PE420/620-D
Module 10
Learning Guide
Worldviews 1
- Marxism, Communism, Secular Humanism
Before you start...




Post to last module’s forum
Do the pre-reading for this week (see Unit Guide px + non-text uploads on Moodle)
From the reading, come prepared to share a question, challenge, implication & application
Bring along something for show and tell....
1. INTRODUCTION
In this session we will investigate the worldviews of Marxism, Communism and Secular Humanism,
particularly scientism. Guest speaker Craig Sargent will open the session by presenting on Communism,
exploring its Marxist roots and commonality with Secular Humanism. Then, after debriefing the readings,
we will have an open discussion on issues of creation and evolution, related to scientism.
OBJECTIVES
The objectives of this module are to:
1. Understand various Atheistic worldviews and the importance of presuppositions in communication
and apologetics.
2. Work towards formulating our own theological view of Genesis and creation, exploring related issues.
3. Practice responding to Marxists, Secular Humanists, and Naturalistic Evolutionists.
OUTCOMES
On completion of this module, the student shall be expected to explain the core tenets of the atheistic
worldviews explored, and offer a simple but multifaceted reply.
SESSION FLOW (lecture runs 6:15-9:00pm, breaks from 7:05-7:10pm, and 7:55-8:05pm)
6:15
7:10
8:05
Investigate Marxism, Communism and Secular Humanism (50 minutes)
Big Story and Readings Debrief (45 minutes)
Scientism and Creation vs. Evolution—an open discussion (55 minutes)
Worldviews 1: Marxism & Humanism
Module #10-1
PE420/620 Christian Apologetics
2. ATHEISTIC WORLDVIEWS
The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class
struggles. 1– Karl Marx
“The empires of the future will be empires of the mind (i.e. ideas).” Winston Churchill
A person’s understanding of the world, their worldview, is the set of
foundational presuppositions they use in evaluating and integrating
everything they experience and learn. A person’s worldview guides
their actions and dictates what the words they say really mean. It is
their map for navigating the world.
To truly understand what a person is saying and how they will
understand what you are saying, you will need to understand the
person’s worldview.
Today’s most common atheistic worldviews are Secular Humanism and Marxism/Communism.
Marxism/Communism
Writings of Marx and Lenin
Communist Manifesto
Theology
Atheism
Atheism
Philosophy
Naturalism
Dialectical Materialism
Ethics
Relativism
Communist ends justifies the means
Biology
Evolution
Evolution
Sociology
Non-Traditional Family
Abolition of home and church
Economics
Socialism (often, but not necessarily) Socialism
Politics
One world government
One world communism
Human Nature Perfectible with good environment
Perfectible with good environment
Sources
Secular Humanism
Humanist Manifestoes
The Big Idea …
Communism was one of the most dominant forces of the 20th Century,
responsible for over 170 million deaths, and continues to be a world-force.
It is said that “those who cannot remember the past are condemned to
repeat it,” thus it is fitting to understand this philosophical system, its core
beliefs and how it spread, particularly when we note the common
foundation shared with today’s dominant western belief system, Secular
Humanism. God, in the Bible, has revealed principles that allow for equity
in resources without resorting to compulsion, which if practiced by
Christians would send a powerful witness to those seeking violent
alternatives. We must represent Christ in both word and deed as His
return draws near.
1
Communist Manifesto (1848) by Karl Max and Friedrich Engels
Worldviews 1: Marxism & Humanism
Module #10-2
PE420/620 Christian Apologetics
The Main Foundations of Communism:






Dialectical Materialism – History progresses
towards global communism by a series of
withdrawals and advances, much like a
hammer as it strikes a nail, only to retreat in
preparation for another strike. Each change of
direction of the hammer is referred to as a
‘negation’ where the current direction (the
thesis) is negated by its opposite (the
antithesis) forming the new position of
history, the synthesis. This synthesis then
becomes the new thesis to be next negated
and so on. These negations generally occur by
revolutionary means.
Atheism and Evolution – God does not exist and is merely an invention of the property owners to
keep the workers in line. Man has evolved from single celled life and continues to improve via
evolution.
Behavioural Determinism – People are merely matter in motion and simply the product of their
environment and evolution. Due to the dialectic, people can control their own evolution to move
towards a global communism (i.e. we can save ourselves and become perfect). Pavlov, famous for
his dogs also did much experimentation on behavioural responses in people and much of
communist theory is based on his work. Thus people are perfectible with the right environment and
education.
Amorality – Whatever means are required to
further the cause of communism is considered
good. As history shows with Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot
and Lenin, the murder of 100 million people is
considered by the communist to be moral if it was
done to advance the communist agenda. It is not
possible for a communist to lie in the interests of
communism as, by definition, if it is in the interests
of communism, it is the truth.
One world global communism – Communists take
it on faith that this is the ultimate end of the
dialectical progress of history, but society must
travel from capitalism to socialism for a time in
order to create the proper environment for
progression to communism.
Socialism – Private property, and with it capitalism, is abolished and the state decides what you
work on and what you get. The socialist economic model has caused poverty, famine and starvation
where-ever it has been introduced.
The Main Foundations of Secular Humanism:



Naturalism – Whatever exists can be explained by naturalistic causes. Science and reason are the
only sources of knowledge
Atheism and Evolution – God does not exist and is merely an invention of deluded people who
need a sky fairy to feel happy. Man has evolved from single celled life and continues to improve via
evolution.
Self Actualisation – All people can reach their potential with the right education and environment.
Man has a natural tendency towards good, and it is only his culture that teaches him to be evil.
Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.
Worldviews 1: Marxism & Humanism
Module #10-3
PE420/620 Christian Apologetics


Relativism or Utilitarianism
o Relativism - Morality doesn’t really exist. Each person, using empathy, can decide what is
right and wrong for them.
o Utilitarianism – Whatever brings the most happiness to the most people is the right act and
if a person is attempting to bring about an ultimate good, then almost any action can be
morally justified.
One world government – Because we are continually improving by evolution and to truly control
the environment and culture so as to perfect man, competitive nations must be abolished. An equal
global community requires a global government.
Resource 10.1
On the Moodle, under Module 10 “Extra Resources” you will find some helpful links:
Communism Powerpoint – accompanies the talk given this module, with interesting extras
Communism Outline – essentially the notes above, with a few extra references/verses
‘You can trust the Communists (to be communists)” by Fred Schwarz, a Christian man
instrumental in blocking Communist intellectual advances in America during the Cold War
Also, the following books will better help you understand the philosophies considered above:
 “Beating the unbeatable foe” – Fred Schwarz
 “Understanding the times” – David Noebel
 “Destructive Generation: Second thoughts about the sixties” –
David Horowitz and Peter Collier
 “The Communist Manifesto” – Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels
 The Humanist Manifest I, II, III
How might Christian compassion look today, without slipping into a
government run welfare-state? See
 “The Tragedy of American Compassion” – Marvin Olasky
Class Activity 10.1
Every year in Melbourne, a number of Marxist organisations—including ‘Socialist Alternative’ and
‘International Socialist Organization’—come together to host the conference called “Marxism.”
Visit their promotional site here and look over their four day program.
What stands out?
How does the language used (e.g. “Global Revolt”) reflect Marxist Ideology?
Following are a list of the Conference ‘Streams’. What kinds of things would you expect to be
taught in these streams? … Now, take a look through individual sessions to see what they did
cover:
#1. Radical Australian Working Class History
#2. Marxist Foundations
#3. Revolutionary Moments
#4. Key Texts of Marxism
#5. Marxist Thinkers
#6. A People’s History of the World
#7. Marxist Theory
#8. Rival Ideas on the Left
If you bumped into one of the attendees, what questions might you ask to open up a dialogue
and cut to the heart of Marxist beliefs?
Worldviews 1: Marxism & Humanism
Module #10-4
PE420/620 Christian Apologetics
Reflection Activity 10.1
Journal at least 30 (meaningful!) words in response to the Class Activity above, and tick off the
related box on p. 12 of the unit guide.
10.1 If you bumped into one of the “Marxism 2012” attendees, what questions might you ask to
open up a dialogue and cut to the heart of Marxist beliefs?
2.1
Extended information on Secular Humanism, Marxism and Communism
When Lenin started out, he had 17 supporters. When he became Russia’s ruler, he did it with only 40,000
fellow communists. Within 50 years, half of the world’s population was under communist rule. A small
number of highly organised and committed communists enslaved half the world in 50 years. (Compare this
with growth of Christianity which has taken 2000 years to get 1/3 of the world’s population as converts)
As a ‘scientific’ theory, communism took great effort in analysing what will have the most powerful
influence in any country and focused on controlling those influences. (Just like Secular Humanism capturing
public education and the legal system) So in each country they conquered, the method was at least slightly
different, but it all relied on the initial analysis. Some of the ways it has historically spread are…




Capturing the student and intellectual mind – Using noble sounding goals and elitist arguments to
appeal to intellectual pride. Controlling education.
Positioning for power - Promises of addressing people’s complaints and Sacrificial ‘love’ of helping
people to gain power and influence.
Agitation and propaganda – Repeated transmission of the simple idea that communism makes
people happy and capitalism is evil and focusing attention on the bad in a society
Military blackmail – Using military might to push for concessions.
For secular humanism, the process has been similar, but different.
 Capturing of education – The creation of the public school system and monopolization of higher
education. (over 90% of academics in the social sciences vote left)2
 Capturing cultural institutions – Hollywood and the media are predominantly left wing.3
 Moral blackmail – Using ‘rights’ issues, abortion, homosexuality etc to silence opponents
Ultimately, when communism controls a country, it stops free speech, destroys the traditional family,
introduces abortion, seizes all property and exterminates the property owners and indoctrinates and
controls everyone else. You cannot even buy food if the communist party doesn’t want you to. The forced
socialism in Communist countries caused massive famines as agricultural productively plummeted; and
together with the extermination of any competition for their leadership and of the property owners it has
caused over 170 million deaths in 80 years.
These days, we have people who call themselves Marxists,
Communists, Social Democrats, Democratic Socialists, Socialists,
Progressives, Secular Humanists and someone who is part of the
‘Reality Based Community’, but contrary to the creator of the image
above, they are not all the same. People do mix the labels sometimes.
Technically, the definition of a Socialist is roughly the same as a
Marxist or Communist, without the violent revolution, yet today we
see ‘socialist’ groups advocating violence and revolution. And it is
important to remember that communism often redefines words from
2
Political Bias in the Administrations and Faculties of 32 Elite Colleges and Universities (2003) Horowitz and Lehrer
3
A good summary of the media’s political makeup is available here.
Worldviews 1: Marxism & Humanism
Module #10-5
PE420/620 Christian Apologetics
their common meaning. Violence is redefined to be any force applied against the progress towards
communism, but not force used in favour of communism. Imperialism is redefined for any capitalistic
interaction with a less powerful country. The rich are defined as evil simply because they have more than
the poor, irrespective of how they got their wealth.
2.2
A Biblical Critique of Communism
At first glance, Communism seems to have some noble and good aims which are consistent with the Bible
such as concern for the poor, social justice and the end of war. However if you dig a bit deeper you will
notice that the Communist is working from a completely different set of premises and so it is important to
understand these differences.
1) Communism holds to pure materialism. Thus there is no after life and religion is simply a tool to control
the working class. The Bible, however, teaches us that we should sow into eternity, and material
contentment will never truly satisfy.
2) Communism would use force where as the Bible advocates a voluntary sharing (Spirit led, not under
compulsion) of private property and resources, recognising that all is God’s (2 Corinthians 8-9).
3) The Bible highlights the importance of working to get your food (2 Thessalonians 3:10) and so is not
supportive of a welfare state that does not encourage this. The New Testament had a spirit-filled
communalism where many people voluntarily gave of their own property so that every ones needs were
met, which has a similar goal to Communism, but vastly different philosophy and methodology.
4) The Bible describes the traditional family of a husband and wife caring for and raising their children
(Genesis 2:24) whereas communism seeks to destroy this type of family as it is supposedly a creation of the
capitalistic property owners and replace it with state raised children and non-exclusive relationships.
5) Any system that relies wholly on the goodness of man in this life is doomed to a very messy failure. This
is because human nature is not caused by capitalism or environment, but is at its core a problem with
rebellion against God, and only God can fix it (Acts 4:11-12).
Like a dog that returns to his vomit is a fool who repeats his folly. (Proverbs 26:11)
See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition,
according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. (Colossians 2:8)
Each one must give as he has made up his mind, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a
cheerful giver. You will be enriched in every way for all your generosity, which through us will produce
thanksgiving to God. (2 Corinthians 9:7,11)
In all things I have shown you that by working hard in this way we must help the weak and remember the
words of the Lord Jesus, how he himself said, 'It is more blessed to give than to receive.' (Acts 20:35)
2.3
Lessons to be Learned as we Consider Marxism and Secular Humanism Now
Lesson One: Captivating philosophies? - Colossians 2:8
Warm fuzzy mission statements like ending poverty sound nice, but we need to investigate and understand
the underlying worldview and hidden motives of the ideology to avoid being taken captive by something
that sounds superficially noble but is rotten at its core. Many an unsuspecting person, to use Lenin’s words,
became a ‘useful idiot’ for Communism by being unaware of its motives and methods.
Worldviews 1: Marxism & Humanism
Module #10-6
PE420/620 Christian Apologetics
4.
Lesson Two: The supremacy of man? – Jeremiah 17:5-8
The Bible and history constantly teaches us that man is not basically good by nature. The Bible consistently
assumes the sinfulness of man is due to the fall. History, particularly that of Communism in the Soviet
Union, proves that unrestrained man has a natural penchant for criminality and inhumanity, but the
humanists refuse to acknowledge that. Socialism has proven to be a classic failure in every country or
region in which it has been tried
With words like tolerance and multi-culturalism, you would think Secular Humanism would be the bastion
of freedom (as with communism which sounded great on face value, caring for the peasants and equally
distributing wealth). However, when built on atheism, when they say all beliefs are equally valid, what they
mean is all beliefs other than atheism are equally wrong. And if these beliefs are wrong, the atheist must
ultimately eliminate them, forcibly if necessary. Communism promised liberation from the illusion of
religion; it ended up with a body count exceeding anything previously known in history.
Lesson Three: The cost of silence? Fight or flight? – Esther 4:14
The failure of the church, state and righteousness largely paved the way for communism to rise. If we
continue to ignore the forces and man-centred ideas that plague our society, then we are failing to be ‘salt
and light’ to the world and more disasters like communism await. We must represent righteousness in the
world. (Isaiah 62:1,6-7) Should we be like Moses who said ‘who me’, Jonah who said ‘Not me’ or Isaiah who
said ‘Send me’?
The Bible tells us what is coming. The anti-Christ, a one-world government and Christians locked out of the
system. We are exhorted to be as ‘wise as serpents’ (Matthew 10:16), and so some Christians are already
making provisions by creating cooperatives for Christians, instead of waiting till it has already happened
and it is too late. Other Christians are attempting to demolish the strongholds of Secular Humanist
influence. Clearly the ideological battle has begun; do we dare sit out? (Ephesians 6:12)
2.4
A Guide to Action—Your Response?
<1> SEE all philosophies clearly through a Biblical lens – Understand the ideas
<2> SPEAK God’s wisdom into all public spheres – Be an Ambassador
<3> SHINE Christ’s light in a selfish world – Light the true path
As with many communistic countries, and as with the spread of Secular Humanism in Australia, few have a
very favourable perspective on Christianity in general, and the church in particular. This facilitates the
spread of atheistic philosophies. By being a bad witness we can be our own worst enemy, yet we also
possess the key to the growth of the Kingdom.
Ghandi said “I love their Jesus, but I hate the Christian, for he looks so much unlike his Christ.”
Why is this? It seems either we are in the world but hypocrites, focussed on our own pleasures, no
different to those around us, or we are huddled together never sharing this love outside our own
community. Jesus cast the vision of being in, but not of the world (John 17) – a transforming vision of how
life can be. Picture how society would be if we all lived lives of sacrificial generosity and love, right in the
centre of our community, without concern for being persecuted and doing all for the glory of Christ, loving
God and fellow man. How different would this world be? How different would have been the course of
history? We have this opportunity before us now (Philippians 2:14-16).
Worldviews 1: Marxism & Humanism
Module #10-7
PE420/620 Christian Apologetics
Class Activity 10.2
Imagine you arrive at University and there is a large red themed protest in the central gathering area.
Banners abound, most protesting a capitalist system that enshrines greed (cf. “Occupy Wall Street” and the
“We are the 99 percent” campaigns). … You engage one of the chanting throng to ask what they’re on
about. You mention that you’re a Christian, and they promptly explain that Christianity and religion in
general is a major part of the problem.
In pairs, take in turns role playing this scenario. What might each person say? And how might you, as a
Christian, open up the dialogue in both defending the plausibility of Christianity against Marxist attack, and
commending Jesus and His Kingdom as a larger frame that embraces the genuine hopes of these
protesters?
Reflection Activity 10.2
Journal at least 30 (meaningful!) words in response to the following question, and tick off the related
box on p. 12 of the unit guide.
10.2 From a Biblical perspective, what is right and wrong about Marxism? And how would you
respond to a Marxist who claims that Christianity is the main culprit for the class-based oppression
we see in the world today?
3. BIG STORY “CAUGHT OUT” RESPONSES + READING REVIEW
Class Activity 10.3
Using the post-it-notes from module one, two students will each
select one of the five circles from “The Big Story”, then
randomly choosing a paper slip from that circle. Each student
will take up to 1 minute to respond to this question or objection,
as if in conversation with the person who posted the slip.
Afterward, the class can unpack what worked or didn’t work in
this response, and other directions one could take.
Worldviews 1: Marxism & Humanism
Module #10-8
PE420/620 Christian Apologetics
Class Activity 10.4
In response to the pre-reading for this module, students will be picked to share on one of the following:
-a question—something you don’t get, or want to clarify
-a challenge—something you disagree with, or want to nuance
-an implication—“so what” for our apologetic practice
-an application—something useful right now in your context
In particular, what were your thoughts on the pre-reading article “New Wine Skins” concerning the
interaction of naturalistic science and Biblical faith?
Also, did you come across an example of Marxist or Secular Humanist objections to Christian belief in the
media or conversation this last week? Bring it up as a “show & tell” item.
4. SCIENTISM, CREATION, AND EVOLUTION
There are few more contentious issues,
both within Christian circles and for the
public as a whole, than “Evolution vs.
Creation.” The principal issue is not over
operational science in the present: can
you name even one Christian who is
denying gravity and claiming the world
has four corners? It is, however, over
historical science—the question of
origins.
We must remember that in historical
science, we assume certain things to
connect present day observations with past, unobservable events. This primarily relates to the assumption
of “uniformitarianism”: present processes are the key to the past. So we take a current rate—whether of
radioactive decay, or erosion, or expansion of the universe, or salination of the oceans—and extrapolate
this present measurement at a constant rate into the unobservable past, usually seeking a Time=0 point for
emergence of the natural world … perhaps the emergence of the Universe as a Whole (14.6 billion years
ago [BYA]), the beginning of planet earth (4.5 BYA), multi-cellular life on earth (1.4 BYA), or the emergence
of the genus Homo (2.5 million years ago, with anatomically modern humans appearing 200,000 years ago).
For Christians the problems are legion:
Is ‘nature’ God’s 67th book, a genuine source of truth about the way the world is that must be
brought into dialogue with the Bible?
How is the Bible, particularly Genesis, to be read?
What happens when the Bible and Science contradict, or appear to contradict, each other?
Is historical science a ‘neutral’ approach, especially when built upon methodological atheism—
that God either doesn’t exist, or does not interfere with the natural world … thus rates are
constant?
How sure is the science behind naturalistic evolution? Where does science end and
metaphysics begin?
How much flexibility is there in interpreting Genesis, and the Biblical theme of creation?
If the Grand Theory of Evolution truly describes the history of the world, then what place, if
any, is there for God as Creator?
Worldviews 1: Marxism & Humanism
Module #10-9
PE420/620 Christian Apologetics
Is Theistic Evolution (God working through evolution) a rationally and Biblically coherent
position?
Jesus called Himself the second Adam, come to deal with the sin of the first Adam which
introduced death into the world (see Romans 5). The problem of physical death required a
literal death of the substitutionary atonement, and thus a physical resurrection from the dead.
Is this theology necessary to understanding the Biblical story? And if so, what does it mean if
there was no literal Adam, and if death preceded the ‘fall’? Could Adam be metaphorical?
Romans 8 indicates that all creation groans in response to the fall. Is it possible that death and
suffering only entered for humans when first we consciously sinned? That is, “death, suffering,
cancer and the like affected all of the natural world (through survival of the fittest—indeed, it
was necessary) for the vast majority of history … and only when God breathed His Spirit into
two homo sapiens did a soulful human in the image of God enter the scene … and thereafter,
they fell and then humans died.” Does this story make theological sense? What then of the
goodness of creation, the goodness of God as Creator, and hope in the midst of suffering?
What does it mean that humans are uniquely made “in the image of God” if we descended
from apes?
Why do we suffer and die?
And more practically, in a culture where perhaps the majority hold firm to some form of
evolutionary theory, does it matter to defend a more literalistic reading of the Scriptures? Is
this an unnecessary hindrance to the spread of the Gospel?
Does ‘Intelligent Design’ give Christians another way forward, and is this theologically and
scientifically coherent as a theory?
Clearly this is a significant (and complicated) issue.
But the issue is equally significant for naturalists and materialists alike. As Richard Dawkins once said,
“Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”
If God exists, and miracles are possible, then
what confidence can an atheist have in their
present measurements and extrapolation to
the past?
If naturalistic evolution is dethroned, then the
foundation for all atheistic thought is
demolished.
Unless all of existence can be reduced to
matter in motion—without need for the god
hypothesis, or the supernatural, or nonmaterial entities—then ‘scientism’ collapses
and with it the confidence that one is Lord of
their own life, and need answer to no higher
authority.
In this session, rather than teaching into the issue, we will offer some stimulus, and then pursue an open
class discussion to consider how we might make sense of ‘scientism’—particularly creation vs. evolution.
 Watch Creation Ministries International (CMI creation.com)
author Jonathan Sarfati being interviewed concerning his
book “Refuting Compromise”. Click the image for part 1, and
watch part 2 of 2 here.
Worldviews 1: Marxism & Humanism
Module #10-10
PE420/620 Christian Apologetics
Class Activity 10.5
After considering some video stimulus on the issue of Creation vs. Evolution, consider any of the questions
above in trying to formulate your own perspective on how science and the Bible fit together.
To finish with, imagine you’ve been asked point blank by a non-Christian friend this question:
“Why would you trust the testimony of ancient sheepherders [i.e. the Pentateuch, Genesis in particular]
over modern scientists, who all say we evolved without any need for a Creator?”
Pair up, and role play taking one minute to respond.
Reflection Activity 10.3 & 10.4
Journal at least 30 (meaningful!) words in response to the following questions, and tick off the
related boxes on p. 12 of the unit guide.
10.3 Respond to one of the questions on pages 9-10 of this module’s notes.
10.4 Write your reply to the question asked in the class activity above … “Why would you trust … .”
Resource 10.2
On the Moodle, under Module 10 “Extra Resources” you will find numerous helpful links:
Logos, “God’s Two Books: Integrating Science & Scripture” discussion guide and video
Creation Ministries International Frequently Asked Questions
“Goo-2-U” Talk and Powerpoint … turned into a video by CMI here, aimed at teens.
“Two Scientists debate Creation and Evolution” – helpful seeing views side by side
“Sample Essay Addressing an Agnostic” if wanting more on this ‘inbetween’ world view.
As part of CMI’s “Question Evolution Campaign” you can view their “15 Qns for Evolutionists” here.
There is a whole spectrum of views on this issue, so it is best to read broadly, even as here I have primarily
cited Young Earth Creationist sources. For further sources, see the reference list in the discussion guide for
“God’s Two Books” (Logos – linked under Moodle—see in Module 4 notes), or do your own searching into
the views of scientists, theologians, and philosophers such as …
*William Lane Craig
*Alister McGrath
*John Polkinghorne
*John Walton
*John Lennox
Also, under “Extra Course Resources” at the top of Moodle for PE420/620 (above module 1) are links to
very significant web-sites and groups exploring questions of science and Scripture from a range of angles,
including Veritas Forum; Discovery Institute; Centre for Science and Culture; and Reasonable Faith.
Get exploring!
Worldviews 1: Marxism & Humanism
Module #10-11
PE420/620 Christian Apologetics
4.1
A Sample Response on What Genesis Says, and Why We Should Trust It
From “God’s Two Books” Discussion Guide, response by Tammy and Brendan White –
The Bible is an old book, right? And in the knowledge stakes, older is not better. So why should I trust an
account written by sheepherders, over today’s scientists?
That’s a really good question.
We live in a culture where believing in God and the
Bible seems archaic because it lacks modern
enlightenment: “It’s the 21st century, not ancient
times; so surely the Book of Genesis is outdated and
irrelevant.”
Can we as modern people still trust Genesis even
though its authors were thousands of years removed
from our times, with no access to modern scientific
understanding? I think we can so let’s look at some
reasons why.
Consider the claim that Genesis is out-of-date
because it was written by ‘sheepherders’ who didn’t have scientific knowledge. Fair question. But the
Bible itself makes the claim it was inspired by God, what the authors could not know for themselves was
revealed. So it’s not sheepherders versus modern scientists but a question of whether Genesis was
inspired by God.
Well, let’s look at that claim. If we evaluate Genesis from the view that God inspired it, we would expect it
would show the signature of divine authorship. Since God claims to be timeless, all knowing, and personal,
you would expect a divinely inspired text to reveal truths that stand the test of time, and not a tale
concocted by sheepherders.
So do we see that? Let’s look at some examples.
First, the book of Genesis supports the claim that God is relational. You see this in that God used people to
write Genesis. In fact it is more believable that a relational and loving God would reveal scriptures through
people in their own language and culture. God doesn’t impersonally drop a book out of the sky. Instead,
this communicative God relates with people across history to gradually reveal who He is and we see a
picture emerge of a God who builds and forms relationships.
Next, the book of Genesis demonstrates completeness because its creation account fits what we see in the
world, both in the universe and its form, and the nature of humanity. The creation story provides an
account of laws as well as capturing human nature. It grounds our deepest psychology: our capacity for evil
through to our need for love. Part of what makes Genesis so unique is that it has provided answers to
lifelong questions: Where do we come from? What was I created for? What is my purpose in life? Why does
death seem wrong? Why do we believe in right and wrong?
And I think one of the questions Genesis answers squarely is why we love. We love because we are created
in God’s image, and God is all about relationships. God is love.
The way the Bible centers on the inbuilt human desire for love and relationship is unique.
Being created in God’s image captures why we crave to know our purpose and identity in life. The account
of Adam and Eve cogently grounds why as men and women we are drawn together in marriage and love.
The fall captures not only the nature of humanity, but pinpoints why there is within us the belief that the
world is not as it ought to be. That pain, suffering, injustice and death were not part of the original plan. A
close look at Genesis – a book written by so called Sheep-herders – and you find that it explains so much
about life and creation.
Worldviews 1: Marxism & Humanism
Module #10-12
PE420/620 Christian Apologetics
Finally Genesis is inspired because it cohesively fits with rest of the Bible. Without Genesis, we can’t make
sense of Jesus. The whole book highlights our need for a redeemer—someone to set a broken world right
again. And Jesus constantly referred back to Genesis, affirming the divine inspiration of this creation
account.
Now, we haven’t even begun to scratch the surface of all the reasons why we can trust the account of
Genesis using medical, historical, and external evidence. There’s a fact sheet in the small group guide if you
want to go deeper. But we have taken a surface look at Genesis to see if, on the face of it, its claim to be
inspired has any merit. In my view, the evidence is strong. It offers a view from above that grounds science,
but it answers our deepest questions of purpose with a richness not seen in materialistic stories. I don’t
expect such a short response to answer your questions, but hopefully this can start some conversations,
and help in your own search.
Let’s say we grant that Genesis is in some sense inspired by God—a divine take on origins. What’s God
trying to say? What is the point of this text? Does it require the whole cosmos to be 6,000 years old?
Once you settle that God is involved in creation,
a logical question that follows is how to square
the story with modern science. This is where it
does become difficult. The Genesis text was
written in an ancient near eastern culture in a
genre we are no longer used to or familiar with,
as the original readers were. What is clear,
though, is that God wanted the story of creation
to reach everybody in every time and every
place. And at a basic level it does that. But at the
next level, as a question of historical science,
what actually happened?
Now there are a range of views and interpretations of the creation story we
find in the Genesis. The dominant view today is that the universe and our
planet are probably many billions of years old and that life has slowly evolved
over millions of years to be all that we see today. Christians who hold this
view interpret Genesis as a mytho-poetic creation story. They don’t see it as
a literal or scientific account of how God made the world but a masterful
story that conveys in simple terms that God formed the world and all within
it for a purpose. And it should be said this is not a retreat caused by modern
science. Saint Augustine in his commentary on Genesis in the 5th century
argued that the days need not be taken literally, nor that the creation be a
few thousand years ago. He said the world could have been made by God
with certain potencies that unfolded over time. This interpretation was
written down some 1,400 years prior to Darwin’s theory of evolution.
The second major view is to interpret Genesis in a literal and historical
way. That means God actually did create all the universe in six 24 hour
days, and that as a result the world is perhaps only 10-20 thousand years old and that life did
not evolve at a macro level at all—such as apes gradually changing into humans—rather God
created life with all the genetic information and elements needed for further diversity. It wasn’t
that we came from goo to you via the zoo. This view explains why death is an enemy—it came as a
result of the fall. It is also fair to say that this has been the dominant view of the church through its
history and Hebrew scholars mostly agree that this is the most natural reading of the text to
interpret the days literally. Although this view is often considered ‘fringe’ in the popular press or
Worldviews 1: Marxism & Humanism
Module #10-13
PE420/620 Christian Apologetics
media there is growing trend for Christians and even scientists to adopt this view. And it can be for
scientific not just theological reasons that people will consider this school of thought, often after
exploring weaknesses in a purely naturalistic account.
Then there is a spectrum of different interpretations that fall somewhere between those views.
Some for example believe that the Earth does indeed look very old but in actual fact is very young.
They argue that when God created Adam, he would have looked 20-30 years old but he would
have been, actually, seconds old. Others views hold that God guided the process of evolution of
life from a cell to the biodiversity we see today, or perhaps he injected information into the
evolutionary process.
Regardless of the view you take on the precise mechanism of creation, what is important is to
realize that all views agree on the central points: that God exists and He caused the universe to
come into being and He did so because he loves us and the created world. At the end of creation
God described what He had made as very good. God made this world because He wanted to share
it with us and He wants to know us, and to be in our lives. This is the big message of the story.
It’s perhaps also worth stating that Christianity is not committed to any particular view on the
question of how old the universe is and how life came to be as we see it today. What is most
important is that we can coexist on this as this is a secondary issue, aware that we could be wrong.
I guess a good note to finish on though is that science may provide further insight into this
question, or it may remain beyond our certain knowledge. Bit I do know this though for certain,
science may tell us how the planets move, but only God through His revealed Word tells us why
we should move on the planet.
4.2
Logos, “God’s Two Books: Integrating Science and Scripture” Talk Outline
“The Heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims His handiwork”
(God’s Book of Scripture, Psalm 19)
“The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design,
no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference”
(Scientific Naturalist Richard Dawkins commenting on the Book of Nature)
Nature is like a book to be read. And along with most
people across Western history, I suspect this book
was authored by God, just like the Bible. God’s two
books, Scripture and Nature, hand in hand. But times
have changed.
As Galileo said, “God’s first book is about how to get
to heaven, not how the heavens go.”
From the 16th century on, Science became the tool of
choice to understand God’s second book of nature.
How do planets orbit? Why do nerves twitch? How
do reptiles reproduce? Got questions? Go to science.
Nature dances to Newton’s laws. Is God now an
‘unnecessary hypothesis’?
This isn’t about ‘evolution’ versus ‘creation’.
For most theologians, the jury is out. Perhaps God supervised some form of “evolution” to bring the world
about. The deepest issue is not process, but principal cause. As I study the book of nature, does it point to
an impersonal cause, or a personal designer?
Worldviews 1: Marxism & Humanism
Module #10-14
PE420/620 Christian Apologetics
Can all that is be explained by purely natural mechanism? …a big bang, planets coalescing, continents drifting, life generating, and complexity increasing as we journey from microbe to man. Or does the book of
nature point toward the kind of Designer described in Genesis? Can a modern, scientific person really
believe that “God forms us,” without being “ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked”? How do God’s two books
relate? Can Science and Scripture integrate?
Natural science merely describes the world—what is.
What ought I to do, and how shall we live? This is the
stuff of metaphysics. If we could find a way to
integrate God’s two books, everyone wins. As
Einstein said, “Science without religion is lame;
religion without science is blind.”
Before the panel opens the discussion, let me make
two bald yet well supported assertions:
First, science was inspired by the Bible. Scientific
naturalism and atheism undercut trust in our senses
and rationality. It was the belief in a Law Giver that
fuelled the search for natural order.4
And second, both books, Nature and Scripture, require
careful reading. All knowing—both religious and
scientific—involves trust, and all knowing has a
subjective element.5 To assume “methodological
naturalism”—that God doesn’t interfere with
nature—is special pleading.
Q1 … Why should I trust an account written by sheepherders, over today’s scientists?

The key question: is this text inspired, offering a view from above?

If so, then it’s not sheepherder vs. modern scientist, but instead revelation from God vs. limited human
observation … “In the beginning, God” (Genesis 1:1)

Try this thought experiment: if Genesis was inspired, what would you expect to find?
… How
might a timeless, all knowing, and personal being offer a divine signature that couldn’t be forged by
time-bound tales from sheepherders?

First, Genesis support the claim that God is relational … not an impersonal book dropped from above,
but a personal communication gradually unveiling who God is, and who we are. God doesn’t force
belief by unassailable proof, but He does build relationship with us over time
4 Alvin Plantinga, Naturalism Defeated (1994), http://philofreligion.homestead.com/files/alspaper.htm; M. B. Foster, “The Christian
Doctrine of Creation and the Rise of Modern Natural Science,” Mind 43 (1934): 447; Rodney Stark, For the Glory of God, chapter 2
“God’s Handiwork: The Religious Origins of Science,” pp. 121-200; Alvin Schmidt, Under the Influence: How Christianity Transformed
Civilization, chapter 9, “Science: Its Christian Connections,” pp. 218-247.
5
Michael Polanyi, Personal Knowing; John Polkinghorne, One World: The Interaction of Science and Theology, p. 4; Nicholas
Wolterstorff, Reason Within the Bounds of Religion, 2d ed., 41, 54, 82; Tim Morris and Don Petcher, Science and Grace: God’s Reign
in the Natural Sciences, 1-48; Alister McGrath, “Religious and Scientific Faith: The Case of Charles Darwin’s ‘Origin of the Species’”
http://www.westminster-abbey.org/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/22494/ESA-lecture-2009-i.pdf; Alister McGrath, Science and Religion: A New
Introduction, 2d ed., pp. 51-58; Alvin Plantinga, Naturalism Defeated (1994), http://philofreligion.homestead.com/files/alspaper.htm.
Worldviews 1: Marxism & Humanism
Module #10-15
PE420/620 Christian Apologetics

Second, Genesis grounds the best of modern day science (making sense of an ordered world accessible
by observation), and modern day psychology (answering core questions of origins, meaning, morality,
and destiny)

Third, Genesis uniquely and squarely answers why we love. We image God who is love … more than a
chemical romance as materialistic stories assert, love is real and central

Fourth, Genesis accounts for the glory and horror of humankind, our deep brokenness

Fifth, Genesis cohesively fits with the rest of the Bible, making sense of Jesus as our redeemer to set a
broken world right. In turn, Jesus (arguably the only genuine ‘God-man’) affirms the inspiration of this
creation account

The Small Group Discussion Guide addresses issues of ‘correspondence’—historical warrants for
trusting Genesis. But in summary, this story is not a sheepherder’s tale. The materialistic account is
pale in comparison. This book resonates with life in all its colours.
Q2 … Why should I even grant God’s existence? Isn't this now an unnecessary hypothesis?

Like the ‘software’ I write, the world in which we live seems designed. Allowing for this possibility, a
study of cosmology reveals significant warrants for believing in God’s existence

First, current science suggests the material universe had a beginning. This suggests a first cause that is
timeless, unchanging, and immaterial. This fits Genesis, and matches ‘God’

Second, the ordered and mathematically accessible universe fits an intelligent Law Giver

Third, as atheist cosmologist Fred Hoyle
recognized, “A common sense interpretation of
the facts suggests that a super-intellect has
monkeyed with physics, as well as with
chemistry and biology, and that there are no
blind forces worth speaking about in nature.”
This universe is finely tuned to an incredible
degree necessary for life (called the anthropic
principle). Neither chance (1 chance in 10229
according to cosmologist Lee Smolin) nor appeal
to an untestable ‘multiverse’ (an ad hoc
‘explanation’) sufficiently explains this kind of
universe

Putting it together, either an uncaused universe popped into existence, and by chance was fine-tuned
to an incredible degree to permit life, OR, this universe points to an intelligent and powerful first cause
who deliberately designed the orderly, intelligible universe to support life

Is God an ‘unnecessary hypothesis’? To me, the answer is clear. At the very least, it is plausible to
consider an immaterial intelligence as the primary cause of this universe, and special pleading on
materialistic grounds to a priori exclude such a ‘God’ from the discussion.
Q3 … Even if we grant that Genesis is inspired, what is the point of this text? Is the cosmos ‘young’?

Genesis was written in an ancient near eastern culture in a genre we are not familiar with, unlike the
original readers. If it is inspired, it fits that God wanted this creation story to reach everybody at a
basic level in every time and every place. Historically, though, what happened?

View One: Genesis is a mytho-poetic creation story conveying core truths of identity, unconcerned
with literal history or scientific material origins. ‘Theistic evolution’ (a.k.a. ‘evolutionary creationism’)
suggests God guides a seemingly naturalistic process to His goal. This view has pre-scientific roots in
Worldviews 1: Marxism & Humanism
Module #10-16
PE420/620 Christian Apologetics
theologians like Augustine (5th Century) arguing that the days need not be taken literally nor that the
creation be a few thousand years old. The world could have been made by God with certain potencies
that unfolded over time.

View Two: Genesis is a literal and historical account of how God created the whole universe in six
twenty-four hour days, such that life on earth is perhaps ten thousand years old. In this view, God
created life with all the genetic information and elements needed for further diversity, upon which
natural selection and mutation acted over time, forming small and genetically ‘downhill’ changes
sufficient for minor speciation like finch beak modifications, but insufficient for genetic information
increases such as from ape-like ancestors to humans. Noah’s global flood is used to account for the
fossil record. This view explains why death is an unnatural enemy, and is arguably the orthodox
interpretation, challenging naturalistic science.

Other interpretations fall along the spectrum between poetic and literalistic readings, such as the
framework theory and progressive creation. Christianity has multiple readings of the Genesis account,
so the text is somewhat open concerning cosmic age. Regardless of mechanism, all views agree on the
point of this story: God exists and He formed the universe out of love, toward meaningful relationship,
and restoration since our fall.6
Q4 … Is the Grand Theory of Evolution “the only game in town”? How solid is the naturalistic account?

Time permits only an exploration of the ‘origin
of life’ (abiogenesis), but note that a growing
body of scientific literature questions the
sufficiency of natural selection + mutation in
accounting for increases in genetic complexity
over time (cf. http://www.discovery.org/csc/)

Naturalism offers no sound mechanism for
development of first life from non-living
chemicals … even Richard Dawkins admits we
know little more than Darwin concerning
abiogenesis

How implausible is the unguided generation of
the first cell? Let’s just consider ‘chirality’. Even
the simplest organisms such as bacteria contain
no less than 10,000 amino acids (all ‘randomly’
left-handed) and 100, 000 DNA nucleotides (all
‘randomly’ right-handed). But in nature there is
equal chance of either form. Flip a coin and get
100,000 heads and 10,000 tails. Try winning 43
million state lotteries in a row. Spontaneous life
is one chance in 1040, 000 (a 1 with forty thousand
zeros after it), yet a probability of < 1 in 1050 is
‘impossible’

There is no known mechanism able to overcome
the sheer improbability of abiogenesis. This is ‘naturalistic faith’—a naturalism of the gaps. In
contrast, design is a fitting thesis.
6
For a mytho-poetic view, see for instance Francis Collins, The Language of God. For an historical/literalistic reading of Genesis,
see for instance www.creation.com, Creation Magazine, and Jonathan Sarfati, Refuting Compromise. For an exploration of the
Ancient Near Eastern Culture’s functional (rather than material) ontology, see John Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One.
Worldviews 1: Marxism & Humanism
Module #10-17
PE420/620 Christian Apologetics
Q5 … But this sounds like “God of the Gaps”—glorified ignorance. Does nature support ‘Intelligent
Design’?

Dietmar Hutmächer, Chair of Regenerative Medicine @, QUT, aka ‘Professor Nerd’

My daily research centres on complex tissue
engineering strategies in the lab to regenerate cells as
the key building blocks of our bodies, particularly
working with cartilage

Consider the exquisite design of articular cartilage. It
perfectly fit its ‘purpose’ (or ‘telos’) as a complex and
efficient mechanical damper for the bones. It
outperforms any human design when considered for
optimisation across multiple factors such as strength,
absorption, friction, compressive properties, and
ability to self-regenerate

This layered design of articular cartilage is essential to provide the tissue with the biomechanical
characteristics that are required for proper and life-long sustainable joint function. We have no known
biomolecular process by which this kind of tissue can develop in an unguided step-wise fashion. It
displays specified complexity (like a key to a lock) and irreducible complexity (like a mouse-trap …
remove one or more features, and the overall function falls apart), both features being definite
characteristics of intelligently designed systems inherent in engineering and industrial design

It takes dozens of intelligent scientists using multi-million dollar labs to form a tissue that could even
potentially be an artificial substitute for organic articular cartilage. Whilst I have not outlined a stepby-step defense of ‘design’ on a metaphysical level, just considering this one instance among millions
of apparent design in nature, it is very difficult to imagine that these multiple tissues and organs
formed purely by chance as naturalism asserts.
Worldviews 1: Marxism & Humanism
Module #10-18
PE420/620 Christian Apologetics
Layers of Complexity, but SO WHAT? … A Call to Humility, Wonder, and Worship
Putting the pieces together, are Science and Scripture eternal enemies? Well, yes and no.
Science and Scripture are eternal enemies if you don’t
know how to read Nature—if you rule out God’s
existence before you even look at the evidence. And
Science and Scripture are eternal enemies if you don’t
know how to read the Bible—if you ignore that
Genesis was written to an Ancient Culture, who cared
about form and function more than scientific
questions of process and time. As Calvin explained,
just like a nurse with an infant, “God ‘lisps’ in
speaking to us.” This incredible and inspired story is
an artistic representation of origins—a cosmic history
in which God lovingly formed the universe, planted a
garden, and placed us there to cultivate the world.
And it’s a story of how we turned away, and our
thinking has been off centre every since.
We are finite and fallen, limited and biased. But for all our limitations, I think we have good reason to
believe two things.
First, this is a wonderful world. It’s tragic to study this
universe and treat it as an argument. Instead, our
attitude should be wonder. We are thrown into this
strange new world and invited to explore the
neighbourhood. This requires the tenacity of a scientist,
but the humility of an infant.
And second, this is God’s wonderful world. The beauty,
the complexity, the fine-tuning … it all points to a
Creator. When paired with the Bible’s view from above,
we discover both the what and the why of Creation and
our place therein.
Humans alone were given tongues to echo praise in return: “God, this is very good.”
May God’s book of nature inspire wonder, and may God’s book of Scripture direct worship.
Worldviews 1: Marxism & Humanism
Module #10-19
PE420/620 Christian Apologetics
4.3
Do Science and Religion Contradict One Another?
An article by René Breuel, http://wonderingfair.com/2011/02/21/do-science-and-religion-contradict-one-another/
“Does there truly exist an insuperable contradiction between religion and science?”, asked Albert Einstein.
This question has dominated some of the most
important debates of the last centuries, yet today
secularist and religious camps have grown so far apart
– in language, method of knowing, accumulated
prejudices, communities and institutions in each side –
that a true, sincere encounter between the two sides
seems hardly imaginable.
But the answer of a scientist at awe with the universe
may surprise us. “Does there truly exist an insuperable
contradiction between religion and science? Can
religion be superseded by science? The answers to
these questions have, for centuries, given rise to
considerable dispute and, indeed, bitter fighting. Yet,
in my own mind there can be no doubt that in both cases a dispassionate consideration can only lead to a
negative answer.”[1] In Einstein’s perspective, science and religion are not in contradiction, not will ever
one render the other useless.
Einstein arrives at this curious conclusion for two reasons. The first regards the origins and motivations of
science. “… science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward
truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there
also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that
is, comprehensible to reason.”[2] To aspire toward truth, and to believe that our universe is stable and
intelligible, assumes the intentional work of a Creator, in other words.
Einstein points here that the birth of empirical science did not
emerge in ancient Greece where, though there
wasphilosophical debate, a polytheistic view of gods at war
with one another did not foster an a systematic investigation of
reality. There were exceptions, of course, such as Aristotle, but
who believed precisely in a primal Cause behind the universe.
Instead of Greece, empirical science emerged in early modern
Europe, in the times of Copernicus and Bacon and Galileo,
inside a Christian framework. Only after centuries of belief that
the world was caused, that it was stable and reasonable to the
human mind, could modern science be born.
If Einstein’s first reasoning regarded the motivation for science,
his second consideration examines the effects of scientific
enquiry. The person in the lab, or who looks at the world
through a telescope, does not remain unaffected. “… every one
who is seriously engaged in the pursuit of science becomes
convinced that the laws of nature manifest the existence of a
spirit vastly superior to that of men, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel
humble. The pursuit of science leads therefore to a religious feeling of a special kind…”[3]
There may be several unresolved debates still going on, be it in biology, astrophysics or archaeological
history. But in Einstein’s overarching view, science emerges from religious motivations, or at least is
Worldviews 1: Marxism & Humanism
Module #10-20
PE420/620 Christian Apologetics
sustained by the assumptions born of a belief in a Creator, and
leads to religion, as the delicacies of our universe are better
known and better appreciated. Not only are science and religion
not in contradiction, but, according to Einstein, “I cannot conceive
of a genuine scientist without that profound faith.”[4]
I imagine our scientific research would be sharper, and our
religion less divisive, and our minds less fragmented, if we could
hold the study of the universe and the worship if its Creator closer
together, as Einstein did. We may not be involved in high-end
research, or pursue doctorates in quantics, but the passion of a
ground-breaking scientist is nonetheless intriguing, even for those
looking out the window with the naked eye. “I want to know how
God created this world. I’m not interested in this or that
phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to
know His thoughts, the rest are details.”[5]
René Breuel
[1] Albert Einstein, “Religion and Science: Irreconcilable?,” The Christian Register (June 1948).
[2] Albert Einstein, Out of My Later Years (London: Castle Books, 2005).
[3] 24 January 1936 letter in response to a sixth-grader (Phyllis Wright) asking whether scientists pray, and
if so, what they pray for.
[4] Einstein, Out of My Later Years.
[5] E. Salaman, “A Talk with Einstein,” The Listener 54 (1955): 370-371.
4.4
Faith in the infallibility of the mind is the atheist's delusion
Article in Sydney Morning Herald by Simon Smart (of Centre for Public Christianity), opinion piece published April 12, 2012.
Melbourne is gearing up to host the Global Atheist Convention, where for three days a coterie of the
faithless will urge each other on in their collective scepticism. The most famous proponents of a godless
universe will be there - Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett - but this time, sadly, the most
engaging and entertaining of them, Christopher Hitchens, won't.
The convention seeks to ''Celebrate Reason'', which seems, well, reasonable enough. We all need
something substantial on which to make our judgments, and according to
those attending, it's the clear thinkers, those unencumbered by
superstition and religious nonsense, who are most likely to arrive at the
truth.
But while it's easy to mock those with religious beliefs, the atheist appeal
to a thoroughly rational, objective position is not without its problems.
Daniel Kahneman, arguably the most influential psychologist alive today, is
a Nobel prize winner in economics. He's also the author of Thinking, Fast
and Slow, where he draws upon a lifetime of studying human behaviour
that has shown him just how unreliable the human mind really is.
Worldviews 1: Marxism & Humanism
Module #10-21
PE420/620 Christian Apologetics
Along with his late colleague Amos Tversky, Kahneman's at times bizarre experiments have helped provide
a framework to understand why, for instance, applicants to medical school are less likely to be admitted if
interviewed on a rainy day. And why judges, when asked to roll a pair of dice rigged to come up three or
nine before the mock-sentencing of a shoplifter, decided to give the ''offender'' an average of eight months
if they rolled nine and five months if they rolled three.
But here's the thing. While Kahneman and Tversky reveal what appear to be permanent fallibilities in
human reason, their rule of thumb was that they would study no specific example of human ''idiocy or
irrationality'' unless they first detected it in themselves. In other words, even experts suffer the same quirks
of human unreason as anyone else.
This could, I suppose, be fuel for the religious sceptic's fire - suggesting that those who put their faith in
things unseen are clearly deluding themselves. But it cuts both ways. The same thing applies to nonbelievers whose hopes and aspirations might cloud their judgment on the question of God's existence.
And there remain formidable challenges for the enthusiasts of non-belief. Renowned American philosopher
Alvin Plantinga's most famous, novel and ironic argument is that naturalism cannot rationally be believed.
The argument is a bit complex but it goes something like this: if you're a naturalist (there's no God or gods),
you'll also be a materialist (the only thing that exists, including consciousness, is physical matter). You'll
think human beings are material objects, and that there isn't any immaterial soul, or self, or person.
If you think this way, you will also necessarily think that any belief (''all religion is irrational'', for instance) is
something like a structure of neurons in the nervous system, or in the brain, which will have two kinds of
properties: the belief will have neuro-physiological properties, but it will also have content properties,
meaning there's a purely physical cause for something you believe.
Now, evolution couldn't give a toss about what you believe. It cares about rewarding adaptive behaviour
and punishing maladaptive behaviour. So evolution will gradually modify those neuro-physiological
properties in the direction of greater adaptiveness, but it doesn't follow that it modifies belief in the
direction of truth. Evolution doesn't care about true belief.
So, if you accept the combination of naturalism and materialism, says Plantinga, you'll have to accept that
any particular belief you might hold could as likely be false as true. The probability that your beliefs are
reliable will be low.
If, however, you believe in God and don't accept naturalism and materialism, then that particular problem
doesn't apply. You will assume there is a being who is separate from creation but speaks truth into the fibre
of the universe. Sure, you'll have other challenges to your faith, but you'll have a reason to trust your
faculties in a way that the naturalist does not. Believing in human rationality is quite rational within a
theistic world view, but not so in an atheistic framework.
Plantinga is quick to point out that none of this is intended to prove belief. There remain serious questions
for those who believe in an all-powerful, good God who creates and sustains the universe, and believers
need to face these.
But Plantinga's thesis might prompt those in the ''all religion is delusional'' camp to approach vital
questions of human existence with measured consideration of the alternatives - something beyond naked
contempt. That, surely, is a reasonable request.
Forum Activity Week 10
Distance students are required to post to the Moodle Forum for modules 7 through 13, though class
students are strongly encouraged to participate also. Each contribution is compulsory for assessment,
though not graded. For each session, you need to summarise the strongest objection against Christian
belief related to the set topic (e.g. behavioural objections to Christian belief, particularly that of feminism
and/or the exclusivity of Christ), then jotting some thoughts as to how one may reply.
Put your response on the Moodle Forum (200-300 words)
Worldviews 1: Marxism & Humanism
Module #10-22
PE420/620 Christian Apologetics
Preparation for Next Week …
 Post Forum response and engage with other students
 Pre-reading, as per Unit Guide p6 (with non-text sources at the end of this module’s Moodle)
… Come prepared to share on each of the following:
-a question—something you don’t get, or want to clarify
-a challenge—something you disagree with, or want to nuance
-an implication—“so what” for our apologetic practice
-an application—something useful right now in your context
 Given the topic next week (Worldviews 2: Moral Relativism, Nihilism and Existentialism),
come ready for show and tell … how did you see one of these beliefs expressed in Australian
culture over this week (e.g. conversation, media, story, ad, etc.)?
Significance for Christian theology, life and thought...
What in this session is most significant to you personally,
in forming your own theology, life and thought?
Atheistic worldviews, historically, have thrived when Christians have failed to possess what they profess.
When our actions, individually and corporately fail to live up to Jesus’ live and teaching, not only does
the charge of ‘hypocrisy’ rear its head, but a whole swag of ‘isms’ rise up to deliver what we all desire.
Perhaps Marxism is the best example. As E. Stanley Jones noted in The Unshakable Kingdom and the
Unchangeable Person, Jesus’ teaching centred on the Kingdom of God … where God’s way is the way,
and God’s rule is the rule. The Gospel of the Kingdom was good news: good news to the economically,
politically, socially, physically, and emotionally disenfranchised. Yet when the church pointed to itself (as
relative) rather than seeing its function as a pointer to the Kingdom (“God’s Total Answer to Humanity’s
Total Need”), we became irrelevant. The violent desired the Kingdom, and wanted to press in by force to
take it (Matthew 11:12), but the church instead offered a hungry society spiritual platitudes about
entering the church now, and receiving heaven in some distant place. In this vacuum, all kinds of
totalitarianisms (particularly communism and fascism) arose to make the Kingdom of God a reality right
now, albeit without Jesus as King.
While we may rightly critique Marx for a misguided ideology—built on a flawed understanding of human
nature—we mustn’t fail to recognise the prophetic nature of Karl Marx. Class differences, unrighteous
inequities, a stratified society … these are not becoming of Christ’s followers who are united in Christ as
one (Galatians 3:28).
Marxism doesn’t work. But it is a pointer to the kind of society the church should be … a community
where each person freely gives of their own possessions to practically serve and love their neighbour …
a community where each individual chooses to contribute according to their gifts and abilities, and none
goes without … a community where we each lower the draw-bridge of our hearts and houses to
embrace the homeless, the needy, the lonely, and we begin to embody this radical Kingdom of God. In
short, may we in a million practical ways be the church that looks like Jesus. Perhaps then the ‘isms’ of
the world will bow down and truly acknowledge Jesus as Lord, for only His gracious gift will satisfy our
deepest desires for righteousness and justice. May we seek first this Kingdom (Matthew 6:33).
Worldviews 1: Marxism & Humanism
Module #10-23
PE420/620 Christian Apologetics
Worldviews 1: Marxism & Humanism
Module #10-24
PE420/620 Christian Apologetics