Apologetics-In-Practice Role Play (Class 8 recap)

On Monday December 15th we met for our eighth class and did a little apologetics-in-practice role play as a review of the first section of the class on the existence of God. The four arguments we've studied fall under what's called natural theology -- arguments for the existence of God based on reason and ordinary experience (as opposed to special revelation).  So, we reviewed those arguments in a convince-me-there's-a-God exercise. Let me preface this all by saying that our intent was in no way to mock or poke fun at atheists or agnostics. We were very respectful and cordial to the atheist position and person acting in that position. I played an atheist and engaged with everyone in a religious discussion. It was actually quite difficult for me! I had to deflect some of the arguments you all brought up because frankly I didn't have a good answer. We spent over an hour in this role play discussion in which you all had plenty of time to present the whole gamut of arguments for the existence of God. Cosmological arguments In response to the cosmological arguments (for the explanation and cause of the universe) everyone did a great job providing reasons for the beginningness of the universe. Miguel brought up the big bang theory and the impossibility of an actually infinite past and Bill mentioned the second law of thermodynamics. So I, as the atheist, had to punt to the multiverse or world ensemble scenario. But you did a fantastic job exposing my lack of reason and evidence for believing in the multiverse. Great job! Design argument The teleological (or design) argument was posed a bunch of different ways ranging from the way Dr. Craig presents it, focused on fine-tuning for life, to a focus on life on Earth specifically and biological complexity in general. My atheist response to it all was, "given enough time it's possible." But you all did a fine job describing the astronomical improbabilities that I would have to accept. Ted mentioned the odds presented in On Guard and Bill and Denise provided some good analogies like making a realistic painting by dropping cans of paint on a canvas. In the end you showed that I'd be clinging to any possibility, no matter the improbability, in order to avoid design. As an atheist it would have certainly persuaded me to look into how improbable the odds really are. Moral argument The moral argument was presented such that I was asked how I grounded objective morality. Terrence started it off well by getting me to admit that I do believe in objective morality, that torturing children for fun is objectively wrong. But then my tactic, as the atheist, was to try and skirt the question of the foundation for morality by simply stating moral duties we both accept, like caring for one another, and sort of say, "see I don't need God to do that!" But of course that doesn't answer the question. I believe at one point I said that morality is just a by-product of evolutionary processes and can be explained based on how our brains function. I was trying to change the topic from moralontology (whether it exists or not) to epistemology (how we came to know it). But you all did a nice job trying to steer the question back to the foundation for objective morality to which I really didn't have a good response. Problem of suffering I brought up the problem of suffering as my argument against God's existence. I said that it is impossible that an all-good, all-powerful God could exist in light of all the unnecessary suffering in the world. But you did a great job showing that it is not impossible that God and suffering can co-exist. Denise offered the example of a marriage to show that something like love requires free-will which necessarily allows for poor choices and evil. Miguel pointed out that we are finite creatures and are not in a position as God is to assess the suffering in the world. Ted also added that on the Christian worldview we would expect suffering because of the Fall and man's rebellion against God. All of these went to undercut my atheistic argument that God is highly improbable given all the suffering in the world. Other arguments I was pleased to hear other convincing arguments like Pascal's wager (presented by Denise), life's purpose without God (asked by Miguel), and even a question on how to explain the historical evidence for the resurrection like the disciple's genuine belief (asked by Miguel and Bill) which we really haven't formally discussed in class. Those were all really great topics that were presented very well and certainly do have some force. I really do believe that everyone acted with "gentleness and respect" (1 Pet 3:15). As we've talked about before, that is one of the most important elements of these sorts of discussions. We have to be ready to listen most importantly and then, if called, to speak in love because otherwise all our fancy arguments will be like a clanging gong (1 Cor 13:1). So, I hope the role playing was beneficial for everyone.

We didn't get a chance to really spend time going over chapter 8, "Who was Jesus?" from On Guard so I simply asked everyone to read through the chapter and fill out the outlines I handed out. The presentation and outline is available digitally on the website here. Next time we will meet on January 12th, same place, same time (starting at 6:45pm with coffee, desserts, and fellowship), to discuss the topic "Did Jesus rise from the dead?" Please read through chapter 9 before then for the next time we meet. If you have any questions or thoughts along the way, please feel free to shoot me an email. Also consider inviting a friend, all are welcome!