The Apologist – God’s barrister?

This is a brief article I wrote last October regarding Apologetics and a recent public debate I had attended. I have slightly adapted it by way of wording, however it remains the same for the most part.

It was last Wednesday night (26.10.11) where Chemistry professor and fervent atheist Peter Atkins seemed to poke a rather large hole into noted Christian philosopher, theologian and apologist William Lane Craig’s Kalam cosmological argument.

What the apologetic is, who these fellows Peter Atkins and William Lane Craig are and what in the world the Kalam cosmological argument is will all be answered forthwith. We will then briefly explore the Christian apologetic, see it’s basic purpose and limits and the danger which arises when these limits are breached.

Over the past two weeks William Lane Craig has been touring the United Kingdom aboard the Reasonable Faith Tour bus. Much was made of the coming of one of the foremost defenders of the existence of the Judeo-Christian God and more narrowly of the Christian worldview. Carried along by the wings of Premier Christian Radio and the Universities and Colleges Christian Fellowship (UCCF) he began by engaging in debate with British philosopher Stephen Law and climaxed at my soon to be alma mater with the aforementioned Oxford Chemist, who helps to steer that ark, that is the so-called ‘New Atheism’.  Throughout the tour Craig spoke in the affirmative on such things as the existence of God and the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus Christ and was guest speaker at the Bethinking National Apologetics Day Conference on 22 October.

Personally, it was a joy to witness somebody whom I had hitherto experienced but through YouTube, once described by Atkins’s ship-mate Sam Harris as the one Christian apologist who puts ‘the fear of God into my fellow atheists’. The debate itself I must say was underwhelming, Atkins was considerably better than Christopher Hitchens whom Craig pummelled some years back at Biola University {1} (my most noted screen experience of Craig). This time Craig seemed below his best, however with hindsight I am not sure how much this says about his opponent as opposed to his own performance. Aside from Atkins’ overt Richard Dawkins esque contempt for Craig and his foolish statements denouncing philosophers as airy-fairy thinkers who sit around making little difference to the world, he made some good points (and some quite inept ones particularly regarding the resurrection of Jesus Christ), one of which I feel delivered a huge blow to Craig’s 1st argument for the existence of God, namely the Kalam Cosmological argument.

We now move to define what exactly the Kalam cosmological argument is. Craig has been famous for developing this and it is built upon these premises:

1. Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.
2. The universe has a beginning of its existence

Therefore:

1. The universe has a cause of its existence.
2. If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God

Therefore:

• God exists.

Christian apologetics should be, in my firm opinion should be some mutation of the witness of the Apostle Paul when he visited first century Athens and debated with the Stoics and Epicureans upon the majestic heights of Mars Hill. {2} The apologetic is defined as the defence and proclamation of the Christian faith – it is as found in the Ancient Greek – ‘Apologia’ – to give a defence or an answer. Much apologetics finds the form of arguing rationally for the existence of God, defending a biblical epistemology, theodicy and other such things. All of this is marvellous and wonderful since we live in an age as in any other where questions are asked and objections are levelled at the feet of the Christian as to the credibility of his faith. I see three immediate reasons, though there are more why every Christian must be involved in some form of apologetics, however basic:

1.) It is polite

2.) It shows Christian love

3.) Furthermore Christians are commanded by their holy text to be very much in the world while not being conformed to its standards

Isolationism is not found amongst the divine commands from Genesis to Revelation. You will not find Simon-Peter telling Cornelius to give up his centurion’s post, you will not find Jesus instructing Joseph to give up his carpentry and head to the hills and in our example you will not find the Apostle Paul shunning the philosophers of that ancient high place of learning. On the contrary the Bible teaches Christians to be involved in the world so that their light might shine and glory be reflected unto God. {3}

Quite frankly I find the idea of proving the existence of God or engaging in debate as to whether he exists quiet incredible, for it is to presume that, that which is made is to determine the extent and pronounce judgment upon that which has made. Nevertheless it is vital that any Christian who is presented with objection from friend or foe, answer in grace to what is presented or how hope they to share their message as commanded? {4}

But this is where the apologetic must end. Apologetics is merely a means to an end. It is not the end in itself. I have often struggled with reconciling Paul’s declaration in his letter to the Romans (1:16) proclaiming that it is the gospel of Christ which is potent to save, thereby transferring a person from damnation to glorification; with the obvious need there is to engage the culture radically and rationally. The apologetic must never be without the gospel, the apologia without the evangel. This is to drive a car with no petrol, it is a indeed a dead engine. Where the apologist seeks to prove from history that Jesus really did rise from the dead in a Near Eastern garden 2000 years ago, this cannot be devoid of the subsequent and precedent importance of detailing that it is his resurrection that allows for our very own resurrection when time is rolled away and He returns with the voice of the archangel. {5}

If my faith in Christ was built upon a well-reasoned Kalam cosmological argument last Wednesday could have seen my departure from the Christian faith or at the very least its foundations within me being disturbingly altered. As it is, my faith is built on nothing less than Jesus Christ, his atoning death and his power to save his people from their sins. {6} It is built upon a life transforming witness within me implanted by God himself that Jesus Christ really is who he says he is and really does what he says he does.

So; does this mean that I do not engage with the arguments and objections? Does it mean that I ought not to think more about Atkins’ good arguments? No – it does mean that there is an overriding conviction that no argument can implant neither any objection uproot. That is the limit of the apologia but it is the start of the evangel, they are indeed one and the same – since the answer to my faith inevitably is the gospel itself.

References:
1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KBx4vvlbZ8; accessed 3.11.11
2. Acts 17:15-34
3. Matthew 5:16
4. Matthew 28:19-20
5. 1 Thessalonians 4:16
6. Matthew 1:21