that God has placed the concept of eternity
(and therefore, God) in our hearts (Ecc 3:11). This is what the
famous French Mathematician and Theologian Blaise Paschal called: "The
God-shaped void inside of every man." Each and every
one of us tries to fill the void. Some of us try to fill it with vain
philosophies, knowledge, "science," money, husbands, wives, children,
jobs, alcohol, sex, etc., while others, by the grace of God alone, fill it with
the only thing that satisfies the void: Jesus Christ.
10. If it were proved to you beyond a shadow of a doubt that there was no
god, no heaven, and no hell. . . .would you still have the moral fiber to live a
good life?
Answer: First,
in order to do that, one must overturn all of ancient history and dispose of the
most significant historical event in the history of mankind: The Bodily
Resurrection of Jesus Christ. The only way one could do that would be to
actually discover the Body.
As for “moral” fiber, I will ask you to define in detail what you
mean by “moral” and “good life.” Where do the concepts of
"moral" and "good" come from? Again, you must
presuppose the existence of the Christian God in order to define what we have
come to accept as moral and good. If there is no God, then who
determines what is moral and good? And what do we do if we have
conflicting standards of what we believe is moral?
Finally, you must understand that your comment of proving that God does
not exist is completely illogical, and always will be, because: A. God
does exist., B. Christ is risen indeed., and C. Only a being that is
omniscient could ever state definitively that there was no God.
11. In the Bible story of Noah, how do you justify the fact that the boat
could not possibly be big enough to carry two of every species of animal on
Earth, and still have room left over for food? What do you think really happened
there?
Answer:
Were you there to see whether or not what you claim is true? I believe
since the Bible has been demonstrated to be reliable in all of its other
historical claims with regard to geography, customs, etc., through archaeology
where possible, that "The benefit of the doubt should be given to the
document in question." The Bible has proven itself to be a more than
credible witness to what we have been able to corroborate. But beside
that, it has been demonstrated time and time again by creationists that the Ark
was more than able to sustain its load. I think what really happened here
is exactly what the text says. Not only that, but the
creationists arguments have been so sound with regard to the capacity of the
Ark, that skeptics have now claimed that the Ark is too big! For a
response to that, see http://www.carm.org/evo_questions/noahsarkpossible.htm.
For other questions concerning Noah's Ark see http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/FAQ.asp#NoahsArk.