If you Start with Man, You end with Man (Apologetics part 3)

In my last two posts, I’ve tried to describe what we’re learning about apologetics at Westminster.

The first post was about the foundation of our hope: absolute conviction that the death, resurrection, and future return of Jesus Christ is the only hope for mankind.

The second one was about the faith we seek to defend: nothing short of the God of Scripture. Only Christ saves. A general belief in God cannot.

In my last post, I said that most of the popular apologetic methods only lead to Theism, not Christianity. And since Theism ultimately cannot save, we shoot ourselves in the foot by using methods that lead to Theism.

Let me explain with two specific examples.

EVIDENCE FOR GOD IN DESIGN: In this example, both the believer (we’ll call him Mr. Believer) and non-believer (Mr. Skeptic) agree to study creation and then draw some conclusions using human logic. Mr. Believer hopes to convince Mr. Skeptic to believe in God and trust in Christ. Mr. Believer holds up the flagellum of a bacteria and points out all the intricate parts. “Look at the rotor, propeller, and drive shaft. See the numerous protein structures used to make a complex device that works as a motor. You need all of them working simultaneously for a bacteria to propel itself. Natural selection can’t produce a complex system through evolution because too many pieces have to come together all at once. Therefore, there must be a designer of some kind” (see https://sites.google.com/site/evidenceofgod/biology/flagellum)

EVIDENCE FOR GOD IN A FIRST CAUSE: Mr. Believer then turns his attention to the origins of the universe: “Anything with a beginning must have a cause. Makes sense, right?” As a firm believer in the law of cause and effect, Mr. Skeptic nods in agreement. Mr. Believer continues, “We agree that science teaches us that the universe came into existence through a Big Bang billions of years ago. I will show you that the Kalam Cosmological Argument proves God’s existence. It goes like this:

1. Anything with a beginning must have a cause.
2. The universe had a beginning.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
   

Mr. Believer anxiously waits for Mr. Skeptic’s response. He’s hoping that he will come around and even thank him for showing him the light.

Mr. Skeptic says, “I see the complexity of a bacteria’s flagellum. I see how it looks like it’s designed. But, how do you jump from that and conclude that there is a God or some kind of designer? In fact, Richard Dawkins, the author of God Delusion has a perfectly good explanation, one that I think is even better than yours.

Now Mr. Believer is skeptical…..

Mr. Skeptic continues, “Imagine if you were living in England during the 1700s and someone showed up with a jumbo jet and a computer. They show you these amazing marvels of modern technology that defy all possible explanations. Therefore, you conclude that this man is a god. That sounds ridiculous for us today, but not so ridiculous if you were living in the 1700s.

We’re living in the 21st century. Science has advanced a lot, but it doesn’t have all the answers. I believe that in due time, science will find an explanation for how a bunch of random proteins can come together to form a complex system like a bacteria’s flagellum. Religious people like to take a problem that we can’t solve and then conclude that “God did it”. Science isn’t content to just chalk things up to God, you know what I mean?”

Mr. Believer wasn’t expecting that kind of answer. When he and Mr. Skeptic agreed that they would use human observation and reason as their starting point, he wasn’t expecting it to be turned around on him.

Mr. Skeptic continues, “Religious people like to point to the origin of the universe as proof that God exists. You guys have something I’ll call, “God of the Gaps.” Whenever you see a gap that science can’t explain, your default explanation is to plug in God. I know that I don’t have all the answers. But, at least we’re working on them, and we have the scientific method to help us discover truth.

Religious people believe in God, but don’t realize that they have an even bigger problem to solve. For instance, “Who created God?” Basically, if there is such a being as an all-powerful God who can create the entire universe out of nothing, what’s His story? How did He get here? As rational thinkers, don’t we subscribe to the laws of cause and effect? Or, are you going to grant your God a special exception? If God created the universe, then something would have created Him, and then something else would have created that- on and on we go….

As Dawkins says in his book, “Any God capable of designing anything would have to be complex enough to demand the same kind of explanation in His own right. God presents an infinite regress from which He cannot help us to escape.” (God Delusion, 109).

Mr. Believer then realizes that he got himself into this mess. He initially agreed with Mr. Skeptic that they would use the human laws of logic to discuss the existence of God. He was hoping to win over Mr. Skeptic by validating his way of thinking. He sheepishly tells him, “I’m not sure I have anything better. Dawkins is a pretty smart guy, and I know I’m not as smart as he is. Let me do some more research and get back to you.”

As they leave, Mr. Believer was thinking that he needed some other approach to apologetics. He had heard about a guy named Van Til who taught at Westminster seminary. Van Til did all of his apologetics by starting off with God. He thought to himself, “I’ll need to pick up some of his stuff because the stuff I’ve been using seems to have severe limitations….”