This is a response to an email that was spammed across the country a few years ago, posthumously credited to Clarence Darrow, the famous lawyer of the Scopes Monkey Trial from the 1920's. The title of his letter was called "Why I am an Agnostic". Hebrews says something about leaving the fundamentals of the faith to move on to bigger and better things...and contrary to skeptics beliefs....these criticisms of Christianity presented by Darrow are very basic and simple issues, rather than bigger and better things. But I think it is good to rehash this stuff sometimes, if for any other reason, than to generate confidence and a reason to rejoice. It's not the best I could do and I wince at some of it. There's been alot better arguments for lots of this stuff. But over all, I think it is alright for posting.
Everyone is an agnostic to a certain degree. All agnosticism means is system of beliefs that rest on the premise that one admittedly lacks knowledge. It comes from the Greek and agnostic can be transliterated ‘ones not in the know.’ When it comes to limited agnosticism…the idea that there are some things that I can’t deny and some things I simply don’t know…it is a healthy thing and undeniable. When it comes to absolute agnosticism…the idea that certainty is unattainable, it’s silly. How could you know for sure that you didn’t know anything for sure? But Darrow isn’t really holding to unlimited agnosticism….he just holds to agnosticism when it comes to the existence of God. He outlays several areas that are stated to support his premise that if you were to be really honest with yourselves, you would conclude that there is no conclusive data about God at all. Is he right? No…no on the account that there is no conclusive data and no on the account of being really honest about it. I’ll explain what I mean by dealing with each of his lines of thought and then draw a conclusion. If you have little time or interest in reading the details, just skim down to the summary to get the gist of this response. Otherwise, try to follow along with me.
Three tenets necessary to make a Christian belief
There is no doubt that a Christian believes in God, believes in immortality and in the supernatural. However, that describes many religions and doesn’t come close to capturing the real essence of Christianity. It can also describe Islam, Bahaism, New Age, Satanism, Hinduism and several strains of Mahayana Buddhist beliefs. Also, Christians don’t have to believe in those things prior to becoming a Christian…even if they are unavoidably led to conclude them after becoming one.
The only tenet necessary to the faith of a Christian is this: believing in Jesus Christ as Lord, who suffered and died for our sins and was raised to life with power to complete the gift He offers to those who simply believe with empty hands. Once a person accepts Christ, there is an unavoidable conclusion that God exists, that immortality is something that happens and that there is much more to reality than simply what reaches the senses. Once I place trust in the only authority that propositionally provides me with information about Jesus, then I can be considered a literalist. If I were to argue Christianity and not even mention Jesus Christ, I wouldn’t be talking about Christianity. If I were to argue for Christianity without considering the Bible as the sole authority communicating His Good News to me, then it would be like writing a thesis paper about how the government was poisoning our water supply, without having one single authoritative reference. It would be laughed at in higher education, yet the Christian who says he or she places their faith in a Person yet reject the only propositional reference about Him are treated seriously by the ‘educated.’
Unfortunately, Darrow never really dealt with Jesus Christ, so even though he dealt with a lot of things Christians believe, he never dealt with the basic tenet of Christianity, which is Jesus Christ, the most perfect revelation of God, the supernatural and immortality. Unless you deal with Him, you are only talking metaphysics and epistemology.
But isn’t life like that? Isn’t a lot of what we know as undeniable, something that happens to us, something we see or realize? As a Christian, I was never asked to stop thinking and simply believe in Peter Pan and Neverland. In fact, the idea of doing that is just as distasteful now as it was before I knew Him. As we go on, I will show how there is more evidence to support Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior than there is to support agnosticism of God. In fact, I will show that belief in Jesus Christ takes less mental gymnastics and more common sense than does agnosticism and that to be an agnostic takes much more energy, mental exercise and faith than believing in and on Him.
Origin of the Universe & The Watchmaker
Darrow states that God is an insufficient explanation to the beginning of things. God is the only explanation to the beginning of things. Here’s a famous inductive argument you may or may not have heard:
1) If the universe had a beginning, it must be caused by something.
2) That cause, by definition and necessity, must be timeless
3) … spaceless,
4) …immaterial and
5) …personal.
The beginning had a cause…
Anything that begins to exist is caused by something. Nothing pops into and out of existence uncaused. Which is easier to believe: a Bengal Tiger can literally pop into existence in the middle of a play….or….someone let it in the theatre? Even Quantum mechanics doesn’t necessarily state subatomic particles can pop into and out of existence. The only thing that Quantum mechanics can state is that when studying these small particles in large groups, they can’t determine their cause or their movement. Some schools go ahead and conclude it’s because they are uncaused. But other schools, and common sense, say that we simply don’t know the cause. It’s simply much easier to believe in a cause to the universe than to believe it was uncaused.
The cause to the beginning couldn’t be beginning itself
But that cause has to be timeless, spaceless and immaterial, since the universe itself, which began, has these properties as its essence. Whatever or Whoever caused the universe, caused time, space and matter. Therefore, the cause must be timeless, spaceless and immaterial. But once more, the cause has to be personal. There were no natural preconditions that happened to be there in order for time, space and matter to pop into existence, because the preconditions are a part of the universe, rather than the cause of it. The only explanation to the creation of time, space and matter is that it was caused by personal free agency. Someone had to cause it, rather than something. Why? Think about it. What preconditions would there have to be in order to strike a match? You would need a match, something to strike it on and someone to move the match across that area. You would also need the match to be made of the right stuff to cause ignition. But when it comes to the beginning of the universe, what necessary preconditions should have been there in order for it to come about? Anyplace you start, you immediately violate the first necessities of the properties to the universe’s cause, being time, space or matter….unless it was Mind….a thinking, free and intentional mind that intentionally created these things. It was intentionality that was the only possible precondition to the creation of the universe and intentionality is exclusively associated with a Mind.
Darrow states that God as the creator gives no explanation. Well, if the cause was timeless, spaceless, immaterial and personal/intentional, what are we left with? That almost sounds like a laundry list of classic orthodoxy’s attributes of God. The puzzle of ‘who made God’ is simple. No one. He always was and nothing stands behind Him. If God had a beginning, then not only would God not be a sufficient cause, but whatever caused God would have to stand behind Him as superior. Darrow answered his own question but never considered it as something acceptable to the question, without providing any evidence as to why he didn’t consider it seriously. Think about it, even though it is insane to consider time and space as infinite and uncaused, it is equally insane to consider the cause to time and space as either temporal or spatial. You can’t have it both ways. It makes no sense. Either the universe is infinite and God is finite, which leads to absurdities and places God as a part of the very universe, rather than the cause of it, or God is infinite and the universe is finite, which places Him at the farthest back as you can go, as the beginning and totally supreme. But to think of a cause to time and space that had a beginning is incoherent, rather than a timeless cause to time.
How did things get so complex?
He also attacks the idea of a designer to the universe and brings up Paley’s watchmaker argument, which he refutes. But has he? There is no doubt that the watch example would imply that one knows a watch and that watches are made by watch makers. But Paley wasn’t saying because we see a watch, someone must have made it. What Paley was saying was because we can recognize design from mere chance, we can look around and tell that mere chance has no place in explaining how everything easily flows on an incredibly delicate balance and with such form. Basically, the form of the universe is caused by either 1) law, 2) chance or 3) design. Since it can’t be either law or chance, it must be design. Why? It can’t be law because laws only reflect the effect and effects are effects, not causes. You can’t explain the cause of physics with the laws of physics. You also can’t explain the cause of the universe with the laws of the universe. It can’t be chance either. That’s because the odds of a life permitting universe are so incredibly low, that the probability of chance isn’t even rational. The gravitational pull, the composition of prerequisites that allow for carbon-based life, etc…are all so incredibly delicate that chance is a silly explanation and one used as a stop gap excuse from dealing with what is right there in front of our faces. That leaves design, since law and chance are in the dust. Because form and function are so obvious and intentional and the delicate balance of things seems so incredible, it must have been designed.
So Darrow has conveniently skipped over volumes of issues dealing with origins and design to jump to his conclusions about both God and agnostic views to these things. He does have a point with regards to detailed explanations to both origins and design. He suggests that if we begin with ourselves and try to figure out the specifics as to origins and design, we simply are left to guessing and speculation. There are some things we can know about it and I’ve mentioned them above. But unless this Cause/Designer tells us how it came about in more detail, we are simply left with a personal unmoved mover and that is all. I’ll deal with Scripture soon, but for now, this provides insight into Darrows lack of insight to these questions.
Existence of the Soul
Using Darrow’s question for my own use, can anyone guided by reason believe their mind is the same thing as their brain? That’s the real question. You can call it soul, spirit or blip, but the big question is whether or not the mind and the brain are identical or distinguished. Darrow supports a materialistic view of the mind, calling it the soul, by reducing us to cells that come into existence and then die. But there’s a huge problem with reducing the mind to biological, chemical and electrical impulses. The problem is that it jerks the rug out from under your own rationality. There is no guarantee that the activity in the brain, caused by some stimulus, carries with it truth or accuracy of what is really going on. Even the strictest materialist has no way of scientifically bridging brain activity to truth. The fact is that if our mental thoughts are basically brain activity, what we think is true isn’t necessarily true, including our belief that our mental thoughts are simply brain activity. It is, in essence, a self-defeating idea.
Only brain? So much for what I or anyone else thinks!
That’s the problem with the coupling of materialism with evolution. Evolution isn’t directly concerned about right beliefs. It is only concerned about right behavior….getting our nervous systems in the right place at the right time. It may be indirectly concerned with beliefs, but only as a survival value. So, in essence, if evolution is true, the probability of our beliefs, even the belief in evolution, of being true is low or improbable.
Richard Dawkins penned a new concept called “memes” in the late 1970’s which was his attempt to bridge the gap between science and knowledge. He basically believed that ideas get transmitted to other brains, via communication, like a virus. As one person tells another person ideas, the receiver takes it, calls it their own then becomes a new carrier for that idea. He never claimed that memes really existed but only postulated them as a way to fit nicely into his system of materialist thought. However, “memology” has become a large branch of science and many people have dedicated their careers to the study of these phantom viruses. But the same problem with memes exists….how do you know that you’ve stumbled onto something about reality (memes) or if you are simply infected by very viruses you say exist? The probability of a beliefs truth or falsehood is low or improbable, especially the belief in memes.
The fact is mind is not identical to brain, even if it is associated with the brain. Even things like numbers, colors, morals can’t exist if materialism is true. However, we can’t deny the existence of these things and in fact, lean heavily upon them for truth, knowledge and life in general. In order to embrace the idea that we have no soul/mind, only body/brain, we have to reject the existence of anything non-material, including the mind/soul. But when we do that, we come face to face with irrational conclusions that make a mockery out of simple, everyday life, relying heavily on things we conclude can’t really exist and denying even our very selves.
No mind? Then no numbers, morals or even self!
The self can’t exist under a materialistic framework. What is the self? Under a materialistic view, it can’t be distinguished. But, as with the other arguments, you have to invoke your self in order to argue against its existence, which makes no sense. Buddhism hinges its entire philosophy on the non-existence of the self, because Buddhism hinges on monistic view that everything is one. But someone has to believe that everything is one and that has to be distinguished from other individuals who don’t believe everything is one. You can’t deny the self or the observer/observed dualism anymore than you can deny the nose on your face. It is much easier to believe in mind/body dualism, the existence of the self, the existence of non-material things like numbers, morals and color, than to believe that there is only matter. In fact, since Darrow died, the materialist view of the mind/body argument has been considered passé and now there are new schools of thought in this area, one of which is entitled Epiphenomenalism, which tries to reconcile mind and body, without invoking something that sounds like theism. But in the end, it does sound like it, but without acknowledging it.
What it means is that Darrow’s view of the soul is outdated and even skeptics reject the purely materialistic view, moving closer to the good old fashioned Biblical idea of body/soul dualism, so what reasons do we have to reject it? Darrow presents no ideas, other than appealing to common sense and it is precisely common sense that supports the idea of mind/body dualism rather than Darrow’s appeal to nothing but matter.
The Bible Inspired by God & Faith
Darrow states that in his childhood, the idea of the Bible being supernaturally inspired was based purely on miracles and prophets. Sort of, but not really. In fact, belief in the Bible as the inerrant and plenary inspired word of God is no different than believing Carl Sagan’s Cosmos is the authority on reality. Both are taken on faith, even though both can’t be correct. This is important…..critically important….when discussing the Bible and its veracity.
History and Jesus
First of all, the one single thing that hinges on the Bible’s truth and falsehood is historical facts about Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is the fulcrum in which the Bible’s authoritativeness rests. If His life is disproved or His claims are false, then the entire book in called into question. On the other hand, if He really existed and really vindicated everything He said and did, when He rose from the dead, then the book is as authoritative as He considered it. Our authority is in Jesus Christ, for the bible, faith, supernatural, immortality….everything. So, let me deal with history and Jesus before getting into the faith issue.
Historical facts are different from scientific facts because you can’t observe historical facts. They are in the past. All you have is evidence that points to conclusions. That is the process of historical verification. You look for artifacts, witnesses close to the event, autographical support, etc., to arrive at conclusions about history. If Jesus Christ is the single most important evidence for the Bible, since the Bible supports Jesus Christ, isn’t my argument circular? No. Here’s why it isn’t. The Bible is a historical document and has to be viewed as one first. It is rich with people, places, dates, circumstances that parallel other accepted historical facts, that it must be considered and tested to see whether it stands or falls. For example, until archeologists discovered finds in Palestine, many began to believe that much of the Old Testament places and people were mythical. But the evidence has since vindicated the Old Testament stories as real places and real people, as finds began to tell the story.
With regards to Jesus Christ, His Person is critical to the Bible’s veracity and His resurrection is critical to His veracity. There are four historical facts accepted by a consensus of critical scholars regarding Jesus’ resurrection:
1) Jesus was crucified under the reign of Pilate.
2) He was buried in the tomb belonging to Joseph of Arimathea.
3) Early Sunday morning, a group of women follower discovered this tomb empty.
4) On separate occasions and before separate individuals and groups, Jesus appeared alive to both friends and enemies.
Even skeptical scholars such as the German, Gert Ludermann, believe those four facts. That’s because they meet the test of historical veracity. They are internally consistent within Scripture. They are witnessed outside of Scripture with both Christian and non-Christian sources that were close to the events. They also best explain the spontaneous onset of the Christian church, as well as its growth. There is very little controversy, when looked at from a purely historical point of view. There are a minority of scholars who do not agree with these facts, but there objections are not on historical grounds, which I’ll bring back up in a minute.
Historical resurrection?
If we accept those four facts as historical, the second hurdle is to come up with a theory that best explains them. Here’s a list of some famous ones that have since been discounted:
1) Swoon theory – Jesus was crucified but he didn’t really die. It just appeared that way and he revived once he was able to rest in the tomb. Once you provide the Gospel accounts of what Jesus went through to a normal doctor, the possibility of this being true is beyond a stretch and as a result, is looked with as much skepticism as the resurrection.
2) Body Snatcher theory – The disciples stole the body and perpetuated a resurrected Jesus in order to keep the movement going. This idea is as old as the Gospels themselves, since it can be found in Matthew. But if that were true, it would mean that the disciples went to their deaths rather than deny something they made up and knew was a deception.
Another theory that Gert Ludermann and a few others suggest is the Mass Hallucination Theory, which states that the appearances of a resurrected Jesus were the result of the grief over His death. As it goes, they believe that when someone goes through a traumatic experience such as watching their beloved leader suffer and die, the body goes through a process to deal with the pain by denying the experience ever happened or making our wishful hopes of a corrected situation seem real so that we can deal with it better. In other words, this theory claims that what all these people saw was a figment of their imagination, even if it was consistent and pervasive in large groups, at the same time. There are obvious problems with this theory too. For one, the odds of at least 500 people experiencing the same hallucination seems preposterous. Besides, even though there are common factors in the grief process, not everyone deals with this in the same exact way. It is easier to believe that if the hallucinations were the case, someone would’ve rose up and tried to bring people to their senses. Instead, the records shows that everyone, from the disciples, to those churches that were started by the disciples, not a single incidence from even an outside source suggest that anyone ever tried to deny the resurrection from within His group of followers.
One more theory….
Here’s another suggestion that explains those historical facts: Jesus really did get up and walk out of that tomb. Some would say that it is impossible for someone to naturally resurrect from the dead. I would agree. There is no natural explanation for those historical facts. Some of the most confident scholars who refuse to accept the supernatural leave it at that. But for those who deny either those facts or the resurrection or any miracles within the Bible, they do so not out of historical considerations, but for pre-chosen philosophical ones. They didn’t believe in the supernatural prior to looking at the evidence, even if the historical evidence points to the supernatural. We bring to the table our views and opinions as baggage when we look at things. In the case of the skeptic, there is a strong and absolute commitment to materialism or naturalism before any historical or other evidence is presented and the historical evidence is stretched to fit over their naturalistic procrustean bed, as best as possible.
The supernatural
But if the resurrection can be historically supported and is the lynchpin under girding the authenticity and authority of the entire Bible, then what about all the other issues, like creation in six days, the flood of Noah or the extended day in Joshua? In other words, what about all the other supernatural acts in the Bible and why don’t we see them today? Everybody believes based on faith in an authority. I don’t care if you are a Baptist or an atheist. Your beliefs are not something you arrived at through your own observations or cogitations. You rest your beliefs in the authority of someone else and then use your observations and thinking to defend and support your beliefs. You do so, not out of a pre-commitment to find truth, but out of a pre-commitment to take care of your own vested interests. That goes for the Christian and the non-Christian. Only the Christian has the ability to break that chain and transcend it in Christ, even if they never do.
The supernatural is something that a smart person has to leave the door open for. That isn’t for any other reason than there are little explanations behind things like the resurrection and even creation and the things that make life life, unless there is more to this universe than simply what we sense with our bodies. If the door is left open to the possibility of miracles, the door is left open to the possibility of the supernatural events in the Bible. But whether we choose to leave the door open or close it, absent a means to unseat our powerful vested interests in what best suits us, we will never go beyond it. Darrow was certain, rather than agnostic, about many things, of which one of them was the certainty that no reasonable person could believe in the supernatural. His statement wasn’t true and was said to provoke people to stand with him, rather than shed light on reality. Did Balaam’s donkey speak in Hebrew? Why would I not believe it? Would it be because I never heard a donkey speak Hebrew? Probably. But would that make the possibility of this a ‘monstrosity’? It can only mean I never heard a donkey speak Hebrew. Does that mean something like that could’ve happened? The real question is whether or not there is a supernatural. Even if you doubt donkeys have ever spoken Hebrew, unless you leave the door open for the possibility of the supernatural, you become donkey speaking in English. He wants to pick agnosticism where it suits him and abandon it when it suits him....sort of like a political debate, rather than a fact finding process.
A good God and the morality of hell…
Darrow can’t believe in a good God that would allow people to burn in hell forever. The thought of hell is severe and very unpleasant. Actually, any Christian who is happy with the concept of hell hasn’t really developed a Christ-like concern for other people. But can God be good and send people to hell. Read Darrow’s essay again and tell me whether or not Darrow is ready for hell over Christ? C.S. Lewis stated that the doors to hell are locked on the inside. That is key to understanding what Darrow perceives to be an absurdity. Christ wept for the very city He came to save but didn’t accept Him for who He was. Peter stated that God wishes that no one perishes and that all be saved. The Gospel message itself is the Kingdom of God, presented in Christ, which is salvation and freedom from death, sin and ourselves. Christ said He offers peace and rest for our weary and burdened souls…not as if the weary and burdened were a particular group of people He was speaking to, but that all of humanity was weary and burdened, even if many refused to admit it. That is the point. There are not good people and bad people. There are not weary people and strong people. There are bad people who know they’re bad and bad people in denial. There are weary people who know they’re weary and weary people in denial. Those in denial want no part of the grace and peace offered in Jesus Christ. They take violence, strife and destruction over it, which is demonstrated in Darrow’s essay. He was no different than the city Jesus wept over.
The real quandary isn’t God sending people to hell but how in the hell people would prefer hell to His peace and rest. And that doesn’t convict God of anything but rather convicts us for being the real tyrants….and especially to ourselves. Why would we reject the only peace we could ever have, even in the midst of great storms in our lives, so we can try to gain the peace for ourselves, when there is no evidence it was ever attainable? It only reveals the fact that our problem isn’t mental, physical or intellectual. It reveals that our real brokenness is our immorality to God and as a result, immorality to ourselves. Hell is our choice because we want no part of God. Think about it…when you read about Jesus in the Gospels, was there any reason whatsoever to reject Him? Did you also notice in reading the same Gospels that it was those who had nothing left to gain or lose who Jesus chose to be with, rather than the High Priests and Elders? And it was the High Priests and Elders, as well as the Roman rulers who resisted Him the most. Hell is the result of human potential fully realized. Jesus is the result of human brokenness, fully recognized.
Summary
Reason
I also believe I have explained that it is more reasonable to believe in Christianity than to hold to agnosticism. The idea of an infinite, timeless, spaceless, immaterial and intentional cause to the universe makes more sense than any other consideration. The idea that nature’s delicate balance and the order of the universe are best explained by design, than by either law or chance is also the most reasonable. I also outlined that believing that mind is distinguished from brain is the only way we can consistently live life, and that pure materialism which denies the existence of the mind/soul, jerks the rug out from under your own rational thoughts, as well as denying things that make life life. Believing that the best explanation to historical facts of Jesus’ church is His supernatural resurrection fits better than alternative natural explanations and to disagree would not be based on historical grounds but pre-chosen philosophical ones. I also believe that you are not agnostic if you are certain there is no supernatural. Agnostics would be open to the possibility and open to verification of it. Darrow wasn’t and neither are other agnostics in his line of thinking. In fact, agnosticism is a tool used by skeptics to support and defend their own vested interests and is actually abandoned in many areas for the same reason, under the banner of agnosticism.
Faith
Lastly, because of vested self interest and the finitude of the human being, faith is the single most important factor to knowledge and belief, rather than a test tube observation or a day reading Aristotle in a Starbuck’s. Facts and evidence are there, as well as rational thought. However, because we lean on faith as the foundation, we end up using factual evidence and rational thought to defend what we have already chosen out of faith, rather than vice versa. Faith is the stuff of beliefs for all humans, whether atheist or Christian and there is no discrimination. That is because we are too small to not lean on faith as our method of knowledge beyond our immediate experience
I believe in faith, because, like every other human being born of man and woman, I am small in location, small in my morality and small in my ability to know things. The step ladder of a human being in the universe is tiny. In order to go beyond immediate experience requires faith, as a prerequisite. With regards to matters of faith, I believe the Bible is fully inspired and inerrant word of God, not because someone told me to believe that. It’s because of Jesus Christ that I believe that. I place my authority in Him and what He teaches me, I accept, not based on studying all the evidence, which I could do, but because He’s a trusted authority in my life. Even though it is more reasonable to believe in Christianity than to swallow Darrow’s arguments, that’s what we all do and I think it is so vitally important for us all to recognize our limitations and how we come to believe things, in order to get closer to the truth and whether God exists or if Jesus is God. Unless we really recognize our limitations, we will be the blind man who refuses to stop driving the car or the cancer patient that believes he or she is perfectly well. We end up hurting ourselves and those around us, even if we can’t see that so well.
There are parts of what I believe that are difficult. There is no getting around that. But my other options don’t ease that tension at all. In fact, if I choose between a talking donkey or only matter and energy, then the less tension is with a talking donkey, because the other option totally subverts my own thoughts in the first place, even those that doubt talking donkeys. What I am saying is that no matter whether you choose Jesus or Darrow, there is no elimination of tension, confusion and uncertainty, which goes back to my original statement that limited agnosticism is a good thing. What you have to decide is which beliefs reduce the tension the most. What you also have to decide is why you chose it in the first place. My contention is that unless you know Jesus Christ personally, you will never be able to answer the second question, because you are your own worst enemy in this regard. That doesn’t make Christians all pristine and smart. Most of us hardly ever exercise our abilities to override vested interests. But that has no bearing on the truth. It never has. It’s not about the church, about tradition, about science or about agnosticism. It is all about Him and He is the essential tenet to not only Christian faith, but to ultimate reality.
The tension we hold and if we’re pressed…
The other options end up beating you down, rather than lifting you up. Try supporting an ethical position with a materialist view of the universe. If pressed, you abandon materialism, stand with Hitler, or hold materialism and ethics in a very weird tension that surpasses any tension believing in Jesus would produce. Try consoling a mother whose child has died holding to a view of naturalism. What comfort can you really provide? Just being there is really the best option for either the Christian or the skeptic, but if the mother starts asking questions, the best you can come up with is to change the subject. What about falling in love? By denying God and the existence of anything outside of nature, all you can believe is that love is reduced to a crude way to get a male and female to reproduce their genes, which leaves love unfulfillable, marriage a vacuous tradition and sexual morality and fidelity a cruel joke.
You can be an atheist and be very moral. In fact, many atheists are much more moral than evangelical Christians. I can’t explain that and hold to an agnosticism with that topic. But, even though the atheist can be moral, love their spouse and comfort the grieving mother, they do so without any foundation or merit, based on the principles of their belief. Hitler may not be the representation of atheists, but he represents the logical outworking of atheism’s first principles. Christian’s may have lynched people after show trials and invaded countries and spilt innocent blood, but those were not the logical outworking of Christian first principles, but against contrary to them. However, if you take Jesus out of history, you will see a vast difference and come to realize what a real difference this Man has made with increasing ripples up to our very day, aside the arguments presented.
Clarence Darrow was a smart man. But he wasn’t much on dismantling the Christian faith and he also wasn’t very consistent with holding to his proclaimed agnosticism. He was a self motivated man, looking out for what best suited him, and it is apparent in his manifesto. But he’s nothing special. We are all like that, except for Jesus, whom Darrow wanted no part of. Don’t be afraid to question and doubt. Just don’t be too surprised to find Him at the end of an honest pursuit of Truth.
Three tenets necessary to make a Christian belief
There is no doubt that a Christian believes in God, believes in immortality and in the supernatural. However, that describes many religions and doesn’t come close to capturing the real essence of Christianity. It can also describe Islam, Bahaism, New Age, Satanism, Hinduism and several strains of Mahayana Buddhist beliefs. Also, Christians don’t have to believe in those things prior to becoming a Christian…even if they are unavoidably led to conclude them after becoming one.
The only tenet necessary to the faith of a Christian is this: believing in Jesus Christ as Lord, who suffered and died for our sins and was raised to life with power to complete the gift He offers to those who simply believe with empty hands. Once a person accepts Christ, there is an unavoidable conclusion that God exists, that immortality is something that happens and that there is much more to reality than simply what reaches the senses. Once I place trust in the only authority that propositionally provides me with information about Jesus, then I can be considered a literalist. If I were to argue Christianity and not even mention Jesus Christ, I wouldn’t be talking about Christianity. If I were to argue for Christianity without considering the Bible as the sole authority communicating His Good News to me, then it would be like writing a thesis paper about how the government was poisoning our water supply, without having one single authoritative reference. It would be laughed at in higher education, yet the Christian who says he or she places their faith in a Person yet reject the only propositional reference about Him are treated seriously by the ‘educated.’
Unfortunately, Darrow never really dealt with Jesus Christ, so even though he dealt with a lot of things Christians believe, he never dealt with the basic tenet of Christianity, which is Jesus Christ, the most perfect revelation of God, the supernatural and immortality. Unless you deal with Him, you are only talking metaphysics and epistemology.
But isn’t life like that? Isn’t a lot of what we know as undeniable, something that happens to us, something we see or realize? As a Christian, I was never asked to stop thinking and simply believe in Peter Pan and Neverland. In fact, the idea of doing that is just as distasteful now as it was before I knew Him. As we go on, I will show how there is more evidence to support Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior than there is to support agnosticism of God. In fact, I will show that belief in Jesus Christ takes less mental gymnastics and more common sense than does agnosticism and that to be an agnostic takes much more energy, mental exercise and faith than believing in and on Him.
Origin of the Universe & The Watchmaker
Darrow states that God is an insufficient explanation to the beginning of things. God is the only explanation to the beginning of things. Here’s a famous inductive argument you may or may not have heard:
1) If the universe had a beginning, it must be caused by something.
2) That cause, by definition and necessity, must be timeless
3) … spaceless,
4) …immaterial and
5) …personal.
The beginning had a cause…
Anything that begins to exist is caused by something. Nothing pops into and out of existence uncaused. Which is easier to believe: a Bengal Tiger can literally pop into existence in the middle of a play….or….someone let it in the theatre? Even Quantum mechanics doesn’t necessarily state subatomic particles can pop into and out of existence. The only thing that Quantum mechanics can state is that when studying these small particles in large groups, they can’t determine their cause or their movement. Some schools go ahead and conclude it’s because they are uncaused. But other schools, and common sense, say that we simply don’t know the cause. It’s simply much easier to believe in a cause to the universe than to believe it was uncaused.
The cause to the beginning couldn’t be beginning itself
But that cause has to be timeless, spaceless and immaterial, since the universe itself, which began, has these properties as its essence. Whatever or Whoever caused the universe, caused time, space and matter. Therefore, the cause must be timeless, spaceless and immaterial. But once more, the cause has to be personal. There were no natural preconditions that happened to be there in order for time, space and matter to pop into existence, because the preconditions are a part of the universe, rather than the cause of it. The only explanation to the creation of time, space and matter is that it was caused by personal free agency. Someone had to cause it, rather than something. Why? Think about it. What preconditions would there have to be in order to strike a match? You would need a match, something to strike it on and someone to move the match across that area. You would also need the match to be made of the right stuff to cause ignition. But when it comes to the beginning of the universe, what necessary preconditions should have been there in order for it to come about? Anyplace you start, you immediately violate the first necessities of the properties to the universe’s cause, being time, space or matter….unless it was Mind….a thinking, free and intentional mind that intentionally created these things. It was intentionality that was the only possible precondition to the creation of the universe and intentionality is exclusively associated with a Mind.
Darrow states that God as the creator gives no explanation. Well, if the cause was timeless, spaceless, immaterial and personal/intentional, what are we left with? That almost sounds like a laundry list of classic orthodoxy’s attributes of God. The puzzle of ‘who made God’ is simple. No one. He always was and nothing stands behind Him. If God had a beginning, then not only would God not be a sufficient cause, but whatever caused God would have to stand behind Him as superior. Darrow answered his own question but never considered it as something acceptable to the question, without providing any evidence as to why he didn’t consider it seriously. Think about it, even though it is insane to consider time and space as infinite and uncaused, it is equally insane to consider the cause to time and space as either temporal or spatial. You can’t have it both ways. It makes no sense. Either the universe is infinite and God is finite, which leads to absurdities and places God as a part of the very universe, rather than the cause of it, or God is infinite and the universe is finite, which places Him at the farthest back as you can go, as the beginning and totally supreme. But to think of a cause to time and space that had a beginning is incoherent, rather than a timeless cause to time.
How did things get so complex?
He also attacks the idea of a designer to the universe and brings up Paley’s watchmaker argument, which he refutes. But has he? There is no doubt that the watch example would imply that one knows a watch and that watches are made by watch makers. But Paley wasn’t saying because we see a watch, someone must have made it. What Paley was saying was because we can recognize design from mere chance, we can look around and tell that mere chance has no place in explaining how everything easily flows on an incredibly delicate balance and with such form. Basically, the form of the universe is caused by either 1) law, 2) chance or 3) design. Since it can’t be either law or chance, it must be design. Why? It can’t be law because laws only reflect the effect and effects are effects, not causes. You can’t explain the cause of physics with the laws of physics. You also can’t explain the cause of the universe with the laws of the universe. It can’t be chance either. That’s because the odds of a life permitting universe are so incredibly low, that the probability of chance isn’t even rational. The gravitational pull, the composition of prerequisites that allow for carbon-based life, etc…are all so incredibly delicate that chance is a silly explanation and one used as a stop gap excuse from dealing with what is right there in front of our faces. That leaves design, since law and chance are in the dust. Because form and function are so obvious and intentional and the delicate balance of things seems so incredible, it must have been designed.
So Darrow has conveniently skipped over volumes of issues dealing with origins and design to jump to his conclusions about both God and agnostic views to these things. He does have a point with regards to detailed explanations to both origins and design. He suggests that if we begin with ourselves and try to figure out the specifics as to origins and design, we simply are left to guessing and speculation. There are some things we can know about it and I’ve mentioned them above. But unless this Cause/Designer tells us how it came about in more detail, we are simply left with a personal unmoved mover and that is all. I’ll deal with Scripture soon, but for now, this provides insight into Darrows lack of insight to these questions.
Existence of the Soul
Using Darrow’s question for my own use, can anyone guided by reason believe their mind is the same thing as their brain? That’s the real question. You can call it soul, spirit or blip, but the big question is whether or not the mind and the brain are identical or distinguished. Darrow supports a materialistic view of the mind, calling it the soul, by reducing us to cells that come into existence and then die. But there’s a huge problem with reducing the mind to biological, chemical and electrical impulses. The problem is that it jerks the rug out from under your own rationality. There is no guarantee that the activity in the brain, caused by some stimulus, carries with it truth or accuracy of what is really going on. Even the strictest materialist has no way of scientifically bridging brain activity to truth. The fact is that if our mental thoughts are basically brain activity, what we think is true isn’t necessarily true, including our belief that our mental thoughts are simply brain activity. It is, in essence, a self-defeating idea.
Only brain? So much for what I or anyone else thinks!
That’s the problem with the coupling of materialism with evolution. Evolution isn’t directly concerned about right beliefs. It is only concerned about right behavior….getting our nervous systems in the right place at the right time. It may be indirectly concerned with beliefs, but only as a survival value. So, in essence, if evolution is true, the probability of our beliefs, even the belief in evolution, of being true is low or improbable.
Richard Dawkins penned a new concept called “memes” in the late 1970’s which was his attempt to bridge the gap between science and knowledge. He basically believed that ideas get transmitted to other brains, via communication, like a virus. As one person tells another person ideas, the receiver takes it, calls it their own then becomes a new carrier for that idea. He never claimed that memes really existed but only postulated them as a way to fit nicely into his system of materialist thought. However, “memology” has become a large branch of science and many people have dedicated their careers to the study of these phantom viruses. But the same problem with memes exists….how do you know that you’ve stumbled onto something about reality (memes) or if you are simply infected by very viruses you say exist? The probability of a beliefs truth or falsehood is low or improbable, especially the belief in memes.
The fact is mind is not identical to brain, even if it is associated with the brain. Even things like numbers, colors, morals can’t exist if materialism is true. However, we can’t deny the existence of these things and in fact, lean heavily upon them for truth, knowledge and life in general. In order to embrace the idea that we have no soul/mind, only body/brain, we have to reject the existence of anything non-material, including the mind/soul. But when we do that, we come face to face with irrational conclusions that make a mockery out of simple, everyday life, relying heavily on things we conclude can’t really exist and denying even our very selves.
No mind? Then no numbers, morals or even self!
The self can’t exist under a materialistic framework. What is the self? Under a materialistic view, it can’t be distinguished. But, as with the other arguments, you have to invoke your self in order to argue against its existence, which makes no sense. Buddhism hinges its entire philosophy on the non-existence of the self, because Buddhism hinges on monistic view that everything is one. But someone has to believe that everything is one and that has to be distinguished from other individuals who don’t believe everything is one. You can’t deny the self or the observer/observed dualism anymore than you can deny the nose on your face. It is much easier to believe in mind/body dualism, the existence of the self, the existence of non-material things like numbers, morals and color, than to believe that there is only matter. In fact, since Darrow died, the materialist view of the mind/body argument has been considered passé and now there are new schools of thought in this area, one of which is entitled Epiphenomenalism, which tries to reconcile mind and body, without invoking something that sounds like theism. But in the end, it does sound like it, but without acknowledging it.
What it means is that Darrow’s view of the soul is outdated and even skeptics reject the purely materialistic view, moving closer to the good old fashioned Biblical idea of body/soul dualism, so what reasons do we have to reject it? Darrow presents no ideas, other than appealing to common sense and it is precisely common sense that supports the idea of mind/body dualism rather than Darrow’s appeal to nothing but matter.
The Bible Inspired by God & Faith
Darrow states that in his childhood, the idea of the Bible being supernaturally inspired was based purely on miracles and prophets. Sort of, but not really. In fact, belief in the Bible as the inerrant and plenary inspired word of God is no different than believing Carl Sagan’s Cosmos is the authority on reality. Both are taken on faith, even though both can’t be correct. This is important…..critically important….when discussing the Bible and its veracity.
History and Jesus
First of all, the one single thing that hinges on the Bible’s truth and falsehood is historical facts about Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is the fulcrum in which the Bible’s authoritativeness rests. If His life is disproved or His claims are false, then the entire book in called into question. On the other hand, if He really existed and really vindicated everything He said and did, when He rose from the dead, then the book is as authoritative as He considered it. Our authority is in Jesus Christ, for the bible, faith, supernatural, immortality….everything. So, let me deal with history and Jesus before getting into the faith issue.
Historical facts are different from scientific facts because you can’t observe historical facts. They are in the past. All you have is evidence that points to conclusions. That is the process of historical verification. You look for artifacts, witnesses close to the event, autographical support, etc., to arrive at conclusions about history. If Jesus Christ is the single most important evidence for the Bible, since the Bible supports Jesus Christ, isn’t my argument circular? No. Here’s why it isn’t. The Bible is a historical document and has to be viewed as one first. It is rich with people, places, dates, circumstances that parallel other accepted historical facts, that it must be considered and tested to see whether it stands or falls. For example, until archeologists discovered finds in Palestine, many began to believe that much of the Old Testament places and people were mythical. But the evidence has since vindicated the Old Testament stories as real places and real people, as finds began to tell the story.
With regards to Jesus Christ, His Person is critical to the Bible’s veracity and His resurrection is critical to His veracity. There are four historical facts accepted by a consensus of critical scholars regarding Jesus’ resurrection:
1) Jesus was crucified under the reign of Pilate.
2) He was buried in the tomb belonging to Joseph of Arimathea.
3) Early Sunday morning, a group of women follower discovered this tomb empty.
4) On separate occasions and before separate individuals and groups, Jesus appeared alive to both friends and enemies.
Even skeptical scholars such as the German, Gert Ludermann, believe those four facts. That’s because they meet the test of historical veracity. They are internally consistent within Scripture. They are witnessed outside of Scripture with both Christian and non-Christian sources that were close to the events. They also best explain the spontaneous onset of the Christian church, as well as its growth. There is very little controversy, when looked at from a purely historical point of view. There are a minority of scholars who do not agree with these facts, but there objections are not on historical grounds, which I’ll bring back up in a minute.
Historical resurrection?
If we accept those four facts as historical, the second hurdle is to come up with a theory that best explains them. Here’s a list of some famous ones that have since been discounted:
1) Swoon theory – Jesus was crucified but he didn’t really die. It just appeared that way and he revived once he was able to rest in the tomb. Once you provide the Gospel accounts of what Jesus went through to a normal doctor, the possibility of this being true is beyond a stretch and as a result, is looked with as much skepticism as the resurrection.
2) Body Snatcher theory – The disciples stole the body and perpetuated a resurrected Jesus in order to keep the movement going. This idea is as old as the Gospels themselves, since it can be found in Matthew. But if that were true, it would mean that the disciples went to their deaths rather than deny something they made up and knew was a deception.
Another theory that Gert Ludermann and a few others suggest is the Mass Hallucination Theory, which states that the appearances of a resurrected Jesus were the result of the grief over His death. As it goes, they believe that when someone goes through a traumatic experience such as watching their beloved leader suffer and die, the body goes through a process to deal with the pain by denying the experience ever happened or making our wishful hopes of a corrected situation seem real so that we can deal with it better. In other words, this theory claims that what all these people saw was a figment of their imagination, even if it was consistent and pervasive in large groups, at the same time. There are obvious problems with this theory too. For one, the odds of at least 500 people experiencing the same hallucination seems preposterous. Besides, even though there are common factors in the grief process, not everyone deals with this in the same exact way. It is easier to believe that if the hallucinations were the case, someone would’ve rose up and tried to bring people to their senses. Instead, the records shows that everyone, from the disciples, to those churches that were started by the disciples, not a single incidence from even an outside source suggest that anyone ever tried to deny the resurrection from within His group of followers.
One more theory….
Here’s another suggestion that explains those historical facts: Jesus really did get up and walk out of that tomb. Some would say that it is impossible for someone to naturally resurrect from the dead. I would agree. There is no natural explanation for those historical facts. Some of the most confident scholars who refuse to accept the supernatural leave it at that. But for those who deny either those facts or the resurrection or any miracles within the Bible, they do so not out of historical considerations, but for pre-chosen philosophical ones. They didn’t believe in the supernatural prior to looking at the evidence, even if the historical evidence points to the supernatural. We bring to the table our views and opinions as baggage when we look at things. In the case of the skeptic, there is a strong and absolute commitment to materialism or naturalism before any historical or other evidence is presented and the historical evidence is stretched to fit over their naturalistic procrustean bed, as best as possible.
The supernatural
But if the resurrection can be historically supported and is the lynchpin under girding the authenticity and authority of the entire Bible, then what about all the other issues, like creation in six days, the flood of Noah or the extended day in Joshua? In other words, what about all the other supernatural acts in the Bible and why don’t we see them today? Everybody believes based on faith in an authority. I don’t care if you are a Baptist or an atheist. Your beliefs are not something you arrived at through your own observations or cogitations. You rest your beliefs in the authority of someone else and then use your observations and thinking to defend and support your beliefs. You do so, not out of a pre-commitment to find truth, but out of a pre-commitment to take care of your own vested interests. That goes for the Christian and the non-Christian. Only the Christian has the ability to break that chain and transcend it in Christ, even if they never do.
The supernatural is something that a smart person has to leave the door open for. That isn’t for any other reason than there are little explanations behind things like the resurrection and even creation and the things that make life life, unless there is more to this universe than simply what we sense with our bodies. If the door is left open to the possibility of miracles, the door is left open to the possibility of the supernatural events in the Bible. But whether we choose to leave the door open or close it, absent a means to unseat our powerful vested interests in what best suits us, we will never go beyond it. Darrow was certain, rather than agnostic, about many things, of which one of them was the certainty that no reasonable person could believe in the supernatural. His statement wasn’t true and was said to provoke people to stand with him, rather than shed light on reality. Did Balaam’s donkey speak in Hebrew? Why would I not believe it? Would it be because I never heard a donkey speak Hebrew? Probably. But would that make the possibility of this a ‘monstrosity’? It can only mean I never heard a donkey speak Hebrew. Does that mean something like that could’ve happened? The real question is whether or not there is a supernatural. Even if you doubt donkeys have ever spoken Hebrew, unless you leave the door open for the possibility of the supernatural, you become donkey speaking in English. He wants to pick agnosticism where it suits him and abandon it when it suits him....sort of like a political debate, rather than a fact finding process.
A good God and the morality of hell…
Darrow can’t believe in a good God that would allow people to burn in hell forever. The thought of hell is severe and very unpleasant. Actually, any Christian who is happy with the concept of hell hasn’t really developed a Christ-like concern for other people. But can God be good and send people to hell. Read Darrow’s essay again and tell me whether or not Darrow is ready for hell over Christ? C.S. Lewis stated that the doors to hell are locked on the inside. That is key to understanding what Darrow perceives to be an absurdity. Christ wept for the very city He came to save but didn’t accept Him for who He was. Peter stated that God wishes that no one perishes and that all be saved. The Gospel message itself is the Kingdom of God, presented in Christ, which is salvation and freedom from death, sin and ourselves. Christ said He offers peace and rest for our weary and burdened souls…not as if the weary and burdened were a particular group of people He was speaking to, but that all of humanity was weary and burdened, even if many refused to admit it. That is the point. There are not good people and bad people. There are not weary people and strong people. There are bad people who know they’re bad and bad people in denial. There are weary people who know they’re weary and weary people in denial. Those in denial want no part of the grace and peace offered in Jesus Christ. They take violence, strife and destruction over it, which is demonstrated in Darrow’s essay. He was no different than the city Jesus wept over.
The real quandary isn’t God sending people to hell but how in the hell people would prefer hell to His peace and rest. And that doesn’t convict God of anything but rather convicts us for being the real tyrants….and especially to ourselves. Why would we reject the only peace we could ever have, even in the midst of great storms in our lives, so we can try to gain the peace for ourselves, when there is no evidence it was ever attainable? It only reveals the fact that our problem isn’t mental, physical or intellectual. It reveals that our real brokenness is our immorality to God and as a result, immorality to ourselves. Hell is our choice because we want no part of God. Think about it…when you read about Jesus in the Gospels, was there any reason whatsoever to reject Him? Did you also notice in reading the same Gospels that it was those who had nothing left to gain or lose who Jesus chose to be with, rather than the High Priests and Elders? And it was the High Priests and Elders, as well as the Roman rulers who resisted Him the most. Hell is the result of human potential fully realized. Jesus is the result of human brokenness, fully recognized.
Summary
Reason
I also believe I have explained that it is more reasonable to believe in Christianity than to hold to agnosticism. The idea of an infinite, timeless, spaceless, immaterial and intentional cause to the universe makes more sense than any other consideration. The idea that nature’s delicate balance and the order of the universe are best explained by design, than by either law or chance is also the most reasonable. I also outlined that believing that mind is distinguished from brain is the only way we can consistently live life, and that pure materialism which denies the existence of the mind/soul, jerks the rug out from under your own rational thoughts, as well as denying things that make life life. Believing that the best explanation to historical facts of Jesus’ church is His supernatural resurrection fits better than alternative natural explanations and to disagree would not be based on historical grounds but pre-chosen philosophical ones. I also believe that you are not agnostic if you are certain there is no supernatural. Agnostics would be open to the possibility and open to verification of it. Darrow wasn’t and neither are other agnostics in his line of thinking. In fact, agnosticism is a tool used by skeptics to support and defend their own vested interests and is actually abandoned in many areas for the same reason, under the banner of agnosticism.
Faith
Lastly, because of vested self interest and the finitude of the human being, faith is the single most important factor to knowledge and belief, rather than a test tube observation or a day reading Aristotle in a Starbuck’s. Facts and evidence are there, as well as rational thought. However, because we lean on faith as the foundation, we end up using factual evidence and rational thought to defend what we have already chosen out of faith, rather than vice versa. Faith is the stuff of beliefs for all humans, whether atheist or Christian and there is no discrimination. That is because we are too small to not lean on faith as our method of knowledge beyond our immediate experience
I believe in faith, because, like every other human being born of man and woman, I am small in location, small in my morality and small in my ability to know things. The step ladder of a human being in the universe is tiny. In order to go beyond immediate experience requires faith, as a prerequisite. With regards to matters of faith, I believe the Bible is fully inspired and inerrant word of God, not because someone told me to believe that. It’s because of Jesus Christ that I believe that. I place my authority in Him and what He teaches me, I accept, not based on studying all the evidence, which I could do, but because He’s a trusted authority in my life. Even though it is more reasonable to believe in Christianity than to swallow Darrow’s arguments, that’s what we all do and I think it is so vitally important for us all to recognize our limitations and how we come to believe things, in order to get closer to the truth and whether God exists or if Jesus is God. Unless we really recognize our limitations, we will be the blind man who refuses to stop driving the car or the cancer patient that believes he or she is perfectly well. We end up hurting ourselves and those around us, even if we can’t see that so well.
There are parts of what I believe that are difficult. There is no getting around that. But my other options don’t ease that tension at all. In fact, if I choose between a talking donkey or only matter and energy, then the less tension is with a talking donkey, because the other option totally subverts my own thoughts in the first place, even those that doubt talking donkeys. What I am saying is that no matter whether you choose Jesus or Darrow, there is no elimination of tension, confusion and uncertainty, which goes back to my original statement that limited agnosticism is a good thing. What you have to decide is which beliefs reduce the tension the most. What you also have to decide is why you chose it in the first place. My contention is that unless you know Jesus Christ personally, you will never be able to answer the second question, because you are your own worst enemy in this regard. That doesn’t make Christians all pristine and smart. Most of us hardly ever exercise our abilities to override vested interests. But that has no bearing on the truth. It never has. It’s not about the church, about tradition, about science or about agnosticism. It is all about Him and He is the essential tenet to not only Christian faith, but to ultimate reality.
The tension we hold and if we’re pressed…
The other options end up beating you down, rather than lifting you up. Try supporting an ethical position with a materialist view of the universe. If pressed, you abandon materialism, stand with Hitler, or hold materialism and ethics in a very weird tension that surpasses any tension believing in Jesus would produce. Try consoling a mother whose child has died holding to a view of naturalism. What comfort can you really provide? Just being there is really the best option for either the Christian or the skeptic, but if the mother starts asking questions, the best you can come up with is to change the subject. What about falling in love? By denying God and the existence of anything outside of nature, all you can believe is that love is reduced to a crude way to get a male and female to reproduce their genes, which leaves love unfulfillable, marriage a vacuous tradition and sexual morality and fidelity a cruel joke.
You can be an atheist and be very moral. In fact, many atheists are much more moral than evangelical Christians. I can’t explain that and hold to an agnosticism with that topic. But, even though the atheist can be moral, love their spouse and comfort the grieving mother, they do so without any foundation or merit, based on the principles of their belief. Hitler may not be the representation of atheists, but he represents the logical outworking of atheism’s first principles. Christian’s may have lynched people after show trials and invaded countries and spilt innocent blood, but those were not the logical outworking of Christian first principles, but against contrary to them. However, if you take Jesus out of history, you will see a vast difference and come to realize what a real difference this Man has made with increasing ripples up to our very day, aside the arguments presented.
Clarence Darrow was a smart man. But he wasn’t much on dismantling the Christian faith and he also wasn’t very consistent with holding to his proclaimed agnosticism. He was a self motivated man, looking out for what best suited him, and it is apparent in his manifesto. But he’s nothing special. We are all like that, except for Jesus, whom Darrow wanted no part of. Don’t be afraid to question and doubt. Just don’t be too surprised to find Him at the end of an honest pursuit of Truth.
No comments:
Post a Comment