“To touch the image of God is to touch God himself; to kill the image of God is to do violence to God himself.”
—Anthony A. Hoekema, Created in God’s Image (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), 16.
Posted in Image of God
Tagged Anthony A. Hoekema, created in God's image, imago Dei, quote
The following interview article was featured in 2005 summer edition of Biola Magazine (reprinted with permission).
What Should Every Christian Know About UFOs?
Cultural fascination with UFOs has taken off. A 1996 Gallup Poll found that half of Americans believe UFOs are real, and 12 percent claim to have witnessed a UFO. Worldwide, UFO experts estimate millions of alleged sightings in the past 40 years. For a Christian perspective on this phenomenon, Biola Connections interviewed Kenneth Samples, coauthor of Lights in the Sky and Little Green Men: A Rational Christian Look at UFOs and Extraterrestrials (NavPress).
____________________________________________________________________
How did the UFO phenomenon begin?
During World War II, Allied and Axis pilots reported observing unexplained aerial phenomena. In 1947, a private pilot in the United States reported observing several saucer-shaped disks traveling at incredible speed. By the 1950s, a national craze began, with many people reporting sightings. The U.S. government launched investigations to find out if the UFOs were advanced Soviet aircraft. Since the mid-1960s, people have claimed having encounters with alien beings who pilot UFOs. Many of these alleged encounters have included accounts of being abducted by aliens and receiving religious messages to deliver to humankind. For this reason, the UFO phenomenon has become mostly a religious one. UFO religions have an occult ancestry and engage in occult practices.
Are UFO reports credible?
While this phenomenon definitely attracts strange folks, some credible UFO experts (ufologists) believe UFOs are real, such as the late J. Allen Hynek, co-founder of the Center for UFO Studies, and Jacques Vallée, a French astrophysicist. Among the most credible ufologists, there is a general consensus that 90 to 95 percent of reported UFO sightings have a natural explanation (natural phenomena, human phenomena, hoaxes, and subjective psychological states). The remaining 5 to 10 percent of cases defy a clear naturalistic explanation and may be called “RUFOs” (residual UFOs). If only 1 percent of UFO sightings are RUFOs, then there have been at least tens of thousands of unexplained sightings in the past 40 years.
What are RUFOs believed to be?
There are three general hypotheses. First, UFO skeptics affirm the “Misidentified Hypothesis.” They believe all UFOs are merely natural phenomena—the RUFOs are just yet to be explained. However, this view presumes what it should prove and, therefore, fails to account for all the data. Some UFO reports consistently defy purely naturalistic explanations, even when examined by the most objective researchers.
Second, the most popular theory—the “Extraterrestrial Hypothesis”—proposes that RUFOs are metallic spacecrafts that are piloted by interplanetary space visitors. These aliens represent what is thought to be a vastly advanced civilization that is studying mankind and will eventually make contact. But—due to serious scientific, technological, and logical problems—this theory is rejected by many credible ufologists. For example, it would be physically impossible for spacecraft to travel the vast distances between galaxies in the amount of time available. Also, if RUFOs are physical objects, they could not maneuver in the ways reported—such as making sharp, sudden turns—without violating the laws of physics (which appear to be uniform throughout the universe).
Third, the “Interdimensional Hypothesis” asserts that RUFOs are real and exhibit physical effects, but they actually belong to another dimension of reality beyond our time-space continuum. Some Christian ufologists believe this is a spiritual dimension and UFOs may reflect demonic influence. While this view also has weaknesses, it does seem to be consistent with the reported data (RUFOs) and seems to be compatible with Christian theology. Though this view has explanatory power, one should be cautious in drawing conclusions about the UFO phenomenon.
How should Christians respond to people who are fascinated by UFOs?
First, we need to communicate that the existence of extraterrestrials would not disprove Christianity, even if they were physical beings from another planet (though I seriously doubt this). If extraterrestrials exist, they are creatures made by the sovereign Lord revealed in the Bible. Second, we should explain the religious—possibly demonic—nature of UFOs. Finally, we should stress that historic Christianity provides powerful and livable answers to life’s ultimate questions, and those answers are more convincing than anything UFO religions can provide.
“What is the chief end of man? Man’s chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever.”
—Westminster Shorter Catechism (1647), Q&A #1.
I wrote this article when I first came to work for Reasons To Believe in 1998.
Influential British mathematician-philosopher Bertrand Russell once remarked, “I am as firmly convinced that religions do harm as I am that they are untrue.”
In his popular and controversial work Why I Am Not A Christian, Russell leveled the charge that Christianity in particular has served as an opponent of all intellectual progress, especially scientific progress.1 Since Russell’s time, other outspoken advocates of naturalism have echoed his claim, asserting that Christianity is incompatible with—even hostile to—the findings of modern science. Many in our culture view Christianity as unscientific, at best; anti-scientific, at worst.
Conflicts between scientific theories and the Christian faith have arisen through the centuries, to be sure. However, the level of conflict has often been exaggerated, and Christianity’s positive influence on scientific progress is seldom acknowledged.2 I would like to turn the tables by arguing for Christianity’s compatibility with and furtherance of scientific endeavors and by arguing against the compatibility of naturalism and science.
Supporting the Scientific Endeavor
The intellectual climate that gave rise to modern science (roughly three centuries ago) was shaped decisively by Christianity.3 Not only were most of its founding fathers themselves devout Christians (including Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Boyle, and Pascal)4 but the biblical worldview provided a basis for modern science to both emerge and flourish. Christian theism affirmed that an infinite, eternal, and personal God created the world ex nihilo. The creation, reflecting the rational nature of the Creator, was therefore orderly and uniform. Furthermore, God created humankind in his image (Genesis 1:26–7), making us uniquely capable of reasoning and of discovering the created order’s intelligibility. In effect, the Christian worldview supported the underlying principles that made scientific inquiry possible and desirable.
Eminent historian and philosopher of science Stanley Jaki argues that science was “stillborn” in other great civilizations outside Europe because prevailing ideas in those cultures stifled scientific development, including a cyclical approach to time, an astrological approach to the heavens, and metaphysical views that either deified nature (animism) or denied it (idealism).5
Producing the Scientific Method
The principles underlying the scientific method (testability, verification/falsification) arise from the Judeo-Christian Scriptures. Biblical doctrine clearly nurtured the experimental method.6 Because the Christian founders of modern science believed the heavens genuinely declare the glory of God (Psalm 19: 1), they possessed both the necessary conceptual framework and the spiritual incentive to boldly explore nature’s mysteries. According to Christian theism, God has disclosed himself in two dynamic ways: through special revelation (the Bible) and through general revelation (in nature). Puritan scientists in England and in America viewed the study of science as a sacred attempt to “think God’s thoughts after Him.”7
While believers have plenty of room to grow in the virtues of discernment, reflection, and vigorous analysis, the Old Testament wisdom literature consistently exhorts God’s people to exercise these virtues. And the New Testament teaches the same message (Colossians 2:8; 1 Thessalonians 5:21; 1 John 4:1). These principles served as the backdrop for the emerging experimental method (see endnote 6).
Compatibility with the Big Bang
The prevailing scientific notions of big bang cosmology and the emerging anthropic principle seem uniquely compatible with Christian theism. Since the universe had a singular beginning, we have a logical right and reason to inquire about its cause.
Gottfried Leibniz’s classic question, “Why is there something rather than nothing?” seems even more provocative in light of what we now know about the big bang universe. Is it more reasonable to believe that the universe came into existence from nothing by nothing or that, as the Bible says, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth”?
Naturalism’s Inadequacy
Philosophical presuppositions foundational to science include: the existence of an objectively real world, the comprehensibility of that world, the reliability of sense perception and human rationality, the orderliness and uniformity of nature, and the validity of mathematics and logic.8 These necessary preconditions are rooted in Christian theism’s claims of an infinite, eternal, and personal Creator who has carefully ordered the universe and provided man with a mind that corresponds to the universe’s intelligibility. This schema served as the intellectual breeding ground for modern science. It sustained science and enabled it to flourish. How does naturalism compare? Does it explain or provide fertile ground for the birth and progress of science?
Consider how a naturalist might answer the following questions, assuming blind, non-purposeful processes produced the world. How can such a world account for and justify the crucial conditions that make the scientific enterprise even possible? How does naturalism justify the inductive method, assumptions about the uniformity of nature, and the existence of abstract, non-empirical entities such as numbers, propositions, and the laws of logic? According to naturalism, isn’t even the human mind just one accident in a series of many accidents?9 If so, how can we have any confidence that it steers us toward truth? How could such a concept as truth even be conceived?
Christian philosopher Greg L. Bahnsen argues that not only does naturalism fail to justify its underlying presuppositions but naturalists also rest their scientific endeavors on Christian theistic principles illegitimately. Naturalists borrow from Christianity. Consider this insightful observation by physicist and popular author Paul Davies:
People take it for granted that the physical world is both ordered and intelligible. The underlying order in nature—the laws of physics—are simply accepted as given, as brute facts. Nobody asks where they came from; at least they do not do so in polite company. However, even the most atheistic scientist accepts as an act of faith that the universe is not absurd, that there is a rational basis to physical existence manifested as law-like order in nature that is at least partly comprehensible to us. So science can proceed only if the scientist adopts an essentially theological worldview.10
One may wonder if modern science would have arisen had the dominant metaphysical views of the time been naturalistic and materialistic. Renowned Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga gives his opinion: “Modern science was conceived, and born, and flourished in the matrix of Christian theism. Only liberal doses of self-deception and double-think, I believe, will permit it to flourish in the context of Darwinian naturalism.”11
It seems that Christian theism is better suited to generating and sustaining the scientific enterprise.
References:
1. Bertrand Russell, Why I Am Not A Christian (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1957), 22–26.
2. See Charles E. Hummel, The Galileo Connection (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1986).
3. See Stanley Jaki, Science and Creation: From Eternal Cycles to an Oscillating Universe (Scottish Academic Press, 1974); R. Hooykaas, Religion and the Rise of Modern Science (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1972); and Eric V. Snow, “Christianity: A Cause of Modern Science?” last updated August 4, 1998, http://www.geocities.com.
4. See Charles E. Hummel, The Galileo Connection. While Newton was a dedicated student of the Bible, serious questions have been raised about whether his theological views were thoroughly orthodox.
5. Jaki, Science and Creation.
6. Kenneth L. Woodward, “How the Heavens Go,” Newsweek, July 20, 1998, 52.
7. See Hummel, The Galileo Connection, 162.
8. See Hummel, The Galileo Connection, 158–9. For a more detailed discussion of the philosophical presuppositions of science, see J. P. Moreland ed., The Creation Hypothesis (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1994), 17.
9. Richard Taylor, Metaphysics, 4th ed. (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1992), 110–12.
10. As cited in Michael Bumbulis, “Christianity and the Birth of Science,” August 4, 1998, 21, http://www.best.com.
11. Alvin Plantinga, “Darwin, Mind and Meaning,” November 17, 1997: 8, http:Hid-www.ucsb.edu.
“Man is one of your creatures, Lord, and his instinct is to praise you….The thought of you stirs him so deeply that he cannot be content unless he praises you, because you made us for yourself and our hearts find no peace until they rest in you.”
—Augustine, Confessions, trans. R. S. Pine-Coffin (New York: Barnes & Noble, 1992), bk. 1, 1.
Posted in Augustine, Quote of the Week
Tagged Augustine, Confessions, Creator-creation relationship, God, humanity, quote
In honor of the anniversary of D-Day (June 6), I’m presenting my favorite World War II feature films and made-for-TV movies. See part 1 for the first 25 films.
My favorite movies about World War II are those that reveal insights into the human condition of the brave men who fought this catastrophic war. Realistic fighting scenes and historic military technology also warrant my steadfast attention.
Ken’s Top 50 WWII Movies (26–50)
26. Windtalkers
27. The Enemy Below
28. Twelve O’Clock High
29. The Dirty Dozen
30. Where Eagles Dare
31. Bataan
32. The Bridge on the River Kwai
33. The Guns of Navarone
34. The Bridge at Remagen
35. Life Is Beautiful
36. From Here to Eternity
37. A Bridge Too Far
38. Battle of Britain
39. Stalag 17
40. The Big Red One
41. The Desert Rats
42. The Devil’s Brigade
43. Sink the Bismark!
44. Thirty Seconds over Tokyo
45. Between Heaven and Hell
46. Von Ryan’s Express
47. The Thin Red Line
48. Kelly’s Heroes
49. Hart’s War
50. Das Boot
No one likes the price of war, but sometimes combat is absolutely necessary. (See a previous post for an outline of just war theory.) I encourage you to visit a national cemetery and pay your respects to those brave Americans who gave their lives for our freedom.
For study concerning the ethics of war from a Christian perspective, see, Evangelical Ethics, 3rd ed. by John Jefferson Davis and The Life and Death Debate by J. P. Moreland and Norman L. Geisler.
Posted in America, History, Movies, War, World War II
Tagged Bridge on the River Kwai, D-Day, movies, Normandy, The Dirty Dozen, tribute, TV specials, WWII
“This [Christian worldview] vision derives from Scripture, centers on the person and work of Jesus Christ, and grows rich from the contributions of ecumenical creeds, church confessions, and the thinking of such heavyweight theologians as Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, and Barth.”
—Cornelius Plantinga, Engaging God’s World (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), xv–xvi.
Posted in Quote of the Week, Worldview
Tagged Christian worldview, church fathers, Cornelius Plantinga, Jesus Christ, quote, theologians
June 6 marked the 67th anniversary of D-Day, the invasion of Normandy, France that resulted in a decisive victory for Allied forces during World War II. In honor of that war, in which my own father fought, I present my top 50 WWII feature films and made-for-TV movies (in two parts). (Be advised that some of these films contain material that may be objectionable to some viewers.)
My favorite movies about World War II are those that reveal insights into the human condition of the brave men who fought this catastrophic war. Realistic fighting scenes and historic military technology also warrant my steadfast attention.
Ken’s Top 50 WWII Movies (1–25)
I’ll post the second half of my list next week.
For study concerning the ethics of war from a Christian perspective, see, Evangelical Ethics, 3rd ed. by John Jefferson Davis and The Life and Death Debate by J. P. Moreland and Norman L. Geisler. For a brief outline of just war theory see my previous post.
Posted in America, History, War, World War II
Tagged Band of Brothers, D-Day, history, movies, Normandy, Saving Private Ryan, top 50, TV specials, World War II
There’s been some recent public discussion among top NBA players as to who should be regarded as the greatest player of all-time. Michael Jordan, Kobe Bryant, and LeBron James receive frequent mention as candidates for the title. Unfortunately the old-school NBA players are often left out of the discussion.
In my humble opinion, Wilt Chamberlain was certainly the most dominant NBA player in the league’s history. And I offer ten numbers to illustrate my point.
# 0:
Zip, zero, nada. That’s the number of times Chamberlain fouled out during his 14-year career. He played 1,045 regular season games and never once fouled out. Amazing.
# 2:
Chamberlain played on two NBA championship teams: Philadelphia 76ers (1966–67) and Los Angeles Lakers (1971–72). While many players have more championship rings (for example, former Boston Celtics center Bill Russell has 11), these two teams are arguably the best in basketball history. Classic.
# 28:
Ironically, though known as a notoriously poor free-thrower, Chamberlain holds the record for most free throws made in a single game. Astounding.
# 48.5:
In the 1961–62 NBA season, Chamberlain averaged playing more minutes per game than there are in an actual game that season (games last 48 minutes, but Chamberlain also played in all the overtime sessions). Incredible.
# 50.4:
Also in the 1961–62 NBA season, Chamberlain averaged more than 50 points a game for the entire season. So if he had an off game and scored only 40 points, then the next game he would have had to score 60 points just to keep his average. Mind-boggling.
# 55:
Chamberlain once grabbed 55 rebounds in a single game. His opponent that night was the great rebounding center of the Celtics, Bill Russell. Astonishing.
# 100:
On March 2, 1962, Chamberlain actually hit the century mark in scoring. He totaled 100 points in a single game against the New York Knicks. Impossible.
# 118:
Over his career, Chamberlain scored 50 points or more in a single game 118 times. The great Michael Jordan ranks second with 38. Stunning.
# 4,029:
Chamberlain’s total for most points scored in a single NBA season is 4,029. Jordan’s highest point total for a season is almost 1,000 points less. Unbelievable.
# 23,924:
This is the number of rebounds Chamberlain grabbed in his 14-year NBA regular season career. Phenomenal.
These are just 10 examples of Wilt Chamberlain’s incredible stats. There are too many to mention in a brief blog article.
Crunching the Numbers
Of course, some NBA analysts say that these amazing numbers are overrated. They assert that numbers from Chamberlain’s era are inflated when compared to later eras.
There is some truth to this claim. Chamberlain’s era was characterized by a faster-paced playing style that contributed to increased statistical numbers. Also rules in the 1960s and 1970s allowed for more shots and rebounds on average in a game.
But this critique possesses only limited merit. In all eras NBA games ran 48 minutes. And when Chamberlain is compared with other outstanding players in his era no one even comes close statistically.
Furthermore, Chamberlain faced obstacles that other later players have not encountered. For example, the NBA changed various rules to limit Chamberlain’s dominance (like widening the lane). And Chamberlain didn’t benefit from modern advancements in travel and the social acceptance of racial minorities.
The numbers don’t lie. And when these incredible statistics are marshaled they make a cogent case for Chamberlain being the most dominant NBA player of all-time. There may indeed be a difference between “dominant” and “greatest” of all NBA players, but the stats above demonstrate that Wilt Chamberlain must be part of serious discussion.
Resource:
Most of the stats I’ve cited are found in this Wikipedia article.
Posted in Basketball
Tagged basketball, best NBA player, debate, LeBron James, Michael Jordan, NBA, sports stats, Wilt Chamberlain
My hope is that this blog will help and challenge Christians to think carefully about the implications of their worldview.
-Kenneth Richard Samples
Straight Thinking I Didn’t Know That!
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar on Osama bin Laden
Basketball Legend and Muslim Kareem Abdul-Jabbar Comments on the Death of Osama bin Laden in Sporting News:
SN: “As not only a Muslim but a born-and-bred New Yorker, son of a police officer, how did you feel watching the celebratory reactions on American streets after the assassination of Osama bin Laden?”
Abdul-Jabbar: “Killing 3,000 people in one swoop, for no good reason, it’s despicable. So I have no sympathy for Mr. bin Laden—he got what he deserved. I hope for the families who’ve lost loved ones, it’s some type of closure. We’re still involved in dealing with radical Muslims, but in terms of the people who lost loved ones and who are directly affected by Mr. bin Laden’s fanatics, I thought it was a positive development.”*
* “I’ve Always Thought I Had a Lot to Give,” Sporting News Conversation: Kareem Abdul-Jabbar with Steve Greenberg, Sporting News (May 23, 2011): 38.
→ 1 Comment
Posted in America, Basketball, Justice, News
Tagged comments, interview, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Muslim, Osama bin Laden's death, Sporting News