The “New Teleological Argument” is a theistic argument which attempts to show that theism is more probable than the postulate of an “atheistic single universe”[i]. There are number of reasons why this argument is termed the “New” teleological argument. Chief among these reasons is that its explanandum i.e. the incredible fine tuning of the laws and constants of physics have only been discovered in the past 20-30 years[ii] [iii]. By contrast, the explanandum of “Old Teleological Arguments” has long since been available to theologians and philosophers of religion. Of course the relatively recent origin of the “New” Teleological argument is not the only feature which distinguishes it from its historical counterpart. Whereas historical versions of design arguments (such as Paley’s famous watchmaker argument) rest on an argument from analogy, contemporary versions of the argument rest on what the philosopher of biology Elliot Sober calls the “Likelihood Principle”[iv] [v]. In other words, rather than relying on an analogy between the explanandum and some obviously contrived entity such as (in Paley’s case) a watch, contemporary versions of the teleological argument argue that the explanandum (the fine tuning of the laws and constants of physics) is more probable given the hypothesis of theism as opposed to the postulate of an atheistic single universe[vi].

The Conditions of Success
Throughout the rest of this post, I hope to argue that, on purely philosophical grounds, there is little which will allow us to say which version of the argument (be it contemporary or historical) is more or less plausible. In this respect, it seems only fair that we should assess the strength of David Hume’s critiques, since they are popularly regarded as decisive refutations of teleological arguments.[vii] [viii] It’s important to note also, that while the failure of the Humean critiques would not guarantee the conclusion that the design arguments are equally plausible, it is suggestive thereof. After all, if the joint failure of natural theological and atheological arguments should suggest that it’s impossible to arbitrate (on the evidence) between theism and atheism, then similarly, the failure of stock arguments against either of the design arguments should lead us to think that it’s impossible to arbitrate between them.  In spite of the fact that both contemporary and historical versions of the design argument are equally plausible, I will argue that the contemporary version of the argument has a number of key dialectic advantages which may warrant us in thinking that it is “dialectically speaking”, more successful than its historical counterpart. More precisely, I am saying that the relative success of the new teleological argument is a function of the fact that it does not turn on premises that are as deeply controversial as the commitments required by the historical version.

The Contemporary Version of the Argument
The most prolific contemporary defender of the design argument is Robin Collins who, rather than arguing from facts about biology, argues from recent discoveries in physics[ix]. As we noted earlier, this is one of the main reasons why it is termed the “New” teleological argument. Collins frames his rendition of the argument as follows:

(1)     The existence of fine tuning is not improbable under theism[x]

(2)     The existence of fine tuning is very improbable under the atheistic single-universe hypothesis[xi]

Therefore, given the prime principle of confirmation[1] [xii],

(3)     The existence of fine tuning is evidence for theism over the atheistic single-universe hypothesis[xiii]

By “fine tuning”, I mean the very precise arrangement of the fundamental laws and constants of physics that must be met in order for our Universe to fall into the very narrow life permitting range.[xiv] [xv] According to contemporary physics, these conditions seem to be arranged in such a way that, were they to vary by even the tiniest amount, life (or more precisely, sentient life) would not be a physical possibility. For example, as P.C.W. Davies points out, a change in “the weak force”[2] by only 1 part in 100¹⁰⁰ would make the Universe uninhabitable.[xvi] Similarly, if the cosmological constant[3] were just a fraction faster, matter would spread apart so quickly that even relatively small clumps of matter would have insufficient time to form[xvii].

The Plausibility of the Premises
Premise (1) amounts to the claim that if God exists, then it is entirely within His creative capability to create the universe finely tuned as it is. Hence the observation that there is a universe which exhibits teleo-functional properties is not surprising given the postulate of theism. Considering that the traditional conception of God holds that He is an omnipotent being, this is a fairly straightforward premise that we should accept.

Premise (2) amounts to the claim that if God does not exist and if the single universe hypothesis is true, then the apparent fine tuning of the universe is a very surprising fact. After all, the fundamental laws and constants of physics seem to be arranged in such a way that their placement seems guided. But if God doesn’t exist, it doesn’t seem likely that there would be any intelligent, guiding mind such that it could plausibly account for this apparent fine tuning. Hence premise (2) seems more plausibly true than false.

Assuming then, that something much like Sober’s likelihood principle is true, it follows that theism is more probable than the atheistic single universe hypothesis. What’s important to notice however, is that this conclusion is entirely consistent with the claim that the universe is not designed. After all, the atheist might agree that theism is more probable than the atheistic single universe hypothesis, but think that, in actual fact, we live in a multi-verse. Hence Collins’ design argument does not purport to establish that theism is probable tout court. Were this the end of the argument, we would have to say that, as a piece of natural theology, it is quite unsuccessful since it does not attempt to convince non-theists to become theists.

This of course is not the end of the argument. The multi-verse theory holds that there is an infinite number of other universes each with different fundamental laws and constants of physics. In such a situation, so the argument goes, a finely tuned universe such as the one we observe is not just probable but inevitable.[xviii] Put very simply, the invocation of multi-verse theory at this stage of the argument is an attempt to raise the probability of the fine tuning.[xix] However, there are two points that the theist can make. On the one hand, the theist can appeal to the simplicity criterion to show that there’s still reason to prefer theism over the multi-verse theory. Whereas the multi-verse hypothesis postulates an infinite number of universes, with an infinitely large number of variegated and discrete parts, theism postulates just a single entity constituted of a single substance. The upshot is that whereas God is a remarkably simple entity, the postulate of the multi-verse is, to put it lightly, ontologically un-parsimonious. Hence all else being equal, it seems that theism would be a preferable alternative over the multi-verse hypothesis. Furthermore, it is debatable as to whether the multi-verse hypotheses escape the problem of fine tuning. It has been noted by some, that the most favoured contemporary multi-verse theory, Inflationary theory, must invoke a finely tuned set of initial conditions to explain away some of the observed fine tunings such as the apparent homogeneity and flatness of the Universe.[xx]

The Historical Version of the Argument
The most prolific historical proponent of the design argument was William Paley who argued that various biological organisms exhibit what we might call “teleo-functional complexity”.[xxi] [xxii] That is, they have parts which interact in such a way as to achieve a particular purpose. More precisely, the interaction of these parts is such that were one of those parts absent, the entity would cease to function. Paley argues that it is the presence of this property which allows us to discern that an obviously contrived entity such as a watch is designed.[xxiii] Analogously, Paley argued, if teleo-functional complexity in watches is to be accounted for in terms of design, similarly we must also account for the origin of certain biological organisms in terms of design since they also exhibit this property.[xxiv] Hence by analogy, the origin of certain biological organisms is best explained in terms of design. Paley’s argument has, quite aptly, become known as “The Watch

maker Argument”. For the sake of brevity, we can schematize Paley’s argument as follows:

(1)     Purposely designed instruments such as watches exhibit teleo-functional complexity[xxv]

(2)     Certain biological organisms also exhibit teleo-functional complexity[xxvi]

Therefore by analogy,

(3)     Certain biological organisms are purposely designed.[xxvii]

Contrasting the Arguments & Dealing with Criticisms
The first thing to note is that, unlike historical design arguments, contemporary versions are not arguments from analogy. Rather, they argue that given theism, the fine tuning we observe in the Universe is to be expected more so than it would be given the postulate of an atheistic single universe. It is precisely because the contemporary version of the argument does not rest on this argument from analogy that it is, dialectically speaking, more effective than its historical counter-part. As Hume rightly pointed out, an argument from analogy is only as good as the analogy.[xxviii] Hence Paley’s version of the argument inevitably requires its defender to engage in a protracted discussion of the relevance of various differences between a watch and some fact about the world. By contrast, in virtue of the fact that they don’t rely on this analogy, contemporary versions of the argument do not require their defenders to engage in any such discussion. Hence contemporary renditions of the design argument, remain immune to any attack on the propriety of the analogy.

Furthermore, insofar as evolution by natural selection is a well supported scientific theory, it seems that Paley’s watchmaker argument breaks down.[xxix] If grant we grant this fact, it would seem to follow that the contemporary rendition of the design argument is straightforwardly more plausible than its historical counterpart. After all, the latter version attempts only to argue to design from facts about physics rather than facts about biology. However, a discussion of the evidence for evolution by natural selection is beyond the purely philosophical scope of this paper. So let us, for the sake of charity, proceed as if evolution by natural selection is not a well established scientific theory. With that said however, there is something to be said for the dialectic success of an argument from design which does not require its defenders to run against the grain of the mainstream scientific community, and which altogether circumvent any form of Darwinian attack.

One of the most common criticisms of design arguments comes from Hume’s writing in his “Dialogues concerning Natural Religion” wherein he argues that to assert that this designer is “God”[4] is to go beyond the evidence. We must never, so Hume argues, “ascribe to any cause any qualities but what are exactly sufficient to produce the effect”. In other words, we must ascribe to the cause only what is minimally required to produce the effect (the fine tuning of the cosmos or the teleo-functional complexity of biological organisms).[xxx] In order to help us see this point, Alvin Plantinga (in his eloquent little book “God, Freedom and Evil”) spells out what the theist believes. He states that the theistic hypothesis holds, inter alia, that:

1. Some things in the universe (including the universe) were designed;[xxxi]
2. Some things in the universe (including the universe) were designed by exactly one person;[xxxii]
3. The Universe was created ex nihilo.[xxxiii]

Hume’s objection, Plantinga states, is that the argument from design gives us only some evidence for 1 but does not do anything to support 2 and 3.[xxxiv] However, while Hume is right to point out that the design argument does not of itself give us any evidence for 2 and 3, the proponent of the design argument is not debarred from engaging in a conceptual analysis of what a plausible designer might be like. It may be that by engaging in just such a conceptual analysis, the proponent of the design argument can recover a number of theologically significant attributes. For example, it would not do to postulate that designer was a physical being which exhibits teleo-functional complexity akin to that for which Paley demands explanation in terms of intelligent design. After all, if the designer did exhibit such teleo-functional complexity, and teleo-functional complexity demands design, then we cannot without special pleading, halt the regress at the designer. We are off on a potentially infinite regress. Indeed this serves as the basis for one of Hume’s critiques of design arguments.[xxxv] But notice that this reductio applies only to the supposition that the designer is a physical being which exhibits teleo-functional complexity. It does not refute the inference to design outright. After all, the theistic concept of God is that He is a fundamentally “simple” being, where the term “simple” is cashed out in terms of being without distinct parts that interact with one-another. God, so it is said, is an immaterial mind that is made of a single, non material substance.[xxxvi] In such a situation, it’s unclear at best, that the designer exhibits the kind of teleo-functional complexity that Paley argues requires design. Thus it’s unclear that the designer requires design. Similarly, although it is logically possible, it would not do to postulate that a multitude of intelligent designers. After all, in Hume’s own terms, it would go beyond the evidence. In Hume’s own terms, we must only postulate that which is sufficient to account for the effect. If a single designing entity is so sufficient, we should need extra reason for postulating a multitude of designing minds. Hence already, we have some suggestion (by no means an airtight guarantee) that a plausible candidate designer would be a single, non-material entity.

However, where Hume is un-controversially correct, is in asserting that even after this conceptual analysis, we are not taken to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. However, the argument from design was never intended to prove any such thing. Indeed in some cumulative case arguments[5] for theism, the argument from design is intended only to raise the antecedent probability of theism such that the apologist can, further down the line, make a case for the truth of their particular faith tradition e.g. through appealing to alleged miracles without the antecedent probability being vanishingly small.[xxxvii] The important point to note however is just that in this context, Hume’s comments, while quite correct, are not really criticisms.

However, Hume has a number of more weighty objections to design arguments. The first of these objections claims that there exists a dis-analogy between obviously designed objects such as watches and biological organisms. This dis-analogy, so Hume argues, consists in that we have not observed the intelligent designing of the biological organisms whereas we have observed the intelligent designing of contrived objects such as watches.[xxxviii] However, in his seminal book “Natural Theology”, Paley himself has a very good response to this objection. He says:

“Nor would it, I apprehend, weaken the conclusion, that we had never seen a watch made; that we had never known an artist capable of making one; that we were altogether incapable of executing such a piece of workmanship ourselves, or of understanding in what manner it was performed; all this being no more than what is true of the remains of ancient art, of some lost arts, and, to the generality of all man-kind, of the more curious productions of modern manufacture. Does one man in a million know how an oval frame is turned? ignorance of this kind exalts our opinion of the unseen and unknown artists skill…but raises no doubt in our minds of the existence and agency of such an artist…”[xxxix]

In other words, our failure to observe the intelligent designing of biological organisms does little to undermine the inference to design. We can put Paley’s point here more forcefully, suppose we were to travel to a distant star system and on one of the (dead) planets therein, we discovered some machinery. In spite of the fact that we have, hitherto no experience with aliens intelligently designing such machinery, we would be obtuse to think that there was no analogy between the apparent design of this alien machinery, and the design present in human machinery.

But supposing we grant that Paley’s analogy is fatally flawed. There still is no in principle objection[6] that has been levied against design arguments. As we noted earlier, the contemporary version of the argument rests on the Likelihood Principle, and not on an analogy.

As of yet, we have seen little in the way of a philosophical refutation of either the historical or the contemporary version of the design argument. Hence it is hard to say if one version of the argument is more or less plausible than the other. However, insofar as the contemporary version of the argument does not rest on premises that are as controversial as those involved in the watchmaker analogy, we might say that it is, dialectically speaking, more effective than its historical counterpart. Such renditions of the argument do not require their proponents to take on the added burden of having to move against the grain of contemporary scientific orthodoxy. Nor does it require its defender to defend a potentially questionable analogy.

Massey Presbyterian Church (“MPC”) has offered to help us put on a fundraising night where both of us will utilise our talents to bring you a three-course meal for $10 cooked by me (I cook see my cooking website Mad | Food) and a talk given by Matt “Can God Command Evil? The Problem of Apparently Immoral Commands” – this will be a slightly abridged version of the very same talk Matt will give to the EPS Apologetics conference in November so make sure you don’t miss it or you’ll have to fly to San Francisco to hear it!

This event is happening this weekend at the MPC Night Church Service on Sunday 2 October. The starter and main will be served to your table before the service and the dessert will be served after. So please arrive at 6pm to be seated if you are coming for dinner; the service will start at 7pm.

Menu

(Diners choose 1 from each category)

Entree:

Creamy Tomato Soup – home made, mildly spiced (gluten free)

MPC Bread – fresh-baked individual loaf with hummus

Main:*
White Chilli Chicken Enchilada - chicken, cannellini beans and mild mexican flavours in a delicious sauce wrapped and baked in a tortilla (Gluten free option: served without the tortilla on rice)

Beef Lasagne – tasty beef mince, layered with pasta and topped with a cheese sauce

Empanadas – mildly spiced, creamy vegetable and chickpea curry encased in flaky puff pastry topped with poppy seeds, served with chutney on the side (vegetarian) (Gluten free option: served without the pastry on rice)

* All mains served with your choice of crunchy slaw or steamed winter vegetables

Dessert:
Berry Bombe with Boysenberry Coulis – Home made ice-cream with crushed meringue, marshmallows and berries topped with home made boysenberry sauce. (Gluten free)

Chocolate Tiramisu – layers of coffee-rum flavour infused chocolate sponge and cream (alcohol free)

Sticky Date Pudding with Maple Butterscotch Sauce – light, fluffy and so delicious!

Non-alcoholic beverages will also be available.

Donations towards our trip gratefully received  

(If you can’t eat a whole three-course meal or you want two of something individual prices are: entree $2, main $5, dessert $3)  

Please use the Facebook Page to RSVP and invite others.

MandM in America

12 Nov - University of Notre Dame, Indiana
Madeleine will give a paper entitled: “No Privileges, No Penalties” and the De-Privileging of Secularism” (essentially: what the role of religion should be in public life) to the Notre Dame Center for Ethics and Culture’s Flagship Fall Conference Radical Emancipation: Confronting the Challenge of Secularism.

16 Nov - Evangelical Philosophical Society, San Francisco
Matt will give a paper entitled: “Can Traditional Theism Provide an Adequate Foundation for Morality? A Reply to Walter Sinnott-Armstrong‘s Critique of William Lane Craig?” (essentially: a defence of Christian morality) to the Annual Meeting of the Evangelical Philosophical Society.

19 Nov - Evangelical Philosophical Society Apologetics Conference, San Francisco 
Matt will give a paper entitled: “Can God Command Evil? The Problem of Apparently Immoral Commands” (essentially: an answer to the problem of evil commands) to the annual Evangelical Philosophical Society Apologetics Conference (Speakers participate by personal invitation only).

19 Nov - Society for Biblical Literature, San Francisco
We will give a joint paper entitled: “Blogging a Short-Cut to Peer Review: How to do it Effectively” (essentially: on using the platform of blogging to influence culture effectively) to the Annual Meeting of the Society for Biblical Literature.

Click the image to listen online or use these links for the MP3s:

The Forum 18 September 2011: 20 Questions Part 1

The Forum 18 September 2011: 20 Questions Part 2

Normally Life FM only release a 20 minute highlight podcast of The Forum but they announced on Facebook today that due to the sheer volume of requests for the whole show they decided to make an exception. I think that says a lot about how hungry people are for Apologetics and what a good job Madeleine, Frank, Dale and George did.

The show which, along with Madeleine, will feature Frank Ritchie, Dale Campbell and host George Penk, will air tomorrow night, Sunday 18 September from 9pm – 11pm NZT (5am-7am Sunday 18 September EDT).

You can listen online here if you are not in New Zealand; the frequencies for if you are in New Zealand are here.

Some of the questions Madeleine answered were:

]]> http://www.mandm.org.nz/2011/09/tune-in-to-tough-questions-on-life-fms-the-forum-this-sunday-feat-madeleine-flannagan.html/feed 69 http://www.mandm.org.nz/2011/05/were-going-to-san-francisco.html?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=were-going-to-san-francisco http://www.mandm.org.nz/2011/05/were-going-to-san-francisco.html#comments Tue, 10 May 2011 01:43:58 +0000 Matt http://www.mandm.org.nz/?p=8984 Last year I was invited to present at the Annual Evangelical Philosophical Society Apologetics Conference in Atlanta, Georgia. This was a real surprise to me and an honour. Some of the best evangelical Christian scholars in the world presented at this conference; speakers included Alvin Plantinga, William Lane Craig, Paul Copan, Gary Habermas, Mike Licona, Frank Beckwith and numerous others.

I felt very out of my depth. Meeting Alvin Plantinga whose writings inspired me to take philosophy as a theological enterprise seriously was truly amazing and when Al changed the standard jokes (if you’ve seen a few of his lectures you’ll know what I mean) in both his key note addresses for jokes about New Zealanders it was something else. To have the greatest living philosopher of religion acknowledge the sole kiwi in the audience was something I did not expect.

“Last year I spoke at only the Apologetics Conference and the Society for Biblical Literature Meeting but this year I will be presenting at all three.”

Even more humbling was being asked to speak on the Evangelical Philosophical Society’s panel presentation to the Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, which was running at the same time. Me, the blogger from MandM, presented alongside Richard Hess one of the best Evangelical Old Testament scholars in the world, Paul Copan, the President of the Evangelical Philosophical Society, an expert on God and Morality, and Randal Rauser, a top Analytic Theologian, who has done some great work getting theologians to take analytic philosophy seriously with Notre Dame’s Michael Rea, an outstanding philosopher of religion and meta-physician as chair. It was truly unreal engaging in a discussion on the relationship between divine command ethics and the Old Testament conquest narratives with these people. I kept wondering when they were going to realise they’d made a mistake inviting me! Even more so when one considers that the audience gathered to hear us and ask questions included people like Eric Seibert, Christopher Wright, Doug Geivett and William Lane Craig – all prestigious scholars who easily should have been presenting instead of me! The experience was extremely rewarding. There were various positive reviews of the panel from the Evangelical Philosophical Society, William Lane Craig, Claude Mariottini and various observers. I learnt a lot and discovered, somewhat to my surprise, that I could intelligently contribute in discussion at this level and that these other scholars were interested in what I had to say.

Since coming back from Atlanta, my professional employment prospects have improved; while I still do not have full-time work, I am doing work on an increasingly steady flow of short-term projects. I have been asked to contribute and co-write articles to four up-coming books edited by the likes of William Lane Craig, Paul Copan, Steve Cowan and Jeremy Evans; three of which I have written in the last four months. I have also written a dictionary article on Old Testament Ethics with Paul Copan. One of the top Philosophy of Religion Journals has asked me to write a review of John Loftus’s “The Christian Delusion” given that I was quoted on the blurb of the book and though it is not totally confirmed, it looks like this will be published shortly. I have done research for a television documentary on God and Morality for an Australian film maker I met in LA on the way back from the conferences in Atlanta. I have been invited to be part of a research group on personhood which contains some leading theologians and biblical scholars connected with the Society of Biblical Literature. I continue to get opportunities to do research and collaborate on projects like this from overseas.

The local scene has also improved; shortly after I came back from Atlanta, I was approached by a South Auckland church to help out with Sunday preaching and teaching their youth group. This has seen me preaching pretty much weekly and teaching once a fortnight. Laidlaw College have asked me to guest lecture on the history of western epistemology and tutor for them and the North Shore home-school group have me teaching a series of critical thinking classes for them this term based on my Friday Fallacy series.

I also have found myself regularly being asked to give lectures and talks. I have been asked to present two seminars on the ethics of abortion and one on divine command ethics at Auckland University for various campus groups. I have also been contacted by an Australian apologetics organisation about possible speaking engagements over there; I have been asked to discuss the ethics of war on a TV panel, a UK radio show is also talking with both Madeleine and I at the moment about us doing a couple of shows with them on religion and ethics. The possibility of a discussion or debate at Lincoln University, again with Madeleine, on the issue of religion and public life is also on the cards.

The schedule does not stop there; I also look set to contribute to two major conferences at Auckland University in July, the Naturalisms in Ethics Conference and the Australasian Philosophy of Religion Association conference. In attendance at these conferences will be Yale’s John Hare, Notre Dame’s Mark Murphy, DePauw’s Erik Wielenberg and Baylor’s Trent Doughtery. Dougherty is an epistemologist; epistemology is not my area so I know of him only by his reputation, Facebook and his contribution to the Prosblogion. Hare and Murphy are easily two of the best Christian Ethicists in the world and Wielenberg is the best critic of divine command ethics writing today. The thought of presenting my ideas before these people is truly daunting and humbling.

Prior to going to Atlanta, I would be lucky to get this many opportunities over a period of several years yet here we are not even half way through the year and I have found myself suddenly in a much more productive mode than I have been in the 5 years since I graduated.

I joke with my friends that for someone who does not have a full-time academic appointment I am extremely busy doing academic work; research if it is to be substantive takes many hours. However, reliance on short-term contracts like these makes things very tight and down to the wire for our family. I continue to make applications for something more full-time and long term in the hope we can stop living hand to mouth; we are waiting to hear on several applications at present. In the mean time all I can do is keep pressing forward.

Going to Atlanta has helped our situation immensely; suddenly in New Zealand and around the world people have started to take some notice of my work. I still remain a bit bemused that an obscure New Zealand analytic theologian, who, shortly after getting his PhD, turned to blogging as an outlet for the things in his mind, was even invited to go to Atlanta but since returning I have certainly noticed a definite change in how, even within New Zealand, people are responding to my work. I remain humbled and thankful for all our supportive readership. One thing that truly amazed me in Atlanta was how many people I met who read my work and appreciated it – “they read my work?” was always my natural response; surely I should be reading them.

When I went to Atlanta I realised I had been given a lucky break; there are thousands of philosophers and theologians who need a break and I should not expect the offer to be repeated. However, it seems set to be happening again. In November this year the Evangelical Philosophy Society’s Annual Meeting will be held from 16-18 Nov 2011 in San Francisco, contemporaneously, it will also hold its Annual Apologetics Conference from 17-19 Nov 2011 and the Society of Biblical Literature’s Annual Meeting will run from 19-22 Nov 2011 also in San Francisco.  I have been asked to speak at all three.

The Evangelical Philosophy Society have asked me to present a paper criticising Walter Sinnott-Armstrong’s criticisms of divine command theory. The abstract has gone through peer review and been accepted. This paper will be an updated version of my series of blog posts on this issue:
Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, William Lane Craig and the Argument from Harm Part I
Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, William Lane Craig and the Argument from Harm Part II
Walter Sinnott-Armstrong and the Moral Scepticism Objection to Divine Commands
Walter Sinnott-Armstrong and Infantile Religious Morality
Walter Sinnott-Armstrong on God Morality and Arbitrariness

The Society of Biblical Literature have asked both Madeleine and I to present on theological blogging and how one can use it to supplement publications in raising one’s profile as a scholar. MandM is now one of the most widely read theological blogs and is one of the highest Google Page Ranked blogs for its niche and I have become known in my field as a result of it. The Society of Biblical Literature has waived their requirement that only PhD level Theologians or Biblical Scholars are allowed to present, to enable Madeleine to present with me.

To be asked to speak at these two highly prestigious conferences is an honour; far more people submit abstracts than get accepted so we were very content with having our two abstracts confirmed. But then a few days ago William Lane Craig emailed me and asked me to be one of the select few scholars who are invited to speak at the Evangelical Philosophical Society’s Apologetics Conference. I will be speaking on the topic “Can God Command Evil? The Problem of Apparently Immoral Commands.” This made my day.

Last year I spoke at only the Apologetics Conference and the Society for Biblical Literature Meeting but this year I will be presenting at all three, the Evangelical Philosophical Society’s Annual Meeting as well, and Madeleine has been asked to present.

This is all a fantastic honour for someone who only a few years ago was rising at 5am and stacking shelves in a supermarket till mid-day while his wife worked full-time and whose sole theological output was writing blog posts. While things have dramatically improved for me, things are still tight and difficult for us. Madeleine remains partially-disabled and in constant pain from a car accident and this limits her capacity to work full-time; she is going to be admitted to the bar in a short while but there are very few openings for legal positions for recent graduates that are part-time. In addition to these obvious challenges, we have a child in the autistic spectrum who cannot go through the school system and needs full-time attention at home, whom it is very hard to find baby-sitters for. We have continued to battle ACC over their dubious refusal to continue to pay Madeleine’s accident compensation. I am able to do this research, writing, and speaking work but things are tight. Preaching does not pay a lot, and short-term contracts to speak or write are just that: short-term. We are surviving through the grace of God but it is difficult. The results of last year’s trip to Atlanta have been hugely beneficial and we want to keep the momentum going so we have starting saving for Madeleine and I to go to San Francisco. If you, our reader, appreciate what we do and want to assist us that would be greatly appreciated. Last year total strangers from all over the world generously donated and we were able to pay for the airfares and associated costs to get me to Atlanta and I remain incredibly grateful for this. I do not like asking for money but the realities are that we need help raising the $5,000 NZD we need to get to San Francisco. For this reason if you believe in MandM’s work and would like to support us in going to the US in November please visit our support page.

Both Madeleine and I remain grateful to our many readers. We are always amazed how often we run into total strangers who read our writings and the correspondence we get from people all over the world is extremely encouraging. We thank you for reading and contributing to our work, your support and encouragement has enabled us to get this far.

On the God Topic:

Responding with Reason and Precision

Details:

1 – 2 April 2011
Friday 7:00 pm – 9:30 pm
Saturday 8:30 am – 4:30 pm

Gloria Dei Lutheran Church
18220 Upper Bay Road
Houston, TX 77058

Conference Sessions:

Defending Your Faith Kickoff
With JP Moreland, Craig Hazen, and more

The A, B, Cs…Ds & Es of Defending the Gospels
with Mike Licona

Did Jesus Really Rise from the Dead?
with Craig Hazen

An Open Dialog with an Atheist
with MaryJo Sharp

Arguments for the Existence of God
with JP Moreland

CS Lewis’ Most Influential Arguments
with Louis Markos

A Dialog of “Unveiling the Veil”
with Scott Swiggard, Chris Bolyard, & Jim Westerman

Mighty Warriors
with Micah Parker

Cost $40, which includes a Texas Style Smoked Brisket BBQ lunch on Saturday. Register here.

“‘You must love the LORD your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your strength, and all your mind.’” (Luke 10:27)

“Test everything, hold on to the good.” (1 Thess 5:21)

“See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.” (Colossians 2:8)

“Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.” (1 Peter 3:15)

A couple of years ago Matt made it to the position of one of two final candidates for a position with a Christian school who wanted to hire a theologian to re-write their curriculum and work with their teachers so as to better bring God into each subject area. The final interview went badly. Matt was asked for how he would approach science and creation issues and he gave an answer not unlike this comment which he left in the comments thread of my post “The NZARH and the Privileging of Secularism“:

The Atheist Missionary asked: “If a student approaches their science teacher and asks whether the world is only 6000 years old, what should the science teacher tell them?”

Matt answered: “If it is a public school with a significant “fundamentalist constituency” the teacher should tell the student that according to the best current scientific theories the world is several millions of years old and explain why they think this. The teacher could then state that some religious groups believe that the world is 6000 years old and this is because they think the bible is God’s word and that Genesis 1-11 should be read literally. The teacher could note that if these assumptions are correct then God teaches that current science is wrong and there would be good reasons for thinking science is mistaken. The teacher could add that there are other Christians who think Genesis 1-11 should not be interpreted literally but he should note that whether the assumptions and interpretation in question are correct or not is a theological dispute which he as a science teacher cannot really comment on. He could refer the student to some books which discuss these issues from various angles and perhaps even refer him to the Religious Education teacher who might be able to explain the theological positions better.

If the student asks what do you think? The teacher could answer, “I accept that science is the only reliable way of coming to these questions, and I don’t accept the assumption that the Bible is God’s word; however, these are philosophical and theological positions, not strictly scientific ones.” Alternatively he might state, “while I accept the Bible is God’s word I think Genesis 1-11 is not supposed to be interpreted literally, I think when you examine the kind of writing it is there are good reasons for thinking something else is going on there and so there is no reason for thinking science has made a mistake here.” Again, the teacher should encourage the student to come to an understanding of the issues for himself and should recommend a range of people or resources from different perspectives for him to consult. What he should not do is say: ‘no it is millions of years old and anyone who thinks otherwise is an ignorant fool worthy of ridicule.’

The former approach that I advocate encourages understanding of the issues and it encourages the student to think wholistically about all the questions- scientific, philosophical and theological – as well as how to distinguish the different issues and assumptions involved and so on. The latter position, which appears to be the attitude of many, does not do this. It essentially fosters ignorance about why others think the way they do and encourages intolerance based on this ignorance.”

In the final interview Matt said he thought that at a senior level differing approaches to how Genesis relates to evolutionary theory should be presented; the arguments for different positions should be examined and tested with a view to the students grappling with the theories and coming to an informed conclusion. Some on the interview panel reacted strongly against this, suggesting Matt was claiming “God was wrong” and one even insinuated Matt might be an atheist. They claimed he had denied scriptural authority and even suggested that his whole theology should be in question. Matt was advised the next day that the school were not sure if they were going to hire the other candidate but they definitely were not going to hire him. (Ouch!)

In addition to the frustration of missing an opportunity to serve God with his giftings we were frustrated at the school’s apparent refusal to be willing to permit room for the engagement of the common reasons for doubt that many young people growing into independence have.

It would be nice if this experience was a once-off and was unique to that school but we have not found that to be the case in New Zealand. Matt has been passed over for full-time employment for his “socratic” style of engaged teaching; the received wisdom in another Christian school was to encourage the memorisation of facts and filling in of work sheets in philosophy and religious education classes. Matt committed the offence of engaging the senior students in socratic dialogue instead of handing around cross-word puzzles.

Similarly, in the tertiary sector, we have found that evangelical colleges put a limited premium on these issues too. Once Matt, in an interview for a Theology Lecturer position, was asked if he though having a PhD in Theology made him over-qualified(!) (A pastor with a BMin was appointed in that instance).

People associated with another institution which came under some criticism for hiring someone with a PhD in Education and the equivalent of a preaching licence in Theology to teach their philosophical papers have expressed the attitude that philosophy is something one can apparently “just pick up.” The same institution, along with others and some para-church organisations, have repeatedly shown in their hiring practices their view that at best one only needs a BA on the topic or sometimes not even that if they happen to be the latest trendy para-church intern who has read a popular book on world views and who has written a couple of essays that impressed the equally unqualified hirer.

In addition to not valuing analytic theology and philosophy as academic disciplines, in other contexts we have heard these subjects denigrated by people saying “you can’t argue with personal experience, just love people and show them you care.” The attitude that this is all that is needed to engage non-Christian New Zealand is common.

It is sad that evangelical Christians in New Zealand are so wedded to these paradigms because recent research from Fuller Theological Seminary, has shown them to be hugely damaging. As Nancy Pearcey points out in “How Critical Thinking Saves Faith,”

Fuller Seminary recently conducted a study on teens who become leavers [of the Christian faith] in college.  The researchers uncovered the single most significant factor in whether young people stand firm in their Christian convictions or leave them behind.  And it’s not what most of us might expect.

Join a campus ministry group?  A Bible study?  Important though those things are, the most decisive factor is whether students had a safe place to work through their doubts and questions before leaving home.

The researchers concluded, “The more college students felt that they had the opportunity to express their doubt while they were in high school, the higher [their] levels of faith maturity and spiritual maturity.”

The study indicates that students actually grow more confident in their Christian commitment when the adults in their life — parents, pastors, teachers — guide them in grappling with the challenges posed by prevailing secular worldviews.  In short, the only way teens become truly “prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks” (1 Pet. 3:15) is by wrestling honestly and personally with the questions.

As the researchers put it, “Students who had the opportunity to struggle with tough questions and pain during high school seemed to have a healthier transition into college life.”

Sadly, most churches and Christian schools do not encourage “tough questions.”  In Dyck’s interviews with leavers, most reported that “they were regularly shut down when they expressed doubts.” They were ridiculed, scolded, or made to feel there was something immoral about even asking.

Instead of addressing teens’ questions, most church youth groups focus on fun and food.  The goal seems to be to create emotional attachment using loud music, silly skits, slapstick games — and pizza.  But the force of sheer emotional experience will not equip teens to address the ideas they will encounter when they leave home and face the world on their own.

Over the years as Matt and I have worked with and spoken to groups of all ages and levels of education we have always found that without exception those hungriest for solid analytical theological engagement are teenagers (followed closely by their parents).

I so get why. I was raised in a non-Christian home with very limited exposure to Christianity. When I found myself in a church and learning the ‘rules’ of conservative Christianity I had a lot of questions about them. Why do I have to stop having sex until I am married – where does it say that in the Bible? Don’t give me 10 reasons why sociologically some study says it is harmful, where does God say it? Where does it say I should not masturbate? What is wrong with swearing? Why can’t I smoke a little dope occasionally? Why do I have to throw out my tarot cards? I also had a lot of questions about scripture and Christianity in general. Being a real nuts and bolts thinker, I found answers like “you should just have faith,” “we don’t really need to know the details of that, just focus on the cross,” and “don’t ask so many questions, don’t over think it, work on your relationship with Jesus”, “pray in the Holy Spirit that you might experience God”, “focus on being part of the big story” extremely irritating. What is faith? What is the significance of the cross? How am I supposed to have a deep relationship with someone who I do not know anything about? Pray in the what now? Being part of the “big story” sounds trendy but what does it mean and how does focussing on it answer my specific questions? What is the point of experiencing something you do not understand? And what is with the trinity – everyone who attempts to explain it to me seems to contradict the last person!

I joined a cell group and I recall lots of yummy food, feel good platitudes, motivational tips and one session where we put lots of different sized rocks, sand and water in an empty ice-cream container to demonstrate the importance of prioritising the big things in life; when we put the big things first the small things fit in around them but if we focus on the small things we have no room for the big things – an astute point and all, but it did not answer my questions!!!!

I was not alone as Drew Dyck  points out in “The Leavers: Young Doubters Exit the Church“,

At the 2008 American Sociological Association meeting, scholars from the University of Connecticut and Oregon State University reported that “the most frequently mentioned role of Christians in de-conversion was in amplifying existing doubt.” De-converts reported “sharing their burgeoning doubts with a Christian friend or family member only to receive trite, unhelpful answers.”

Churches often lack the appropriate resources. We have programs geared for gender – and age-groups and for those struggling with addictions or exploring the faith. But there’s precious little for Christians struggling with the faith.

Eventually I worked through all these things and got my answers but it was no thanks to the church I was in, it was through meeting Matt, Glenn and Ruth Peoples and David Hillary and the intense conversations and bible studies we engaged in that were fuelled from the independent readings of theologians and Christian philosophers that we were separately engaged in. Eventually we found a church that was big on discussion, deep questions and answers but we went through more churches than we found to get there. The church as a whole simply did not cater to people like us and the university campus was full of a lot of us who simply were no longer looking.

Prior to this, the appeal of what was being taught to me in church just did not do it for me. I could not see much difference between what the church had to offer and what the world did but in the former there were more rules. My pastor (at the church that we found which did answer our questions) once profoundly said “we must present the gospel clearly and precisely enough so that those hearing can either accept it or reject it. Too many churches are scared of the latter.”

Drew Dyck puts his finger on precisely what my problem was with my cell-group and my old church,

When sociologist Christian Smith and his fellow researchers examined the spiritual lives of American teenagers, they found most teens practicing a religion best called “Moralistic Therapeutic Deism,” which casts God as a distant Creator who blesses people who are “good, nice, and fair.” Its central goal is to help believers “be happy and feel good about oneself.”

Where did teenagers learn this faith? Unfortunately, it’s one taught, implicitly and sometimes explicitly, at every age level in many churches. It’s in the air that many churchgoers breathe, from seeker-friendly worship services to low-commitment small groups. When this naïve and coldly utilitarian view of God crashes on the hard rocks of reality, we shouldn’t be surprised to see people of any age walk away.

I challenge anyone working with teens to consider whether the way they are interacting with their teens looks like just pizza, pot-luck dinners and video nights or whether it looks like the scriptures I began with. Church has to be a place for everyone including thinkers and questioners or there is no way we will be able to achieve our mission. Dyck agrees,

One place to begin is by rethinking how we minister to those from youth to old age. There’s nothing wrong with pizza and video games, nor with seeker-sensitive services, nor with low-commitment small groups that introduce people to the Christian faith. But these cannot replace serious programs of discipleship and catechism. The temptation to wander from the faith is not a new one. The apostle Paul exhorted the church at Ephesus to strive to mature every believer, so that “we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes” (Eph. 4:14, ESV).

The other tragedy here is that there is a wealth of resources and groups for people who do wrestle with these questions. While not everyone is as pathological as Matt to take Plantinga’s God and Other Minds: A Study of the Rational Justification of Belief in Gods to the beach with him for recreational reading, many people have written works and resources for the layman on these issues. Consider for example Timothy Keller’s recent and very accessible to the lay person book Reasons for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism, which introduces some of the better academic resources at a popular level. Or the brilliant Reason for the Hope Within edited by Michael Murray, which though authored by professional philosophers is incredibly lay friendly – no Christian with questions should be without this book! Or consider sites like our son Christian and his teen friends favourite, William Lane Craig’s Reasonable Faith. We have recently discovered and have been recommending to homeschooling families Confident Christianity. There there is philosopher Glenn People’s excellent podcasts (complete with his original rock music and sound effects) and New Zealand’s own Thinking  Matters.  Go to The Veritas Forum and hunt through their resources – they have some brilliant DVDs of their forum sessions; we watched some really good ones featuring JP Moreland last year. Or if you’re really brave, ask Matt to come and speak at your church or to your youth group or if he is too far away consider hiring him to write you some group studies or just work through our Sunday Study series or his Contra Mundum Columns. These are just a few ideas to get started on the important task of critical engagement, there are heaps more out there.

I am grateful to André Z for his assistance in writing and editing this post.

The EPS have made available for download, all of the great teaching from the their popular EPS-Sponsored conferences from 2003 to the present:

• 2010 Set Forth Your Case
  Johnson Ferry Baptist Church, Marietta, Georgia
• 2009 Come Let Us Reason Together
  New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, New Orleans, Louisiana
• 2008 Earnestly Contending
  New Life Worship Center, Smithfield, RI
• 2007 Reasonable Faith in an Uncertain World
  College Avenue Baptist Church, San Diego, CA
• 2006 Loving God With All your Mind
  McLean Bible Church, Vienna, VA
• 2005 Reason for the Hope Within
  Branch Creek Community Church, Valley Forge, PA
• 2004 To Everyone an Answer
  Parkhills Baptist Church, San Antonio, TX
• 2003 Set Forth Your Case
  Johnson Ferry Baptist Church, Marietta, Georgia

RELATED POSTS:
Joshua and the Genocide of the Canaanites Part I
Joshua and the the Genocide of the Canaanites Part II
Did God Command Genocide in the Old Testament?

These four conferences ran over a period of two weeks, in roughly the same place, and overlapped each other – thousands of people attended them.

There is no way I can do justice to everything that occurred so here are some highlights.

I did not attend many sessions of the ETS as it ran parallel to the EPS. However, the highlight for me of what I did see was a rigorous address by Tom Wright on justification and the new perspective on Paul. This was followed by a lively panel discussion on this issue with Tom Wright, Thomas Schreiner, Frank Thiemann.

I thoroughly enjoyed my time at the EPS, this was an excellent three days. I attended numerous sessions. My hosts laughed at how I was constantly seen going back and forward to various Hilton conference rooms between sessions, I could always be found engaging in rigorous discussion during the Q&A sessions or simply involved in an intense conversation dissecting the issues just raised with other attendees. It was a fairly intense time intellectually but I really enjoyed it.

Space prevents me doing justice to all the excellent papers I heard. There was an interesting paper on the role of ridicule and irony in convincing people of basic beliefs, which combined ideas from Kerkigaard and Reid. Another I enjoyed was an interesting discussion on inclusivism, the view that people who have not heard or accepted the gospel can be saved through Christ’s atonement if they are invincibly ignorant and respond in faith to the minimal revelation about God they do have. I heard some fascinating discussions on whether it is possible for God to issue insincere commands and how the issue of Abraham relates to this; questions of whether the fact that one’s epistemic peers disagree with you provides grounds for reducing confidence in your beliefs.

Mike Austin delivered a thoughtful paper on the Canaanite issue, noting that on an influential moral theory, Rossian deontology, that duties to not kill are prima facie duties which can be overridden in certain circumstances and so God could, in principle, command killing the innocent. There was also a really interesting paper by Gary Habermas on the latest theories regarding the Turin Shroud. Frank Beckwith criticised evangelical appropriations of Aquinas. Mike Licona offered a synopsis of his new book. Paul Copan spoke on how naturalists declare the glory of God. All these sessions were associated with vigorous and thoughtful discussion.

The two most technical papers were William Lane Craig’s response to Peter Van Inwagen and Alvin Plantinga’s paper “A New Argument against Materialism.” Van Inwagen has argued for Platonism, the view that abstract objects have real existence independently of God. Craig, a fictionalist, argued Van Inwagen had not really responded to the nominalist and fictionalist alternatives. Plantinga, in a packed out plenary session – by packed out, I mean a good thousand in attendance – argued that the counter-factual test for causation shows that if materialism is true then beliefs cannot cause behaviour. This involved Plantinga making some really interesting moves such as rejecting the standard view of impossible counter-factuals. Plantinga was particularly good in the Q&A.

What was striking for me was not just the calibre of the papers and the philosophical seriousness of those in attendance but also the obvious evangelical Christian commitment of the attendees. There was a strong sense that even when offering critique we were working together to better each other’s papers in the service of God. It was quite weird for me to be in a context where both of these things were conjoined. It was also surreal to find myself in the same room as numerous people whose work I had read and respected for years and yet I was able to discuss and critique their work face to face. This mixture of intellectual rigor, fellowship and spirituality was perhaps most evident at the reception. There, while we mingled with Philosophy greats, like Alvin Plantinga, everyone paused for a talk on the importance of prayer and religious devotion in spiritual formation. My entire experience to that moment as a Christian had been that when people spoke of the latter they did so at the expense of the former. It was refreshing to see the kind of spiritual wholism those present aspired to.

Another thing that totally blew me away was how many people read MandM and recognised me on sight. On the first day I sat next to a woman who told me she knew my wife from the net. Later I heard someone walking past say “I read that guys work, he has a good website.” A few Philosophy professors approached me and said things like “it’s good to meet you Dr Flannagan” and they’d relay how they regularly read my work online.

On Thursday, we drove to Johnson Ferry Baptist Church for the EPS Apologetics conference. This church was huge. I have never seen a church of this size in my life. It was three stories high and had literally hundreds of rooms. It had numerous lecture theatres, a gymnasium, a two-storied church auditorium, a dining room, bookstore and so on. Over 1,500 people turned up to hear Alvin Plantinga give his plenary talk. Plantinga presented his paper “Science and Religion where the Conflict Really Lies.” He rebutted arguments that evolution shows that God does not exist and then offered a summary of his evolutionary argument against naturalism. What was a little disappointing was the aggressive response of some questioners who were horrified that  evolution and atheism may not *be* the same thing. In the Q&A, however, Plantinga, quite typically, provided gracious but effective responses exposing with humour the fallacies in the objections raised.

After the talk I went to the book signing session only to discover a huge number of Americans who read MandM, knew who I was on sight and wanted my thoughts, ideas or even to be photographed with me (go figure!?). One biblioblogger made a point of snapping at least one papparazzi-style shot of me every day which he then published on his blog. Madeleine kept emailing me links to blogs and Facebook status updates of people present at the conferences excitedly rattling off a list of their favourite scholars that they’d met that day that had me in them. It was surreal.

The business end of the conferences occurred on Saturday where I had two presentations to give. The first was on Saturday morning where I presented my paper “God and the Genocide of the Canaanites,” an updated and modified version  (thanks to the many people who interacted with it on this blog and others) of the infamous blog post I published back in January, which will soon be published in Come Let us Reason edited by William Lane Craig and Paul Copan to be published through B&H Academic.

The basic thesis of this paper was that the accounts of Genocide in Josh 6-11, if taken literally, contradict the accounts of the conquest in Judges and Joshua 13-17. Given that the final editor of the Canon juxtaposed these accounts, and was not stupid, he must have not intended both to be taken literally. I suggested that Wolterstorff’s position, that the former were hagiographic history and highly hyperbolic, made best sense of the evidence.

To my considerable surprise it was well received. Given some of the tone of the questions directed at Plantinga, I was worried I might have upset the more literalist attendees but instead there was real interest in my idea that the Joshua narratives were not literal accounts of what happened. I later heard that William Lane Craig had said I’d had the biggest attendance of the break-out sessions that day, and I was inundated with people asking me questions afterwards so that I had to go into over time.

Particularly amusing was the response to an illustration in my talk I gave as an example of hyperbolic and hagiographic writing, the claim that the All Blacks annihilated their opponents whilst touring the northern hemisphere. This is obviously hyperbole and, as any kiwi knows, it is also a form of hagiography (the All Blacks are revered after all). After the talk, a US rugby player told me he really appreciated this illustration; he also told me that if his team ever played the All Blacks he expected that his team would be annihilated and that the annihilation would not be hyperbolic!

The second presentation was positively terrifying. I was on a panel at the SBL Conference. The SBL Conference was not only the biggest of the fourconferences but is the biggest annual gathering of biblical scholars in the world. Naturally it is a gathering of the world’s best biblical scholars in one place too. The panel topic was “Is Yahweh a Moral Monster?” and I was talking on how the holy war passages related to divine command morality. This was really scary. First I was on the panel with some pretty good scholars. Richard Hess, from Denver seminary, is a world class old testament scholar. Paul Copan of Palm Beach Atlantic University, the President of the Evangelical Philosophical Society has just published a monograph on Old Testament Ethics. Randall Rauser is a theologian from Canada who has also published in this area. The chair was the distinguished Notre Dame Philosopher, Michael Rea. Moreover, the audience contained numerous high-level scholars including Christopher Wright, William Lane Craig, Doug Geviett and many others. Each panellist was slated to speak for 20 minutes and then there would be a long Q&A afterwards. I was terrified.

Despite being gripped with panic, the talk went well. Everyone in the audience I spoke to said they found it interesting and I eventually settled into the Q&A with increasing confidence. The panellist’s presentations were all very interesting. Richard Hess argued that the cities the Isrealites were commanded to attack in Deut 20:16 were forts not population centres.  Paul Copan argued that the Bible does not support slavery, as that term is understood in English, but rather tolerated a form of indentured servitude. Particular suprising was the presentation from Randal Rauser. Prior to thetalk I had expected to be radically at odds with his views but I was surprised on how many basic issues and methods we agreed. Both of us, for example, advocated a more canonical approach, one that stressed the divine author of the final form as opposed to focusing on individual authors of pericopes in addressing the issue. We did disagree over some exegetical questions, how to interpret herem, for example, and we did sharply disagree over whether a particular analogy he used was valid.

What I was even more pleased with, however, was the positive feedback from the audience regarding the Q&A. William Lane Craig said he found our discussion “hugely interesting and helpful!” This was a sentiment repeated by numerous others including Doug Geviett and Mike Licona. Mary Jo Sharp said “this discussion was outstanding” and Claude Mariottini said that he considered it the best of the sessions he attended. It turned out to have had the biggest turn-out of any EPS presentation at the SBL to date.

So now I am back in NZ, having presented papers that began as blog posts on a international stage and have done so successfully. The opportunity was truly amazing and I thank all MandM supporters and readers who have supported me in doing this. I also need to thank Paul Copan and William Lane Craig for the opportunity to do so. I truly enjoyed the challenge and relish the opportunity to do it again next year in San Fancisco.

RELATED POSTS:
Georgia on my Mind
Joshua and the Genocide of the Canaanites Part I
Joshua and the the Genocide of the Canaanites Part II
Did God Command Genocide in the Old Testament?
A Selection of Matt’s posts on Divine Commands

At the time, an audio version of each essay was created and the series was turned into a podcast. Now, Apologetics 315 have made the series available as a free ebook entitled, “23 Essays Exploring the Truth of Christianity.”

Kindle Version | Mobi | ePub| PDF.

Chris Reese – Foreword
Brian Auten – Introduction
Tawa Anderson – Does God Exist?
Jim Wallace – The Best Explanation
Wes Widner – Coherent, Consistent & Livable
Richard Gerhardt – The Failure of Naturalism
Bob Perry – Defrocking the Priests of Scientism
Peter Grice – Orthogonal Complexity
Chad Gross – Cumulative Reasons for Christianity
Shelby Cade – Prophecy and Resurrection
Luke Nix – Making Sense of the Resurrection
Aaron Brake – The Facts of the Resurrection
Amy Hall – The Historical Event of the Resurrection
James Patrick Holding – The Impossible Faith
Stephen J. Bedard – Christianity and Other Ancient Religions
Anthony Horvath – Christianity Proved by the Nature of the Jewish Nation
Mariano Grinbank – The Euthyphro Dichotomy
Marcus McElhaney – Christianity is Objectively True
Vocab Malone / Paul D. Adams – The Gospels Tell Me So
Glenn Hendrickson – Christianity Explains Logic
Brian Colón – Atheism: A Falsified Hypothesis
Kyle Deming – Testing Christianity’s Core Truth Claims
Matthew Flannagan – Showing Christianity is True
Brian Auten – The Wise Man Seeks God

H/T: Thinking Matters