Finding Truth: 5 Principles for Unmasking Atheism, Secularism, and Other God Substitutes (35 page)

The parents of a college freshman were close to tears. Their sweet-natured daughter had signed up for classes at a local Christian college. But after only one semester, Alexandra (not her real name) was just a hair’s-breadth from turning her back on her entire Christian upbringing.

In class after class, the professors had presented the latest secular theories, lightly baptizing them by assuring students that God was somehow behind it all. What stuck in Alexandra’s mind, however, was the secular view of the world communicated by the theories. Although she lived at home with her parents, she quickly became estranged from them. When they invited her to discuss the secular theories she was learning, she angrily let them know she considered them unqualified to respond to what her professors were teaching in the classroom. After all,
they
had PhDs;
they
were the experts.

Fortunately, this young woman signed up for a course that my husband, Rick, and I were co-teaching. There she discovered that Christianity does have the intellectual resources to answer the challenges posed by secular theories. It is more than capable of holding its own in the intellectual marketplace. I dedicate this book to “Alexandra” and to all the other young people who are struggling, as I once did, to learn how to challenge the idols of our day.

It is an honor to acknowledge the friends, family members, and colleagues who gave of their time and expertise to read
Finding Truth
in manuscript form and to offer incisive insights on the text: Jonas Erne, Douglas Groothuis, Ron Kubsch, Angus Menuge, J. P. Moreland, David Naugle, Roderich Nolte, Dorothy Randolph, June Randolph, Dieter Pearcey, Michael Pearcey, Jenna Wichterman, Albert Wolters.

In addition, I want to thank my students who worked through earlier drafts of the book; a local chapter of Reasonable Faith, hosted by David Tong, whose members spent several weeks engaging in lively discussions of the manuscript; the students in a summer school course based on the manuscript hosted by Schola, a homeschool group run by Kathy Hart and Patricia Samuelson; Southern Adventist University where I conducted a faculty seminar on the material in the book; New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, where I delivered a conference presentation; and several churches, universities, and seminaries where I was invited to give presentations on the material. Finally, thanks to Paul Shockley, who invited me to lecture on the material in the book several times in his classes at the College of Biblical Studies in Houston and also organized a reading group to discuss the manuscript. The feedback from these audiences was invaluable in shaping the message.

Special thanks to my husband, Rick, whose editorial expertise improved the manuscript in countless ways.

I want to express my gratitude to Houston Baptist University, and especially to President Robert Sloan and Provost John Mark Reynolds, for a position as professor and scholar in residence that gave me time to write
Finding Truth
.

Many thanks to the team at David C Cook, especially associate publisher Tim Peterson, for their support and expertise in publishing and marketing the book.

It was a blessing to work with Steve Laube as my literary agent, who supported the project with unflagging competence and enthusiasm.

Finally, I owe a debt of gratitude to my family, who joined in spirited discussions as I hammered out the ideas for
Finding Truth
. They have supported me with both love and insight. I have dedicated earlier books to them; otherwise I would do it again.

The purpose of this study guide is to help you interact more deeply with the ideas in
Finding Truth
. As you paraphrase what you have read, searching for your own words to restate the ideas, you will process the material more fully. You will also connect the new ideas you are learning to the store of knowledge you already have, which gives the new material greater sticking power.

The key to making the best use of a study guide, then, is not simply to state your own views and opinions. When you do that, you are repeating what you already know instead of learning something new. Our thinking is stretched and deepened by grappling with unfamiliar ideas. The most effective strategy is to start each answer by referring to the text. First summarize what you have read. Then feel free to offer your own thoughts. (Some questions specifically ask for your views.)

The goal of apologetics is to learn how to communicate your Christian convictions more clearly and persuasively. As you fill out the study guide, then, do not think only of getting the “right answers.” Think of how you would explain the idea to someone who does not accept Christianity. Use the study guide as practice for real conversations you will soon be having.

Questions:
For each question, write a short paragraph answer. Subheads are given to indicate which section you should refer to in answering each question. Some questions include multiple parts. Be sure your answer addresses all the parts.

Dialogues:
Many assignments ask you to compose sample dialogues. This is the same training used by professional apologists like Greg Koukl. In a real conversation, you cannot simply dump an entire paragraph on someone; you have to unfold your ideas bit by bit, in response to the other person’s questions and objections. So strive to make your dialogues as realistic as possible to prepare yourself for real conversations with real people. Dialogues do not need to be long (about four comments by each character), but they should reflect a plausible conversation.

Each dialogue should start with a hypothetical person stating an objection based on the topic in the assignment. You think of an answer that keeps the discussion going. Have fun by giving your characters creative names. The dialogues will help you bridge the gap between
knowing
something and knowing how to explain it to others.

In a classroom or discussion group, participants should bring two copies of each dialogue and read them aloud dramatically with a partner. (Depending on the time, you may decide that each participant will choose only one dialogue to present, while answering the other dialogues as ordinary questions.)

• • • • •

Give Me Evidence / Evidence from Life

1. The atheist philosopher Bertrand Russell was once asked what he would say if he died, stood before God, and God asked him, “Why didn’t you believe in Me?” Russell replied, “I would say, ‘Not enough evidence, God! Not enough evidence!’” Summarize the evidence from physical nature described in the text:

Origin of the universe:

Origin of life:

Do you find this evidence persuasive? Why or why not?

Evidence from Personhood

2. What are the philosophical meanings of the terms
personal
and
non-personal
? How does the fact that humans are personal beings function as evidence for God? Do you find that evidence persuasive? Why or why not?

Atheists’ Children and Their God

3. Explain the concept of common grace. What are the implications for apologetics?

Tug of War

4. What is an “epistemological sin”? Do you agree that at the heart of the human condition is an epistemological sin (i.e., sin related to knowledge)? Why or why not?

How Humans Hide

5. “An atheist professor once told me that the Bible teaches polytheism because the first commandment speaks of ‘other gods.’” This claim is made frequently on atheist Internet sites. Practice explaining what the first commandment really means to someone who claims that it teaches polytheism.

6. The text says that the easy-to-diagnose, surface-level sins are often driven by the more hidden sin of idolatry. Think of examples in your own life. Discuss if you feel comfortable doing so.

When Good Gifts Are False Gods

7. How can even good things become idols? Describe something good that you have been tempted to turn into an idol. Discuss if you feel comfortable doing so.

Idols Have Consequences

8. What does the Greek word
nous
mean? How does that give richer meaning to scriptural verses such as these: “God gave them up to a debased mind” (Rom. 1:28); “Be transformed by the renewal of your mind” (Rom. 12:2)? Add your own examples.

9. In debates over moral issues such as homosexuality, most people today use the word
nature
to mean behavior patterns observed among organisms in the natural world. What is the older meaning of the word
nature
, as in the phrase “human nature”? How is this traditional meaning expressed in Romans 1?

Five Strategic Principles

Principle #1:
Identify the Idol

10. The text says that every nonbiblical religion or worldview starts with an idol. It must locate an eternal, uncaused cause within the created order. Explain why, and list some examples. Can you think of any exceptions to this principle?

Principle #2:
Identify the Idol’s Reductionism

11. Define reductionism. In what way is reductionism like trying to stuff the entire universe into a box? Give an example.

12. How does reductionism affect one’s view of human nature? In your answer, explain this principle: “Every concept of humanity is created in the image of
some
god.” Use materialism as an example.

Principle #3:
Test the Idol: Does It Contradict What We Know about the World?

13. “We can be confident that every idol-based worldview
will
fail.” It will be unable to account for what is knowable by general revelation. Explain why. Illustrate by using materialism as an example.

14. Explain how every idol-based worldview leads people to cognitive dissonance—a gap between what their worldview tells them and what they know from general revelation.

15. Explain how reductionism is a strategy of suppression. How is it used to suppress the evidence for God from general revelation?

Principle #4:
Test the Idol: Does It Contradict Itself?

16. Define self-referential absurdity. Give an example of how the argument works.

17. Explain why idol-based worldviews refute themselves. The text says that adherents of reductionist worldviews “have to borrow Christianity’s high view of reason in order to give reasons for their view.” Explain what that means.

Principle #5:
Replace the Idol: Make the Case for Christianity

18. “What a powerful image of people caught in cognitive dissonance, reaching out to grab on to truths that their own worldviews deny—truths that only a biblical worldview logically supports.” Unpack this sentence. Explain how secular thinkers are trying to hold on to truths that are logically supported only by Christianity.

Liberated Minds

19. Dialogue: When
Finding Truth
was in manuscript form, I taught a class using it as a text. One student, a father of pre-teens, said, “Your book is convicting me that I brush off my kids when they have questions about Christianity. I have made a commitment that from now on, I will listen to my children and treat their questions seriously.”

But another student, a young woman from El Salvador, rejected the very idea of apologetics. In her view, the use of reason to defend Christianity is a matter of “pride” and “the flesh.” “Christians should rely on the Holy Spirit,” she said, quoting Paul: “Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?” and “I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified” (1 Cor. 1:20; 2:2).

Write a dialogue as if you are speaking with the young woman from El Salvador. How would you persuade this woman that it is valid for Christians to defend their convictions?

PRINCIPLE #1

• • • • •

Leaving Teens Vulnerable

1. Summarize the sociological research on young people who report having doubts or questions. Do you know anyone with doubts who is struggling to find answers? Are you struggling yourself?

Principle #1:
Identify the Idol

2. How is the biblical word
heart
often misunderstood? What is its correct meaning?

3. “Atheism is not a belief. Atheism is merely the lack of a belief in God or gods.” Because this is a common line among atheists today, you should know how to respond. Based on the text, what could you say?

4. What are the two advantages of using the biblical term
idols
for both secular and religious worldviews? (The second one is under the next subhead.)

Religion without God

5. As you read through the rest of this chapter, make a diagram like the one presented here. On the left side, write the features that most people associate with religion. On the right side, explain why that feature is not a necessary part of the definition of religion. Give examples.

6. Why are Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism described as atheistic religions?

Religion without Morality

7. Give examples of amoral and even immoral religions.

Search for the Divine

8. What is the one thing that characterizes all religions as well as all secular philosophies? Can you think of any exceptions?

Philosophers and Their Gods

9. As you read through the rest of this chapter, make a diagram like the one presented here. On the left side, write the name of each ism discussed. On the right side, identify its idol. Go back and start with the section titled “Search for the Divine.”

10. What does the Greek word
arché
mean? Do you agree that the early Greek philosophies qualify as idols under the definition in Romans 1? Give your reasons.

The Church of Physics: Idol of Matter

11. Dialogue: I once had a Facebook discussion with a young fan of Richard Dawkins, who was outraged that I would suggest secularism had
anything
in common with religion. To this young man, religion represented blind faith while science stood for reason and facts. Imagine yourself in a conversation with a young man like that. Write a dialogue in which you level the playing field by showing that all belief systems share the same basic structure.

12. Explain the logical steps that lead from materialism to Marxism’s economic determinism.

Hume Meets the Klingons: Idol of the Senses

13. Like Data in
Star Trek
, atheists often charge that Christianity is “irrational” simply because it accepts the existence of a realm beyond the empirical world. Based on the text, how could you answer that charge?

Inside the Matrix

14. Dialogue: Explain to an empiricist how his or her philosophy involves a divinity belief.

Sensational Bacon, Dubious Descartes

15. One philosopher says that Enlightenment epistemologies set up “the first-person standpoint” as the only path to certainty. They turned the self into “the locus and arbiter of knowledge.” Explain what that means and what the end result was.

Signposts or Dead Ends

16. Philosophers like Karl Popper and John Herman Randall pointed out the “religious character” of Enlightenment epistemologies. Explain what they meant.

Kant’s Mental Prison: Idol of the Mind

17. What was Kant’s “Copernican revolution”? What was his God substitute? Define solipsism, and explain why philosophies that start within the human mind end in solipsism.

The Artist as God: Idol of the Imagination

18. Describe the evidence showing that, for the Romantics, the imagination was their God substitute, and art was their substitute religion.

Cure for Blind Philosophers

19. Read “The Blind Men and the Elephant” by John Godfrey Saxe on the following pages. How does it illustrate the origin of idols?

“The Blind Men and the Elephant”

It was six men of Indostan

To learning much inclined,

Who went to see the Elephant

(Though all of them were blind),

That each by observation

Might satisfy his mind.

The
First
approached the Elephant,

And happening to fall

Against his broad and sturdy side,

At once began to bawl:

“God bless me! but the Elephant

Is very like a WALL!”

The
Second
, feeling of the tusk,

Cried, “Ho, what have we here,

So very round and smooth and sharp?

To me ’tis mighty clear

This wonder of an Elephant

Is very like a SPEAR!”

The
Third
approached the animal,

And happening to take

The squirming trunk within his hands,

Thus boldly up and spake

“I see,” quoth he, “the Elephant

Is very like a SNAKE!”

The
Fourth
reached out an eager hand,

And felt about the knee

“What most this wondrous beast is like

Is mighty plain” quoth he:

“’Tis clear enough the Elephant

Is very like a TREE!”

The
Fifth
, who chanced to touch the ear,

Said: “E’en the blindest man

Can tell what this resembles most;

Deny the fact who can,

This marvel of an Elephant

Is very like a FAN!”

The
Sixth
no sooner had begun

About the beast to grope,

Than seizing on the swinging tail

That fell within his scope,

“I see,” quoth he, “the Elephant

Is very like a ROPE!”

And so these men of Indostan

Disputed loud and long,

Each in his own opinion

Exceeding stiff and strong,

Though each was partly in the right,

And all were in the wrong!

The Joy of Critical Thinking

20. How does Christianity affirm what is good and true in these philosophies?

Materialism:

Rationalism:

Empiricism:

Romanticism:

The Good, the True, and the Pagan

21. “Paul was making the astounding claim that Christianity provides the context of meaning for the Greeks to understand
their own
culture.” Explain what that means. Choose one example from our own day, and explain how the same principle can be applied.