Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism

These are a few examples of evolutionary arguments against naturalism (EAAN). The basic idea is that if evolutionary naturalism is true, we couldn’t know it and have no basis on which to argue it.

Something often capitalized on in this discussion is a section of a letter Charles Darwin wrote to William Graham. This section is affectionately referred to as Darwin’s Doubt. While the thinking in this letter does seem to have led to the idea of the EAAN, I think it important to note that that was not Darwin’s intent. The conviction Darwin was doubting was not natural selection, but the idea that the universe is not the result of chance.

Nevertheless you have expressed my inward conviction, though far more vividly and clearly than I could have done, that the Universe is not the result of chance. But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?¹

Although the minds of many people seem to jump straight to Alvin Plantinga when the EAAN is mentioned, C.S. Lewis had a similar argument long before Plantinga’s:

If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents - the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else’s. But if their thoughts - i.e., of Materialism and Astronomy - are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It’s like expecting that the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milk-jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset.²

In the essay Meditation in a Toolshed, Lewis put forth some ideas that could be used as a naturalistic argument against naturalism:

A young man meets a girl. The whole world looks different when he sees her. Her voice reminds him of something he has been trying to remember all his life, and ten minutes casual chat with her is more precious than all the favours that all the other women in the world could grant. He is, as they say, ‘in love’. Now comes a scientist and describes this young man’s experience from the outside. For him it is all an affair of the young man’s genes and a recognized biological stimulus. That is the difference between looking along the sexual impulse and looking at it.

[...]

As soon as you have grasped this simple distinction, it raises a question. You get one experience of a thing when you look along it and another when you look at it. Which is the ‘true’ or ‘valid’ experience? Which tells you most about the thing? And you can hardly ask that question without noticing that for the last fifty years or so everyone has been taking the answer for granted. It has been assumed without discussion that if you want the true account of religion you must go, not to religious people, but to anthropologists; that if you want the true account of sexual love you must go, not to lovers, but to psychologists; that if you want to understand some ‘ideology’ (such as medieval chivalry or the nineteenth-century idea of a ‘gentleman’), you must listen not to those who lived inside it, but to sociologists.

[...]

A physiologist, for example, can study pain and find out that it ‘is’ (whatever is means) such and such neural events. But the word pain would have no meaning for him unless he had ‘been inside’ by actually suffering. If he had never looked along pain he simply wouldn’t know what he was looking at. The very subject for his inquiries from outside exists for him only because he has, at least once, been inside.

[...]

…you can step outside one experience only by stepping inside another. Therefore, if all inside experiences are misleading, we are always mislead. The cerebral physiologist may say, if he chooses, that the mathematician’s thought is ‘only’ tiny physical movements of the grey matter. But then what about the cerebral physiologist’s own thought at that very moment? A second physiologist, looking at it, could pronounce it also to be only tiny physical movements in the first physiologist’s skull. Where is the rot to end?³

Lewis also has a case against naturalism via evolution, in his book, Miracles: 

An act of knowing must be determined, in a sense, solely by what is known; we must know it to be thus solely because it is thus. [...] Any thing which professes to explain our reasoning fully without introducing an act of knowing thus solely determined by what is known, is really a theory that there is no reasoning. [...] But this, as it seems to me, is what Naturalism is bound to do.

[...]

The type of mental behavior we now call rational thinking or inference must therefore have been ‘evolved’ by natural selection, by the gradual weeding out of types less fitted to survive. [...] Now natural selection could operate only by eliminating responses that were biologically hurtful and multiplying those which tended to survival. But it is not conceivable that any improvement of responses could ever turn them into acts of insight, or even remotely tend to do so. The relationship between response and stimulus is utterly different from that between knowledge and the truth known.⁴

And, finally, there is Plantinga’s argument. Here is my summary/outline of it:

1) If we have evolved via natural selection, genetic drift, genetic mutation, or similar mechanisms, then our cognitive faculties have also arisen via these mechanisms.

2) If our cognitive faculties arose from naturalistic evolution, are they reliable?

3) Natural selection is concerned with survival, rather than true beliefs or true information from the external world.⁵ “Natural selection doesn’t care what you believe; it is interested only in how you behave.”⁶

4) The ability of our cognitive faculties to understand truth, given naturalistic evolution, is then dependent upon the connection of belief and behavior.

5) There is not a necessary connection between belief and survival behavior; many false beliefs can lead to survival behavior.

6) Evolutionary naturalism is self-defeating. Given evolutionary naturalism, beliefs produced by our cognitive faculties cannot rationally be believed to be reliable. This not only includes the belief in naturalism, but belief in the previous sentence.

Now, I should point out that this is just a simplified summary that I have produced; Plantinga’s full argument is far more technical than what I have presented.

Now, if you would like a less technical argument than Platinga’s, then you might like the argument given by Rhology:

Atoms coalesced into molecules, into larger clumps of matter. Rocks became amino acids became proteins became unicellular organisms became bananas, platypuses, humans. Bananas don’t think. Neither do cans of Dr Pepper. Why assume that another lump of matter (arbitrarily and customarily called a “brain”) can “think”? A can of Dr Pepper, when shaken, produces fizz. The liver secretes bile when called upon to do so. The brain secretes brain fizz when called upon to do so. And the brain is somehow special?

The main idea behind all of these is that the idea naturalism is self-defeating, due to the inability of naturalism to produce brains that can produce thoughts that are true or reliable. Granted, most of the above arguments involve evolution (more specifically, natural selection). If someone were to produce a naturalistic theory contrary to the evolutionary synthesis, then, perhaps, that person may be able to argue against Lewis or Plantinga (though, I currently doubt this). However, it seems that, for the materialist, evolution is the only game in town.

1. Charles Darwin to William Graham, 3 July 1881 [↩]
2. C.S. Lewis, A Mind Awake: An Anthology of C.S. Lewis, ed. by Clyde Kilby (Harvest Books, 2003), p. 228. [↩]
3. C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics, ed. by Walter Hooper (Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1970), pp. 212-15. [↩]
4. C.S. Lewis, Miracles ( HarperSanFrancisco, 1996), pp. 26-28 [↩]
5. Of course, it can be concerned with with accurate information from the external world, but only if false information leads to behavior inappropriate for survival. [↩]
6. Alvin Plantinga, Warrant and Proper Function, “Naturalism Defeated” (Ithica, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1993)  [↩]

Ruse and Religion

I just returned home from the Dembski/Ruse debate and the discussions that ensued. I came late and missed most of the debate and did not hear Dembski present. I heard the end of Ruse’s last presentation and the Q & A session. I had a question to ask Michael Ruse, but wasn’t able to at the debate.

My question was really going to be a challenge of sorts, rather than an attempt to satisfy curiosity. It seemed to me that Ruse was playing two sides, taking up whichever one was the most convenient at the time. On the one hand, he would say that it is possible that there is a transcendent, self-existing, necessary being and that the supernatural might exist. He would then also argue that science must presuppose naturalism and that methodical naturalism must be applied. It seems to me that when he makes both of these claims that he throws the relationship of science to truth under the bus. He is essentially arguing that science must adhere to framework that might be completely contrary to reality.

Science is Atheistic?

There is a certain atheist I have interacted with some… I’ll refer to him as JJ. He is found commonly commenting on the OU Daily website. He could have had a column in the Daily, but rejected it due to his disdain for some of the other columnists and the editor. He commonly uses profanity and ad hominem. Recently he has also taken to telling people to use Google rather than actually arguing his case. And, after I made a comment in a thread on Facebook, suggesting that he hadn’t actually made a case, he changed his settings to block me from seeing him or anything he does. I wouldn’t typically recommend this approach to discussion.

Just a few hours ago (before I was blocked), he made the assertion that science is atheistic. I asked him about it and he responded with quite a bit of profanity and name calling. I have quite a hard time believing that the atheist can know anything by any method consistent with his atheism, let alone that atheism is required for science! Of course, I believe that Christian theism is thenecessarypresupposition for science.

For example, by Christianity I know that God created the world, that creation exists, that I exist, etc. I also know that the world is sovereignly governed by God and that nature obeys his laws. I thus expect to find consistency in them, throughout space and time. I can know that my thoughts can (if acting in obedience to God) correctly interpret reality - that nature is intelligible.

By what means does the atheist assume such things? His supposed reality is governed both by randomness and law; by the irrational and rational.

How in the world does someone reconcile rationalism and irrationalism? If the world is inherently irrational, how does one then arrive at reason and rationality? If one asserts that chance is actually the product of rational processes that have yet to be explained, how does one know? And, if ‘chance’ is produced by fixed laws, does it not cease to be ‘chance’?

Luke 18 and Mark 10 - Did Jesus deny being deity?

Video I made in response to the assertion that Christ denied being God in Luke 18…

[Facebook users: click here]

12-Year-Old on Abortion

After being threatened with disqualification (because of the topic), this 12-year-old girl from Toronto won a speech competition. She was initially disqualified by the judges, but after much disagreement and one of the judges quitting, the girl was declared the winner.

[For those of you reading this on Facebook, the video is here.]

The GOD Delusion (Part 1 of 11)

This is my examination and thoughts of Richard Dawkins’ book: The GOD Delusion.¹ 

Chapter 1 - A Deeply Religious Non-Believer

This chapter is split up into two parts: Deserved Respect and Undeserved Respect. The first section describes the ‘metaphorical or pantheistic God of the physicists’, and the second describes a supernatural god.

Deserved Respect

Dawkins begins by relating the experiences of two boys gazing at the magnificence of the world in wonder: one himself, the other an Anglican priest. He then wonders why such an experience would lead one child to the priesthood and the other to atheism, saying it ‘is not an easy question to answer’. Yet despite this uncertainty, he concludes that had the priest read the closing paragraph to The Origin of Species in his childhood, he certainly would have chosen atheism as well. Dawkins includes this paragraph from Pale Blue Dot by Carl Sagan:

How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, ‘This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant’? Instead they say, ‘No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way.’ A religion, old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the Universe as revealed by modern science might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths.

After reading this I had three basic thoughts. One, perhaps Christians have failed to communicate how big our God is! Or worse, perhaps Christians don’t recognize themselves how big God is! I find the latter far more likely. Second, is the universe bigger than described in the Bible? I think not! Genesis 22:15-17 suggests that the number of stars and the number of grains of sand on the shore to be similar. Job 22:12 describes the stars as ‘distant’ and ‘high’ (NASB). But more than just describing a number or distance, the Bible gives poetic, elegant, magnificent descriptions of things in nature. Which brings me to my third thought, that though things in nature may be found to be magnificent, we are to look on the glory of God with far more awe! If the creation is so inspiring, how much more the creator!

Psalm 19:1-6 (ESV)

The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.
Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge.
There is no speech, nor are there words, whose voice is not heard.
Their voice goes out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world.
In them he has set a tent for the sun, which comes out like a bridegroom leaving his chamber, and, like a strong man, runs its course with joy.t
Its rising is from the end of the heavens, and its circuit to the end of them, and there is nothing hidden from its heat.

Deuteronomy 4:19 (NASB)

And beware not to lift up your eyes to heaven and see the sun and the moon and the stars, all the host of heaven, and be drawn away and worship them and serve them, those which the LORD your God has allotted to all the peoples under the whole heaven.

The main point of this section seems to be explaining the Naturalistic use of the word ‘God’, making distinctions between theism, deism, and pantheism, and explaining Einstein’s view of ‘God’ and responses to it. I think there is a couple of sentences in this section that should certainly be noted. Dawkins writes that a philosophical naturalist believes there are “no miracles - except in the sense of natural phenomena that we don’t yet understand. If there is something that appears to lie beyond the natural world as it is now imperfectly understood, we hope eventually to understand it and embrace it within the natural.”²

I think this is important to notice that the naturalist sees ‘miracles’ only as natural phenomena not yet explained. I have found that many atheists demand ‘evidence’ for God: specifically, empirical evidence. The naturalist has already dismissed the ‘evidence’ he demands. Perhaps those atheists apt to reference Anthony Flew ought to consider whether their position is falsifiable!³ It is just as Abraham said, “If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.” (NASB; see Luke 16:19-31)

Undeserved Respect

This section starts with Dawkins telling us that he will be referring to supernatural gods in general when using the word ‘God’. Most of this section is spent bemoaning the respect religions have in society.

In one paragraph, Dawkins declares that the First Amendment does not protect ‘hate speech’. This is an interesting topic; how is ‘hate speech’ to be defined? Should the U.S. to hold us accountable for hatred? This seems to be a very vague suggestion at best. This paragraph also suggests that the freedom of religion is used as a trump card. I wonder what his solution to this problem would be? Surely we would not let the British define the limits of our faith and practice…

Conclusion

This chapter is mainly there to distinguish between the naturalistic and deist ‘god’ and the supernatural ‘god’ and to set the stage for the rest of the book.

1. Richard Dawkins, The GOD Delusion (New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2006). [↩]
2. Ibid., at 14. [↩]
3. Anthony Flew wrote a paper, Theology and Falsification, in which he argues that if there are no criteria for denying an assertion, it isn’t asserting anything. [↩]

Multiple Interpretations: A Problem?

In an ethics class I am in, the author of the book lays out many reasons within the first chapter as to why he believes religion cannot be the basis of a rational system of ethics. Among many of the ridiculous reasons given is the idea that religious people disagree and there is no criterion with which to determine the correct view. Specifically, he mentions that there are many differing interpretations of the Bible; the supposed problem is that we have no basis of deciding between them and cannot know which interpretation is correct. I have heard this and similar claims many times from a wide variety of people. When I hear it in person it typically follows a statement I have made based on the biblical text and is expressed in the form of, “Well, that’s your interpretation.” So, does the existence of multiple interpretations negate the possibility of biblical authority and provide grounds for its dismissal? Does the existence of multiple interpretations of a given passage prove those interpretations meaningless? Is there criterion by which an interpretation can be adjudicated?

It is my contention that this dismissal of the Bible stems not from a way to discern between interpretations, but from a presupposition that the Bible is not the word of God. If one starts with the idea that the Bible is not the word of God and that it is both fallible and false, then one may easily dismiss all interpretations of such a text as equally invalid - all the while thinking that disputes over interpretations are not decidable and frighteningly absurd.

On the other hand, if the Bible is presupposed to be the inspired Word of God, can the conflicts between interpretations be revolved? Assuming the Bible is the Word of God, let’s examine what it says about itself:

2 Timothy 3:16-17 (ESV)

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

Romans 15:4 (ESV)

For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, that through endurance and through the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.

Given that the Bible is profitable for reproof and correction, there must be things it is not saying. That is, there must be teachings and interpretations that are false and ergo correctable (see also 2 Peter 3:13-18). We can also see that Scripture was purposed for our teaching and instruction.

Isaiah 55:10-11 (ESV)

For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven and do not return there but water the earth, making it bring forth and sprout, giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater, so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it.

Job 42:1-2 (ESV)

Then Job answered the LORD and said: “I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted.”

If God’s words and purposes will be accomplished, then the Bible must be able to teach, instruct, correct, etc. the man of God (see also Isaiah 46:9-10). This necessitates that there is a criteria by which the Bible can be correctly interpreted.

2 Timothy 2:15 (ESV)

Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.

This implies that the Christian can and ought to interpret the Bible correctly, further implying that there is a means to do so. While I have not yet said anything about what the criteria is, I believe I have demonstrated that if one supposes the Bible to be the Word of God, then criteria exist for doing so.

So, if one does not believe the Bible to be the Word of God, then biblical interpretation and disputes over interpretation are rather worthless, but it is not because of a lack of criterion, rather a lack of truth and authority. On the other hand, if the Bible is the Word of God, then criteria must exist. Concerning the similar objection that “that’s just your interpretation”: if both x and y interpretations exist of a given passage, the existence of interpretation y does not invalidate interpretation x. The mere existence of differing interpretations does not make them all invalid.

I am going to suggest that because the Word of God was given by use of language that it has canonical context, a context within a specific book and genre, a context within each argument, and a construction within each sentence that contributes to meaning. Since it was given to specific people at specific times, I also suggest it has a historical context. It is then my contention that the grammatical-historical hermeneutic is the criteria for deriving interpretations from the text and deciding between them.

Resolutions for 2009

In light of the past year, I am going to make simpler resolutions for this year. There were times last year when I had forgotten entirely that I had made resolutions. I will once again borrow some from Jonathan Edwards, including the introduction to them:

Being sensible that I am unable to do anything without God’s help, I do humbly entreat him by his grace to enable me to keep these resolutions, so far as they are agreeable to his will, for Christ’s sake.

1. Resolved, to do whatever I think to be most to God’s glory.
2. Resolved, to do whatever I perceive to be my duty.
3. Resolved, to accept rebuke with thankfulness.
4. Resolved, to pray believing God is omnipotent and sovereign.
5. Resolved, not to be unnecessarily argumentative.
6. Resolved, never to do anything that I would see fit to despise in others.
7. Resolved, to remember at all times that anything I do well, anything I do that is commendable, any thought that I have that is pure, correct, and right is only by God’s grace and his good pleasure.
8. Resolved, to create, maintain, and preserve peace except when doing so violates another resolution.
9. Resolved, to study frequently and steadily God’s Word and so meditate upon it as to better fulfill these resolutions and to better my love and service to God.
10. Resolved, not to buy a book except if it is a gift, required of me by school or church, or on my reading list (only 5 of which I do not own, and perhaps could borrow).
11. Resolved, to read over these resolutions once a week.
12. Resolved, that when I should stumble or fall in the keeping any part of these resolutions, that I repent of all I remember and submit my will to Christ once more.

Although I have borrowed some from Edwards, there are certainly differences between my resolutions and his (besides the number of them). For instance, Edwards’ resolutions were for life, whereas mine are for 2009. I certainly do not intent to keep number 10 throughout my entire life.

God and Ethics

“These are absolutely wrong, not wrong based on religion.”

I recently read these words, written by a friend of mine. I disagreed with much of what he wrote, but I believe these words to be illustrative of the source of our disagreement. He makes a distinct separation between religion and ethics. More than that there is the implication that there is an absolute nature to what I’m going to call the secular ethics and a subjective nature to the religious ethics. I think this sentiment is fairly typical in the western world.

Can a Christian Separate God and Ethics?

Perhaps my friend did not use either ‘God’ or ‘ethics’ in this phrase; however, the context provides that the religion in question is Christianity and it could be rewritten “not wrong based on the Bible” or “not wrong based on the belief in the God of the Bible.” So, is there a way for the Christian to call something ‘absolutely wrong’ by appealing to something other than God?

I think the obvious answer is no. If we consider the purpose of man this becomes rather clear. The Westminster Larger Catechism defines it as thus: ”Man’s chief and highest end is to glorify God, and fully to enjoy him forever.”¹ This corresponds with 1 Corinthians 10:31 (ESV): “So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.” and Colossians 1:16 (ESV): “For by him² all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities-all things were created through him and for him.” If man is created for God’s purposes and our chief purpose is to glorify him, then can we determine our success or failure without consideration of the God we are to glorify?

It is by God that we know right from wrong. Not that He simply informs us, but that he is the standard of goodness! God is held as the standard by which we are compared in Matthew 5:48³ and Romans 3:23⁴. If not God, by what standard are we then to call something absolutely wrong? What are we to make of Proverbs 3:5-7?⁵

Christians cannot separate God and ethics; they cannot appeal to an absolute right or wrong apart from acknowledging God. Man is always rebuked for merely doing what is right in his own eyes.⁶

Can a Non-Christian Separate God and Ethics?

The short answer is no. Given that Christianity is true, the unbeliever will have the same problem the believer has in this separation. Since God is the standard of good, appealing to anything else as the standard will only end in error. You might ask: why do many non-Christians seem to be such good, caring and moral people? It is not my intent to demonstrate that non-Christians cannot live up to human standards of morality. I contend that they cannot live up to correct standards of morality⁷, but even that is not my point. There is no basis for morality apart from God and all beliefs that are structured in attempt to build morality on top of another foundation will be incredibly arbitrary and inconsistent.

Conclusion

Ethics does not exist in a void. Ethics must have some sort of foundation and standard. Either God is the absolute standard of morality or he isn’t. Christians ought to remain Christian consistently throughout their thinking, which would mean acknowledging God as an absolutely necessity in determining right from wrong. Why would a Christian become secular in his thinking in this (or any) belief, when we are commanded to do the opposite by God’s mercy when presenting ourselves as a living sacrifice in Romans 12:2?⁸

1. Most people are likely more familiar with the Shorter Catechism, which reads “Man’s chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him for ever.” And, of coarse, there is John Piper’s assertion that it is better stated, “The chief end of man is to glorify God by enjoying Him forever.” {John Piper, Desiring God: Meditations of a Christian Hedonist. (Multnomah Books, 2003), 17-18.} [↩]
2. Jesus Christ [↩]
3. You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect. (ESV) [↩]
4. for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, (ESV) [↩]
5. Trust in the LORD with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make straight your paths. Be not wise in your own eyes; fear the LORD, and turn away fro evil. (ESV) [↩]
6. See Deuteronomy 12:8; Judges 17:6, 21:25; Proverbs 12:15, 21:2. [↩]
7. as it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.” [Ps. 14:1-3, 53:1-3] “Their throat is an open grave; they use their tongues to deceive.” [Ps. 5:9] “The venom of asps is under their lips.” [Ps. 140:3] “Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness.” [Ps. 10:7] “Their feet are swift to shed blood; in their paths are ruin and misery, and the way of peace they have not known.” [Prov. 1:16, 3:15-17; Isa. 59:7-8] “There is no fear of God before their eyes.” [Ps. 36:1] Romans 3:10-18 (ESV) [↩]
8. Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable, and perfect. (ESV) [↩]

Don’t force your religion on me! - Part 1

This wild cry is thrown up for different reasons by different people. Sometimes even by Christians, in the form of “we should not force Christianity on them.” I am going to try to address the various reasonings behind this apparent outrage.

EVANGELISM (in the US)

Christian:

You can’t force a person to believe something. You can’t force someone to want something. If people don’t want to change, they won’t. It’s as simple as that.

[...]

If you don’t want [Christianity], I can’t convince you to believe it, and I won’t try.

[...]

[Coming to Christ] isn’t a command. It’s not an ultimatum.

It’s an offer.

I hope you take it. But if you don’t want it, don’t take it.

I can’t force you to, and I hope others respect your distance, too.

This was written by a Christian friend of mine. Now, notice how persuasion and force are made equals. My friend is not writing against holding a gun to someone’s head and telling them to convert. What is being contrasted is an ultimatum and an offer. The ultimatum in view is likely summarized by everyone’s favorite phrase, “turn or burn!’ Whereas, the offer seems to be a rather passive thing in which the Christian lives his life never trying to spread the gospel except by going about their business and telling others that Christianity worked for them (without, of coarse, insinuating that the unbeliever is in need of the same). Actively seeking out people to talk to them about the gospel in a persuasive manner is painted as forcing them into Christianity!

This is reminiscent of something typically attributed to St. Francis of Assisi, “Preach the Gospel at all times and if necessary use words.” While we ought to live our lives in a manner that reflects the Gospel (Phil 1:27), it is always necessary to use words and unbiblical not to do so. Knowing the fear of the Lord, we ought to persuade and beg men to be reconciled to God (2 Cor 5:11,20). Paul reasoned with Jew and Gentile alike in a variety of places (Acts 17). I can hardly imagine Paul being run out of a number of cities because he went in and told some people that “If you don’t want Christianity, I can’t convince you to believe it, and I won’t try.”

There is the matter of people being pressured into false conversion, but that hardly seems sufficient cause to do away with evangelism! Perhaps, instead, we ought to reconsider some of the unbiblical ideas that easily lead to false conversions.

Unregenerate:

There are plenty of non-Christians who abhor the idea of evangelism or “trying to force your religion on others.” Notice that in this instance, jut like the Christian in the previous section, the unbeliever mistakes force and persuasion as being identical. The typical objection given is that you cannot tell a that they are wrong and you are right. This is usually for a couple of reasons:

1. Religion is a private matter.
2. Who are you (the evangelist) to say that they (the unregenerate) believe like you?

1. Religion is a private matter. It shouldn’t matter to anyone else what someone believes.

Is religion really a private matter? Not according to the Christian world-view. Man is sinful and accountable to God. The Christian is commanded to spread the Gospel out of love for God, fear of God, and love for others.

Anyone telling the Christian that religion is private and that the Christian ought not try to “force” others to believe Christian beliefs is holding a double-standard. This person is telling the Christian that Christianity (which is supposedly private) is wrong concerning this matter (trying to “force” the Christian to give up his belief).

2. Who are you (the evangelist) to say that they (the unregenerate) should believe like you?

This questions the authority by which the Christian makes his claims by appealing to some sort of equality of beliefs. This inherently assumes the belief in the equality of beliefs is superior to the belief in an inequality of beliefs. One cannot argue for all beliefs being equal without touting that belief as being superior.

Or perhaps this person is questioning the authority by which the Christian evangelizes by taking the “humble” approach of epistemological uncertainty. No one can know anything about metaphysics. This idea already assumes many things about metaphysics: that people exist, that there is knowledge of metaphysics, and that something prevents people from accessing that knowledge. If person A says he knows nothing of ultimate reality, how can person A tell person B that person B knows nothing of ultimate reality (such knowledge as could only come about by person A actually having knowledge of ultimate reality).

All of the objections that I know about concerning that hateful act of forcing others to believe like you known as evangelism are self-defeating. They ultimately always commit the very thing they are arguing against.