Apologetics Q&A with Greg Koukl (Part 1)

Well then we have a particular question here, and here's the question. Are there any areas of the Christian story that cannot be reconciled with our current scientific cultural milieu? I want to give this person a prize for using the word milieu.

If so—. It means like atmospheres. Yeah, the environment in which something develops. If so, how should Christians engage?

Well, this is a very important question that goes right to my recent point, the last point that I made here. It depends what one means by the cultural scientific milieu. There are actually two different definitions of science, and I got this information from—I'll think of his name in a minute, but I just want to give credit where credit's due.

The lawyer up there in Darwin's—never mind, I can't remember it. Philip Johnson. Philip Johnson. Thank you. Thank you to that young man back there. Is Philip Johnson back there? Philip Johnson. And he said there are two different definitions of science that are working here.

And when you have two definitions that are working in a way where they confuse each other, it's called equivocation. Okay, that's just a fancy word that points to confusion based on the way definitions are used.

One definition of science is the way I described it first, is a means by which you can examine the regularities of the natural world. Okay? So the methods of science are techniques that people use, broadly called the scientific method, which is not one particular thing, but it's a constellation of things that apply different things in different scientific disciplines.

But the whole idea is to try to figure out what happened and what physical explanation is the most adequate explanation for the physical event that we're looking at. Okay? And that's what most scientists do most of the time.

Okay? That's one definition of science. And so when somebody says, well, astronomy is science, but astrology is not science, what they mean is that the methodology that you use for astronomy, you don't apply to astrology.

It doesn't even fit in that situation, and it can't be affirmed in that way because the methodology doesn't apply. And that's why people are serious about astronomy, but not as serious in the same way about astrology.

Okay? So that's one definition of science, and that's part of the milieu. It's called methodological, it's the methodology of science. Let's just leave it there. But there's another definition of science, and it's one I talked about when I quoted from Richard Lewontin.

And this is a definition of science that is a metaphysical definition. Now, metaphysics is a discipline that basically is meant to describe what is real. So if you have a metaphysical view, your metaphysical view describes the kind of things that count as being real.

A metaphysical materialist is not just somebody who goes to the mall too much, it's somebody who believes that the only thing that's real is material stuff, physical stuff pushed around by natural law.

That's it. That's the sum total of it. That is the philosophy that is now being imposed upon science. Okay? I'm just laying a foundation to make clear the issues so I can give you a quick answer in a moment to the question.

The two definitions of science. So now, even if you do your methodology right, and your methodology points to an intelligent designer, then your methodology is going to be disqualified, not because it's bad science in that sense, but because it doesn't comport with the imposed philosophy of materialism.

And so that's why people say, well, you know, creation or intelligent design, that's not science. That's religion masquerading as science. Okay? So what are they saying there? Have they looked at all the evidence for intelligent design and said, you know what, it doesn't fit the evidence in the physical realm?

No, they haven't. They have heard that God's involved in it and they've disqualified it without even looking at the evidence. And that's exactly what Lewontin was admitting to. Okay. So that's the milieu.

You have two things going on. And just one other detail. Whenever the philosophical definition of science comes in conflict with the methodological definition of science, in other words, when you use your methodology as like Stephen Meyer has done to show that information, that DNA must have a divine source, an intelligent source, so he'd argue it, that conflicts with the metaphysical definition, then the metaphysical definition trumps the methodological definition every single time.

Every single time there's a conflict, the philosophy trumps the methodology. That makes what they're doing really bad science. But they get away from it, get away with it because of the power. So, if you want to deal with that, you have to see those distinctions that I just mentioned.

That there's an equivocation going on here with the word science. Do you mean the methodology of science or do you mean the philosophy that now rules the scientific enterprise? That's what you have to distinguish between.

And when somebody says that's religion, not science, you have to say, tell me where I went wrong or they went wrong on this, on the methodology. And if they're just going to dismiss it as religion, here's the question to ask.

Should we follow the evidence wherever it leads or not? Or here's another way of putting the question. Do you want the right answers or do you want the right kind of answers? Because I think that's what's at stake here.

The right answers or the right kind of answers. And in these very unique areas like the origin of life, the origin of the universe, the origin of consciousness, etc., those very unique circumstances, that's when event causation is not going to be adequate to explain things.

The standard scientific methodology, do all you want, but what you're going to do is you're going to discover fingerprints, the fingerprints of God, so to speak. And then when we see the physical evidence of fingerprints, it is appropriate to use the physical evidence to infer an agent.

And we do that all the time in forensics.

That's good. Do you want the right answer or the right kind of answers? Here's another question. When sharing the gospel, Greg, how much should we talk about God's love versus God's judgment? You talked about that in the first session, but what's the balance there?

Is there a balance?

Well, I asked myself the same question, and so I went back to the book of Acts. The reason I went back to the book of Acts is because in the kind of evangelism that came out of the Jesus movement that had surrounded me in evangelicalism, there was a very strong emphasis on relationship with God and the love of God.

And I got to thinking, well, maybe this is a little bit out of balance, you know, all this kind of appeal. There is a relationship with God. There's a friendship. I've talked about that. But I just wondered if this is the right foot forward.

I don't know. So what I decided to do, and this is something you can do with all kinds of topics, and I've done this with other issues. I just went back, and I decided, let's just take a look at the book of Acts, and let's just see where in the book of Acts we see the gospel that's shared.

And then I chronicled all of it, just like I chronicled in the book of John all the references to Jesus and the poor, which there were none, so that was an easy one. But I mentioned that earlier. So I want to see how did the gospel get shared?

What were the circumstances? Who was doing it, and what was said? That was all I did. It turns out there's 13 times that the gospel is communicated in the book of Acts, either to individuals or to groups.

And I put this together. You can go to our website, str .org, and find gospel in Acts, I think, or maybe love in Acts. Either one will have it. And here's what I found out. They never talked about the love of God a single time.

Not a single time. In fact, the word love doesn't even appear in the book of Acts. Now, the love of God is manifest in the message of the book of Acts, but that isn't what they led with. Oh, a relationship with God?

Never mentioned a single time. Only thing that comes close to it is when Peter, I think, says that times of refreshing will come. You know, it's pretty vague. But that's it. No appeal to having a relationship with God.

Now, I just want to make an observation. I'm just telling you the facts. You can do with that what you want. These are the people that were personally trained by Jesus. Jesus trained these people personally, and this is what they communicated.

So you might want to go back and see the content that was communicated, and there's a lot of apologetics in there, like I said, in Acts chapter 1, and see the kind of appeal that they made, the kind of altar call.

There were no altar calls there, but that didn't come until about 1 ,800 years later. But in any event, remember that line from Acts chapter 2 I mentioned? Let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucify.

Oops. And they were cut to the quick is what it says. So I tend to lean more on the bad side of the news because that's the way it was communicated. The good news is not good news without bad news. And if all we do is communicate the good news, I think we get a lot of false conversions.

We appeal to narcissism instead of to genuine moral guilt and a rescue that is offered by God based on that first. Once the rescue and the guilt is dealt with, then we have fatherhood. You know, then God disciplines us as children.

Then we're members of the family, but that comes later. It's not the, you know, kind of thing. One final question, and we'll break for lunch. This is really good.

They were all good. Don't hear what I'm not saying. For a student starting their freshman year in college, what is the best way, the best way to defend the faith while being respectful to the professor?

Well, in a way that's very easy to answer, and that is to use questions. It's the tactical approach I describe in the book. Because if you're in a class, I have a whole chapter. There's a second edition coming out in November where I actually expand on this notion.

I call it the professor's ploy because professors will take opportunity to use their class time to beat up on Christianity, even if it's not the topic of the class. What happens is you'll have a student who's a believer who won't take it lying down, so he raises his hand, and then he goes after the professor.

Now, I think this is right-hearted, but it's wrong-headed because it violates the basic rule of engagement. Here's that rule. You never make a frontal assault on a superior force in an entrenched position.

This is like, can I use the S word? Stupid! But I don't suggest that you break off the engagement. I suggest you use your tactical approach instead, and that entails asking some questions like, Professor, can you give me a clarification of what you mean by that?

Whatever the attack was. Then once they get a clear view of what the professor's idea is, can you tell me how did you come to that conclusion? What are your reasons for that view? That is the number one best way of dealing with things.

If I were a student in a class, even knowing what I know, that's what I would do, and I would only take really aggressive issue with the professor probably in private because a person who is a professor is in a position of respect.

Now, most kids are not taught this anymore, but I'm an old-timer, and I think that's good counsel. We ought to respect the leaders that God has placed over us, and professors are leaders of the classroom, and teachers, etc.

They should be treated with respect. If you face a professor in front of a bunch of people, even if you're successful at doing that, that is not respectful. You want to talk to the professor in more detail, you can talk to him in private.

It also means he's much more likely to be open to what you have to say because he doesn't have to save face in front of an audience. But you can make powerful points by asking a couple of questions like I've just asked.

A clarification question, what do you mean by that? And then a justification question, how did you come to that conclusion? See what he has to say. You'll be amazed at how many people, even smart folk, when they come to spiritual things, are not clear on their views and give no reasons for their views.

Now, if you ask him for clarity and for rationale, and he can't give either of them, then you say, okay, thanks, you gave it your best shot. But who else is listening? The rest of the classroom. You haven't spoken out of turn, you haven't done anything that's impolite, but you've given a chance for the other students to see, maybe this professor doesn't know as much as he thinks he knows, at least when it comes to spiritual things.

That would be the single most important piece of advice I could give.

And you would agree that asking questions is more neutral. So say the professor comes back, the Christian student has asked him questions, he says, oh, you're one of those who believe X, Y, and Z.

Yeah, let me speak to that real quickly. That is actually the professor's ploy when he calls out the Christian who's sandbagging with his questions. And the point that I make in the tactics book is you are responsible for your side of the conversation, and you don't have to give any more information than you want.

When you ask questions, you're not making any claims about reality. If he says, well, you're one who believes such and so, you could say, look, professor, you don't know what I believe because I never said it, and it doesn't matter.

I'm just trying to figure out what you believe. I'm the student. I'm paying you, right? So I'm just trying to get your answer to this, that's all. I'm not trying to make a fuss. And so if the professor tries to drag you in when you haven't made a claim, it's illicit at that point.

If you're, you know, mouthing off and you're saying all these things about Christianity, you're in the fray. Well, you're an open target then, and he could take you out if you're making claims. That's why, as a tactical matter, you need kind of covering fire.

And covering fire, it's part of the military terms, but covering fire is your questions. That's what's going to keep you safe.

Excellent. One more hand for Greg Kokel. Thank you. Thank you, Greg.