I’ve been slacking a bit lately on my blog posts, and there have been a lot of apologetics related events going on in the past couple of weeks that I want to blog about:

Greg Koukl in Calgary

Joe Boot in Three Hills

Richard Fangrad in Three Hills

Hopefully I’ll catch up soon…

Stay tuned!

Here is the 6th “That’s  a Good Question” article which recently appeared in the Three Hills Capital.

That’s a Good Question #6

Did the Miracles of the Bible Really Happen?

The Bible describes some pretty amazing miracles from days long ago. Moses parts the Red Sea, Peter heals a lame man, and Jesus heals the sick, raises the dead, and even walks on water. But today many skeptics are questioning whether these miracles really happened. Let’s consider whether we can believe in the miracles of the Bible or not.

In the eighteenth century, philosopher David Hume ‘proved’ that miracles are impossible. Now by ‘proved’, I do not mean that he did some new historical research to show that the lame who walked really just had twisted ankles that got better naturally, or that he traveled back in time with a video camera (which itself would have been a miracle!) and found that Jesus was really using a transparent surfboard to ‘walk’ on the water.  What I mean by ‘proved’ is that he argued philosophically that miracles are impossible. He argued that miracles violate the laws of nature, and experience teaches us that the laws of nature cannot be violated. Even if someone claimed to have witnessed a miracle, their testimony should be discounted because it is far more likely that a miracle did not occur than that a miracle did occur. This argument effectively boils down to miracles being impossible because they are rare and improbable.

Despite the obvious weakness of Hume’s argument, it carried the day in his time and has influenced generations of scholars to this day. For example, the liberal Bible scholars of the popular Jesus Seminar, who often appear on television specials that attempt to discredit Christianity, ruled out the possibility of miracles without offering any evidence, in their book The Five Gospels. We would never accept this inferior level of scholarship in other fields, but when a scholar is trying to debunk the Bible, it seems that not only is it accepted, it even gets you on TV.

I like to call it the “That’s ridiculous” argument against miracles, because its only achievement is to teach people to say “That’s ridiculous” when confronted with a potential miracle, rather than investigating the claim. Following Hume’s logic we could disprove virtually any improbable occurrence that was not normally observed, miracle or otherwise. Wouldn’t it be better to actually investigate the evidence for specific miracles and see where it leads? If miracles are impossible as Hume and the Jesus Seminar claimed, then it should be easy to prove by investigating actual historical evidence.

In a previous article we looked how the existence of God credibly explains how the universe started, why there is such intricate design in the universe, where moral absolutes originate, and why millions of believers experience God in their lives.  If we can accept that God exists, then miracles are really not that hard to believe in, for walking on the water is easy for someone who created the water, and raising the dead is no problem for someone who created life.

The evidence for the credibility of the Bible is very strong, as we saw in last week’s article. And when we read the Bible we find that multiple, independent eyewitness accounts of miracles are recorded. Reports of Jesus from outside the Bible also speak of His miracles. And there is strong historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, the pivotal miracle of Christianity. If the resurrection is true, then miracles are true, and the credibility of other Biblical miracles is very strong. Now you might respond to this claim by saying “That’s ridiculous! Show me some proof!” And that’s fair enough—we will look at the evidence for the resurrection in detail next week.

This is the fifth “That’s a Good Question” article on Christian Apologetics, which appeared recently in the Three Hills Capital. As always, you are welcome to leave your comments below.

That’s a Good Question #5

Isn’t the Bible a human book full of contradictions and errors?

The Bible is the world’s all time best-selling book, with distribution numbering in the billions. Christians believe that it is the divine, inerrant Word of God, produced by human authors under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. But is this a credible claim? Is the Bible a reliable book? Or is it simply a human book full of errors and contradictions? Before we answer these questions, let’s do a brief overview of the Bible.

The Bible is a collection of sixty-six books: thirty-nine books in the Old Testament and twenty-seven books in the New Testament. These books were written over a period of about fifteen hundred years, from about 1450BC to 100AD, by forty different authors, on three continents. The authors came from all walks of life, and their professions include doctor, king, shepherd, government leader, fisherman, tax collector, and religious leader. Despite this great diversity of history, authorship and geography, the Bible displays unity in its story, message and teachings.  The central character in the Bible is Jesus Christ, with the Old Testament looking forward to Him and the New Testament announcing Him and describing how the message about Him spread.

The Bibles we read in English are modern translations from ancient Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic manuscripts which have been copied by hand from earlier copies. Since the originals no longer exist, some think that our translations are based on corrupted, unreliable copies. However the science of Textual Criticism actually shows the opposite to be true. Using techniques that are comparable to solving a giant jigsaw puzzle or working backwards through a giant maze to the beginning, textual scholars have been able to determine the original words with a high degree of accuracy. We have over fifty-seven hundred ancient manuscripts, with the earliest fragment (five verses from the gospel of John) dated within twenty-five to fifty years of the original. For comparison, the next best attested ancient writing is Homer’s Iliad, with only six hundred and forty-three manuscripts, and the earliest is dated five hundred years after the original.  For Plato we have just seven manuscripts, and the earliest is dated twelve hundred years after the original.

Archaeology has also provided good evidence for the reliability of Scripture. For example, the discovery of the Dead Seas Scrolls in 1948 revealed ancient Old Testament manuscripts dating from about 100BC, with some being one thousand years older than the next oldest manuscripts! Scholars found that the copying of the Old Testament over this one thousand year timeframe had been amazingly accurate. Of great significance was the finding of prophetic books such as Isaiah that contains accurate prophecies about Jesus, in manuscripts dated over one hundred years before His birth.

Moving from manuscripts to the actual content of the Bible, many contend that it is full of contradictions. In my own reading and study of the Bible, I have had questions and come across things that initially appeared to be contradictions. Sometimes I have been able to find a solution through further Bible study, prayer, and common sense. At other times I have used the work of scholars who have researched the question or alleged contradiction in detail.  Time after time, my confidence in the Bible has been justified as I have found good answers that give reasonable explanations.

Maybe you have questions about the Bible, or concerns about alleged contradictions. I encourage you to investigate your concerns, and if you would like some help finding answers, I welcome your questions. I think you will find that there are good answers, and that the Bible is indeed reliable. You may also discover the transforming power of God’s Word, and your life may never be the same.

Here is the fourth article in the “That’s a Good Question” series of articles that have appeared recently in the Three Hills Capital. There are a couple of minor changes from what originally appeared in the Capital.

That’s a Good Question #4

Don’t all religions basically say the same thing?

It has become popular to say that all religions basically say the same thing, or to put it another way, that all roads lead to God. However, even a casual study of the major world religions shows them to have far more differences than similarities. Consider just a few examples:

Regarding God: Christians believe in one God who is a Trinity – Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Muslims believe in one God who is not a Trinity. Hindus believe the one ultimate God is revealed in millions of gods. Buddhists do not generally believe in God.

Regarding Jesus: Christians believe Jesus is God’s Son and the promised Messiah. Jews do not accept Jesus as the Messiah. Muslims believe Jesus was a prophet but not divine. Many Buddhists think Jesus was a Buddhist.

Regarding salvation: Christians believe in salvation through trusting in Jesus Christ. Muslims hope for salvation through submitting to Allah. Hindus hope to eventually become one with God, though it requires being reincarnated many times to finally make it. Buddhists are seeking enlightenment.

I could go on, but you get the idea. World religions differ dramatically in their essential teachings. It is really not fair to any of these religions to say they are basically the same when so plainly they are not. So why do many people say it anyways?

One reason is the overlap in some ethical teachings. For example, murder, lying, theft and drunkenness are generally frowned upon by all world religions. But many atheists also uphold these moral values, and I doubt they would think this proves that they believe the same thing as a Christian or a Hindu!

Another reason is a concern that different religions are a source of conflict in the world. It is thought that if everyone would just say their religions are basically the same, there would be no need for religious conflict. The problem with this idea is that millions of people do not think their religions are basically the same, with good reason as mentioned above, and such an idea would have to be imposed on people against their will. This would certainly cause more religious conflict, not reduce it.

Another reason is that many people think it is arrogant for any one religion to claim to have absolute truth. However, as we saw in a previous article in this series, it is only arrogant to make such claims if it is done without evidence. The humble approach is to investigate the evidence and follow it where it leads.

The biggest differences between Christianity and other world religions are found in the nature of Jesus and the way of salvation.  Other religions have great leaders, but they are not comparable to Jesus. Moses, Mohammed, and Buddha never claimed to be God, and all are now dead.  Jesus claimed to be God, and proved His case by rising from the dead (We will investigate the historicity of the resurrection in a future article). Most religions are about people reaching up for the divine by working their way to God or enlightenment. Christianity is about God reaching down to us and doing the work for us, through Jesus Christ. Our role is to trust in Jesus’ work on our behalf, not to try and earn God’s favour.

Let me conclude by making the Christian call for gentleness and respect in our engagement of people of different religions. We can hold to different beliefs and still be decent to one another.  As the Jewish prophet Zechariah wrote: “Therefore love truth and peace”.

Here is my third Christian Apologetics article , which appeared last month in the Three Hills Capital newspaper. Feel free to add you comments below.

That’s a Good Question #3

Why would a good God allow suffering?

It must be admitted that this is perhaps the toughest question we can ask about God and Christianity. Suffering is real in this world, and it touches us all personally in one way or another. This subject is too great to be covered in one short article, but I hope these brief words below will encourage you in the pain you may face, and challenge you to be part of God’s answer to the question of suffering in comforting and helping those in need.

There are many different causes of suffering in our world today, and it must be noted that there are some problems that we actually do have the ability to solve. For example, we recognize that many people in this world are suffering from malnutrition or lack of food. We also recognize that there is enough food in the world to feed them.  The problem is not the world’s food supply, but that the people don’t get the food, maybe due to political corruption, maybe due to human greed, or maybe due to other human failings. We could tell similar stories about diseases for which we have the cure, yet people suffer due to medicine being unavailable to them, even though the costs would be minimal.  We could add to this list many wars of pride and ambition, many accidents caused by our own negligence, and even some sicknesses that result from our own poor health choices.  Is it fair to lay the blame solely on God, when we have responsibility in matters like these?

However, there is much suffering where individuals are innocent bystanders. For the workers who died in the World Trade Center back in 2001, for the families who were ripped apart by the tsunami in 2004, or when a loved one dies prematurely, we are left wondering how a good God could allow this to happen.

The Christian message is that God sent His Son Jesus into the world to face terrible suffering and death by crucifixion, placing suffering at the heart of Christianity.  Jesus suffered despite having done no wrong, and despite being God in the flesh. While we may not understand the suffering we face, we can be comforted in knowing that God did not exempt Jesus from suffering, and that Jesus understands our pain in a personal way. As happened with Jesus, God can use suffering for a greater good, which is not always clear at the time. His purposes are greater than ours, yet often hidden from us, until we look back and see that things did indeed work out for a greater purpose.

As a pastor I have the privilege of walking with families in the most difficult circumstances. I have found over and over, that when there are no human answers, Jesus is enough. I have seen families face death and pain with a peace and deep comfort that can only be understood in light of Jesus.

We do not have all the answers right now to the question of suffering, but we do have the promise that God cares and will one day make our world new, without pain, suffering and death. In His goodness, God invites us to be His agents of healing in a suffering world and to trust Him not only in our joys, but in our sufferings. He has given us Jesus, who is the answer to suffering, when no other answer makes sense.

Here is my second Christian Apologetics article , which appeared last month in the Three Hills Capital newspaper. As always, your comments are welcome below.

That’s a Good Question #2

How can a thinking person believe in God in our day and age?

Pollsters tell us that the fastest growing group in our society with regards to religion is ‘no religious affiliation’. At an increasing rate, people are choosing to believe that unbelief is the best choice. Books by celebrity atheist writers like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris have even topped the best seller charts. I read Harris’ Letter to a Christian Nation, and could not miss the dogmatic religious fervor he displays in his attack on religion and support for atheism.

So are there any good reasons for a thinking person to believe in God today? I think there are several.

The first reason is that we are all here.  Something doesn’t come from nothing, so we had to come from somewhere. Even those who hold to the Big Bang Theory to explain the beginnings of the universe have no idea who did the banging. The Biblical description of God as the Creator answers the question of where it all started.

The second reason is the overwhelming evidence of design in our universe. Whether it is the encyclopedic information contained in our DNA, the astounding machinery of even a simple cell, or the precise, delicate balance of multiple mathematical variables that allow life to exist on earth, our universe is filled with evidence of design. Some years ago, scientists built radio telescopes that point into space, searching for intelligent life from another planet (as portrayed in the film “Contact” starring Jodie Foster). They were looking for a radio signal from space that shows non-random patterns, because this would point to intelligent life.  Yet our whole universe is filled with complicated designs and vast quantities of organized information, that beg the question, “Who is the Designer?”  The designer must be a great and powerful being, which perfectly fits the Biblical description of God.

The third reason arises from the existence of absolute moral laws.  Even in our age of moral relativity, there are still certain things that are universally considered wrong, with no room for debate. For example, when we encounter racism, rape, or murder, we recognize them as being absolutely wrong. Are they wrong because a majority of people think so, or would they be wrong even if a majority thought they were OK? The answer is that racism, rape, and murder are intrinsically wrong, in and of themselves, independent of anyone’s opinion. The question then must be asked, “Where do these moral laws come from?” The best answer is that moral laws come from a moral law giver.  The description of the God of the Bible as a moral law giver explains the source of moral laws.

There is one last reason that I will mention. It is admittedly more subjective, but at the same time it can be plainly observed around the world. Today there are hundreds of millions, even billions of people, who would acknowledge some experience of the Divine. They acknowledge that humans are spiritual beings and they claim to have felt the touch of God in their lives. Maybe they are all hallucinating, or maybe someone spiked their coffee, but I think the best explanation is that many have actually experienced the reality of God in their lives.

So for these reasons, I think it is reasonable for a thinking person to believe in God. What do you think? I welcome your feedback at the address below. Next week we will look at one of the toughest questions we can ask: “Why would a good God allow suffering?”

Here is the first article in a series of Christian Apologetics articles called “That’s a Good Question”, which have appeared in the Three Hills Capital . As always, your comments are welcome!

That’s a Good Question #1

Isn’t it arrogant for someone to say they have the absolute truth about God?

Many people today are asking tough questions about Christianity, such as “Don’t all religions basically say the same thing?” and “How can a thinking person believe in God in our day and age?”. These are tough but fair questions and they deserve to be answered. Over the coming weeks, I will be writing a series of articles that address some of these tough questions. This week I will start off with a common question in our society: “Isn’t it arrogant for someone to say they have the absolute truth about God?”

When we talk about absolute truth, we invite the question of whether or not such knowledge even exists.  However it must be admitted that we accept absolute truth in our daily lives, for we could not otherwise function in our world. For example, when I get a statement from my bank, I find my bank balance in black and white. I haven’t tried it, but I don’t expect it would do me much good to enter into a philosophical debate about absolute truth with my bank, in trying to convince them that my bank balance should not be viewed as absolute truth, and that in my view of truth, the balance should be considerably higher!  When it comes to banking, we all accept the reality of absolute truth.

However, when it comes to talk of religion, we often change our tune, discouraging people from speaking in absolutes. Many people say that no one can know the absolute truth about God.  While it sounds plausible at first, this statement is actually self defeating. For if we say that no one can know the absolute truth about God, are we not making a statement that claims to know an absolute truth about God (that no one can know the absolute truth about Him)?  In attempting to dismiss absolute truth regarding religion, this statement assumes its existence.

So what do you think? If absolute truth about God exists, is claiming to have this truth arrogant? Is it well meaning but foolish? Or is it reasonable?

Many people think that claiming absolute truth about God is arrogant because they assume that the claims of Christianity are unverifiable. They assume that Christians may be well meaning, but they are also naïve, making unproven statements about God based solely on personal faith. Maybe this describes how you feel about Christians: nice enough, but naïve.  If there were no evidence to support the Christian faith, then I might agree with this assessment. However, there is in fact an incredible quantity and quality of evidence available, about many topics such as the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus, the reliability of the Bible, and the existence of God. Many people are not aware that there are good answers to these and other tough questions. But the answers exist, and I think it can be said that Christianity is a reasonable faith.

Having a faith that is based on a solid foundation of evidence suggests reasonableness and fairness rather than arrogance and folly. It even suggests humility, for it takes humility to put aside preconceived notions and be willing to follow the evidence to wherever it leads.

In coming weeks we will look at some of the evidence for Christianity, and I hope it will be of interest to you and maybe even challenge your thinking in a positive way, as we look at answers to some of the tough questions about Christianity.

I decided to take a break (almost) from theological reading on my holidays. So with help from Al Mohler’s summer reading list I bought a few historical war books. I enjoy reading war stories for the struggle and strategy, as well as understanding how battles and wars were won and lost.  I find WW2 to be interesting because it seems to me to be the pinnacle of mechanical, non digital age fighting – no guided missiles, no smart bombs, any aiming systems they had were mechanical, not digital. Most of all there was no atomic bomb until the end of it, so a country had to win conventionally, not by the threat of nukes. I also find anything about Israel interesting, and I have often heard stories about the Six Day War. So over the summer I read the following three books, summarized below:

“With Wings Like Eagles” by Michael Korda, about the Battle of Britain in 1940

Korda describes the time leading up to the famous Battle of Britain, and the battle itself. Much of his narrative revolves around Air Chief Marshall Sir Hugh Dowding, who had the foresight to prepare Britain for battle in the air, years before the events where his system of defense would be needed. I found the internal politics between Dowding and the rest of the British leadership to be intriguing as they were constantly maneuvering for political position, even as they were united in fighting the Germans. Dowding was a brilliant strategist and he built a defense system, using newly invented radar and a central communications hub that allowed him to focus a relatively small numbers of British fighters where they were most needed, when they were needed. A humourous part of the book is that the Germans constantly thought the British were almost out of fighters, when in reality they had enough to continue defending their homeland. Dowding seems to have been a decent man but not overly personable (somewhat like Alan Brooke in Masters and Commanders summarized further below), and as a result he did not do so well in the internal political battles, eventually losing his command at the end of the Battle of Britain. In retrospect it seems a tremendous injustice that the man who arguably saved Britain from German invasion, and thus played a vital role in the preservation of freedom in the 20th century, was fired after achieving this great victory. Another interesting point is that while the British were full of political infighting over how to best achieve victory, the Germans had relatively little debate, since Hitler was a feared dictator and people did what he told them to do. The internal British debate produced better strategies while the one-man-rule often produced bad strategies. I found this book hard to put down – I finished it quickly. Highly Recommended!

“Six Days of War” by Michael Oren, about the 1967 Six Day War

Because the Six Day War lasted for (you guessed it!) six days, it is possible to look at the strategies of both sides as well as the details of some of the key moments, all in good detail. Michael Oren has written a fascinating overview of the war. There is a lot of close up looks into the discussions of the Israeli government, and into the workings of the Egyptian government of Nasser. We see how the Six Day War happened and how it was overwhelmingly won by Israel.  Just as was the case with the Battle of Britain (and ultimately WW2), the strengths of democracy and weaknesses of dictatorship shine through. Israeli politicians and political leaders intensely fought and debated their decisions, while Egyptian, Jordanian and Syrian leaders did not have to do so. The result was good for Israel and bad for the others. In the opening days of the war, Egypt was claiming huge victories on their radio, while the reality was that they were losing badly, including the decimation of their air force, on the ground. Oren describes in some detail the recapture of the old city of Jerusalem, including the Temple Mount – a powerful moment. Other highlights are the political debates between Israel and the United States. Israel has been close with America for all of my life, so I was surprised to read of the relationship as it was then – not that they were enemies, but they weren’t allies in the way they are today. Six Days of War has been highly acclaimed as a definitive history of the Six Day War. I recommend it to anyone interested in better understanding this war, and the broader Middle East struggle that persists to this day.

“Masters and Commanders” by Andrew Roberts, about the Grand Allied Strategists of WW2

Roberts’ book was the longest and toughest of my summer reading, but it was also very rewarding as it takes you into the minds of some of the greatest military leaders of the 20th century: Franklin Roosevelt (US President), General George C. Marshall (US Army Commander), Winston Churchill (British PM), General Sir Alan Brooke (British Army Commander). Masters and Commanders describes the formulation of Allied ‘Grand Strategy’ for WW2, which refers to the big picture decisions of the war – such as when and should we attack North Africa?, when and should we return to Europe (D-Day)?, and should we focus on defeating Germany or Japan or both?. Through a series of communications and face-to-face meetings, the Americans and British made key decisions that shaped the course of the war. I had always (naively!) imagined them just generally agreeing with each other and coordinating like two old friends, but in reality they fought tooth and nail about most of the major decisions, making for tense meetings, accusations and plenty of politicking behind the scenes. As in the other two books I read, the strength of democratic government war deliberations over dictatorship is glaring – the fierce debates produce good results while the tyrant’s decisions are hit and miss, with more misses than hits. Roberts draws much of his material from diaries, and it is funny that although the British were not allowed to keep diaries for security reasons, it seems most all did anyways (thankfully for historians). Churchill and Roosevelt are giant figures in 20th century history, and Marshall is reasonably well known for formulating the Marshall Plan, but the figure who I found most intriguing was Sir Alan Brooke, who was Britain’s top military man and grand strategist. He always writes in his diary that the person he is talking with that day knows nothing about strategy – it seems he was the only one he trusted on strategy. But he was ultimately a good man who put the needs of his country ahead of his own interests. He could have had the command that made British General Montgomery famous, but he turned it down for the better of the country. He was promised to command the D-Day invasion by Churchill, but the Americans had more clout at that point and Eisenhower was eventually chosen. So although he was a key figure of WW2, he is relatively unknown. Marshall also could have had the command of the D-Day invasion, but he too felt it was for the better of his country to remain in his position. I really appreciated the sacrifice of personal fame and glory by both Brooke and Marshall, for the sake of the greater good.  I also enjoyed the constant attempts by Winston Churchill to shape things the way he wanted. It seemed to take everyone else in the book to counter the power of his personality. The saddest part of the book was when Roosevelt dies, with victory in site but before it was achieved. Again, this book is long and not light reading, but it was well worth the effort and I recommend it. It will not be for everyone – if you are looking for heroic stories of soldiers storming the beaches, this is not the book for you. This is the story of leaders under immense pressure seeking to work together to defeat the Axis powers and preserve freedom in the world.

So there you have it, an overview of my summer reading. Anyone else read something interesting this summer? Feel free to post in the comments.

Note: I also read Christianity Today writer Colin Hansen’s Young, Restless Reformed, an overview of the resurgence of Calvinism in the American evangelical church in recent years. I may review it later, but in short it was interesting and an easy read, but I didn’t always enjoy the style of writing.

Tonight I visited the Royal Ontario Museum to see the Dead Sea Scrolls exhibit. It was a fascinating experience to see the famous 2000 year old manuscripts, arguably the greatest archaeological find of the last century. The Dead Sea Scrolls are a collection of ancient biblical and extra-biblical manuscripts, including much of the Old Testament, which date from before the time of Christ. This timing is significant because it puts to rest the idea that some of the amazing prophecies about Jesus (in Isaiah, for example), were doctored by the early Christians. It also shows the amazing transmission of the Bible as more recent manuscripts show very little difference from the Dead Sea Scrolls which is hundreds of years older.

The exhibit was large and very well done. It was in the lower level of the new wing of the ROM. Somehow I expected that I would walk in and spend about half an hour looking at a bunch of scrolls, but it was far more than that. It followed a zigzagging path with one display after another relating to ancient Israel, Jerusalem, the Qumran (sp.?) community, and finally the scrolls themselves. There were a number of short documentary films amidst ancient pottery, coins, clothing, and other artifacts. There was a lot of reading to do, with each display having a paragraph or two attached to explain it.

The exhibit started off with artifacts from a Galilean town (the name slips me, it began with ‘S’ and was not one of the famous Biblical towns). This helped give the feel of ancient Israel at the time. Next there was some focus on the city of Jerusalem, with a spectacular 8 foot (est.) square picture of Jerusalem. Then the exhibit focused on the Jerusalem temple expanded by Herod the Great. The Qumran community was then highlighted, with an intriquing display of the tiny little caves in the side of a cliff where the scrolls were found. There was a long wall showing the timeline of Israel, and of ancient manuscripts (Judeo-Christian texts and other religions as well). Finally, the scrolls themselves were displayed.

Again, my expectations were way off. I had expected to see significant parts of the collection, and that they would be…well…scrolls.  But the actual Dead Sea Scrolls on display would probably fit on my dining room table, and they represented only a very small fraction of the whole of the Dead Sea Scrolls.  Biblical documents included sections from Genesis (about Joseph & Potipher’s wife), Psalms (102-103?), and Daniel (ch2? I think it was the part right after Daniel tells the meaning of the first dream and the God of heaven is praised.) There were some other extra-biblical scrolls too. The scrolls were not scrolls, but mostly ’scraps’ of paper, written in Hebrew. I wish I knew Hebrew so I could have read them! They were very ‘old looking’ (that’s a technical term!) and torn halfway through sentences.

The last part of the display was three books: 1. a bound Old Testament handwritten in Hebrew, hundreds of years old, 2. a Latin Vulgate Bible, again handwritten and hundreds of years old, and 3. a two hundred (or so) year old Qu’ran. The purpose was to show ancient Scriptures of the three Abrahamic faiths, Judaism, Christianity and Islam, since the Dead Sea Scrolls are of interest to all three. I thought the inclusion of the Qu’ran was pushing the connection a bit, since Scriptures in Judaism and Christianity are shared and are both directly connected to the Dead Sea Scrolls, whereas the Qu’ran is only indirectly connected (no Dead Sea Scroll text forms the Muslim Scriptures).

So all in all it was an excellent night. I thoroughly enjoyed the ROM’s Dead Sea Scrolls exhibit and would highly recommend it to anyone in the Toronto area. It will be at the ROM until January 3, 2010.

A few other notes:

- I went with my Aunt Wendy, her friend Debbie, and my cousin Michael – cool to see it together with them!

- Friday nights 4:30-9:30 are half price at the ROM $11, + $6 to see the Dead Sea Scrolls

- After seeing the Dead Sea Scrolls, we went to the Dinosaur exhibit and I got a great picture of the TRex! They also  had a big 70 or so foot Brontosaurus type dinosaur (I know they don’t call them that anymore, but you know what I mean), and a giant turtle

- there was some guy protesting out front of the ROM, with about 15 or so police officers watching him. His sign said something about “The Global Jihad” and also made reference to Israel. The protester was about sixty years old and he was wearing a Canadian flag like a Superman cape. Weird.

Sam Harris is an atheist who doesn’t think much of Christianity. He wrote a book called Letter to a Christian Nation that has become a best seller. As the title suggests, it is written as a letter to Christians (in America in particular), to try to show them the error of their ways.

I had heard of Sam Harris (and this book) as one of three well known ‘new atheists’ – Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, whose writings are selling briskly. In preparing for a new Christian apologetics preaching series in the fall, I thought it would be good to read what these new atheists are saying, to get a firsthand understanding of their complaints against Christianity. The book I had read previous was William Lane Craig’s Reasonable Faith, a 400+ page, strong intellectual defense of the Christian faith. So I picked up Letter to a Christian Nation, which is a much shorter book at just over 100 pages, thinking that I needed something lighter for a change.

However, I didn’t imagine how light it would be. I somehow thought that it would be a small but tightly written, poignant attack on the Christian faith, which would cause me to think and challenge me on why I believe what I believe.  Instead what I found was a poorly written rant against Christianity, thoroughly lacking in both rhetorical power and actual substance. Harris meanders almost aimlessly from topic to topic, with many moments that I guess are supposed to be ‘gotcha’s’, but that anyone with a basic knowledge of Christian apologetics could brush aside without much effort. I don’t just say this as a Christian pastor, I say it as a human being – this is a weak book. I do a fair bit of reading, and even if I disagree with something, I can give credit to a well written argument. But Letter to a Christian Nation is just not a worthy book and if I were an atheist I would be embarrassed by it. “Is that the best ya’ got?” is the question that comes to mind. Christianity isn’t in much danger if this is the best the new atheists have to offer.

The first thing that struck me about Letter to a Christian Nation was the amount of white space on the page. I think there is more white space in the margins than actual type. While this does not speak directly to the substance of the book, it does underline how little Harris actually has to say. I also noticed a lack of footnotes or endnotes (but later discovered endnotes at the end of the book – they are not noted in the actual text so you just have to guess that this would be a good place for a note and then flip to the back to see if Harris includes an endnote or not). But these formatting choices are mainly just nuisances. Let’s get into the text itself, looking at a sampling of the arguments he uses against Christianity.

He starts off by cherry-picking passages from the Bible, some dealing with OT laws that involve seemingly  harsh penalties, and some dealing with NT passages talking about God’s judgment (and note that later Harris accuses Christians of cherry-picking Scripture, just as he has done. Afterword, p105). Harris points out that God not only talks about love, but also about punishment. Any person who has read the Bible knows that God is a judge who punishes sin, but Harris treats it like he has found some secret that Christians have been desperately trying to hide, until our brave new atheist discovered these terrible, dark secrets and revealed them for all to see (Isn’t that kind of like the plot of The Da Vinci Code?). Yes, Sam, God punishes sin, and no, it isn’t pretty. That’s why we Christians run around the world telling people of God’s love and warning them of His judgment. We want people to trust in Jesus, love God and avoid hell. We also build schools, hospitals, wells, micro-businesses, and other nice things along the way.

A little further on in his book, Harris describes how a pro-lifer scratching skin their nose should be seen (by the pro-lifer) as an equivalent “Holocaust” to the destruction of a three day old human embryo (pp29-30). No, I’m not making this up. He really says this. Atheists are always bragging about how scientific they are, but on this one Harris seems a little weak in the science department, being unable to distinguish the difference between nose skin and a three day old human embryo. Maybe that is where atheism takes you!?

In one section he describes several countries as being ‘among the least religious societies on earth.’ (p43) He includes my own dear country of Canada on this list. According to a recent Ipsos-Reid survey (in the past five years or so), about 84% (if memory serves me correct) of Canadians believe in God. Canada has thousands of churches and millions of Christians, not to mention hundreds of thousands (millions?) practicing other religions. We have Christian radio, Christian TV, Christian schools (including government funded Catholic schools), Christian politicians saying “God bless Canada”, etc, etc, etc… Oh we irreligious Canadians! What more can we do to show how irreligious we are?….If Canada is supposed to be an example of one of the least religious societies on earth, then it seems Harris must be scraping the bottom of the barrel for examples. I point all of this out to say that Harris needs to be watched on his facts.

Around the middle of the book, Harris defines atheism as follows:

“Atheism is not a philosophy; it is not even a view of the world; it is simply an admission of the obvious…Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs” (p51)

Where to start…’an admission of the obvious’…’reasonable people’…’unjustified religious beliefs’.  Now there are arrogant Christians, arrogant Muslims, etc…. but it’s not the main point of their religion. Humility is encouraged and celebrated in Christianity, for example. With Harris’ brand of new atheism, arrogance seems to be a virtue. His definition of atheism could be summarized by saying. “Smart people are atheists. Brainless people are religious.” Because of course it so obvious that atheism is true, as all reasonable people can see since religious beliefs are unjustified. To use Harris’ own statistic, 87% of Americans must be pretty dim-witted, including current and past presidents, since they must not be reasonable people who can see the obvious fact that atheism is the way to go, due to their unjustified religious beliefs.

Yes, I realize that drips with sarcasm. But c’mon Sam, would it have hurt you that much to respond to real arguments of real theists, who have shown themselves to be reasonable, and often brilliant people, who have written in favour of belief in God for centuries before you wrote your book? Do you really think that you, as an atheist, are the intellectual superior of all us simple folk who believe in God? Contrary to your assertion, it is in fact quite easy to argue that it is obvious to most people, not that atheism is true, but that there is a God. It actually takes a lot of work to turn people into atheists (and thus atheists have to keep writing books like yours to persuade the masses of how ‘obvious’ atheism is).

Harris goes on to discuss the conflict between science and religion, pointing out how foolish it is to use faith as a reason for justifying belief (pp66-67). He gives examples of things us crazy religious people take on faith such as the “origin of books like the Bible and the Koran,…the resurrection of Jesus” (p67).  Now you would think that Harris would address some of the readily available Christian arguments for the origin of the Bible or the resurrection of Jesus, and consider whether they pass historical tests or not. Try for example, the chapter on the resurrection in Craig’s Reasonable Faith, or Habermas’ & Licona’s The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus. Both present strong arguments for the historicity of the resurrection, not from blind faith, but from historical data that is generally agreed upon by liberal and conservative scholars. Craig even delves into probability calculus, giving mathematical reasons for the probability of the resurrection. However, Harris does not even bother to address these or other worthwhile Christian arguments (which can be convincing to Christians and skeptics alike). He just makes assertions about how right he is and how terrible Christianity is, without even trying to respond to the strong arguments arrayed against atheism. Such blatant omission is intellectually weak on Harris’ part. He must know better. But I don’t think his book is meant to be balanced or thoughtful. He is every bit as dogmatic (and even more so) than those whom he seeks to attack. Many Christians are thoughtful and willing to hear opposing arguments. But Harris is an atheist on an ideological tirade – he is ‘religious’ in his passion against Christianity, and it skews his objectivity and makes him so narrow minded that he does bother to deal with legitimate arguments by those with whom he disagrees.

So generally speaking, I don’t recommend A Letter to a Christian Nation, not just because I disagree with it, but primarily because it is not a very good book. But if you are Christian, wondering if atheism has anything to offer, then you may want to check it out. It will strengthen your Christian faith when you see Harris’ weak and one-sided arguments.  If you do happen to find a question that he raises for which you need an answer, a good place to start would be Ravi Zacharias’ response to Harris, The End of Reason. I will be reviewing it in the near future on this blog and hopefully will remember to insert a link here.

Not Recommended (except as a negative example of the weakness of atheism!).

Harris, Sam, Letter to a Christian Nation, Vintage, Toronto, 2008, 120 pages.