The Gospel in the Marketplace of Ideas

indexThe CAA read The Gospel in the Marketplace of Ideas: Paul’s Mars Hill Experience for Our Pluralistic World by Paul Copan and Kenneth D. Litwak, as part of Apologetics 315’s weekly Read Along program. This took place August through October. Each week, an audio introduction from Paul Copan was provided for that week’s chapter, along with a brief synopsis and study questions. We were also able to connect with other readers in the comments on Apologetics 315, or on the Christian Apologetics Alliance Facebook page/group.

After having given it some time to blend flavors, I am now prepared to give my thoughts on the book. These were my initial thoughts before starting the Read Along. Note that this review does not go through the book by walking through it from beginning to end, due to its reuse of or expansion on the same material at different parts of the text, rather than keeping similar topics together. We will let the reader decide if that is a format they prefer to read. For me, it felt kind of scattered.

Read Along Index: The Gospel in the Marketplace of Ideas

Copan and Litwak begin with a nice sketch of our current cultural landscape as being multicultural, relativistic, secularized, and post-Christian. They define a worldview as a philosophy of life that reflects a deeper heart commitment and answers questions like Why am I here? Why does anything exist at all? What am I to do or think? How can my life have any meaning? Later they define worldview as “an articulation of the basic beliefs embedded in a shared grand story that are rooted in a faith commitment and that give shape and direction to the whole of our individual and corporate lives.” They lay out the problem: Most people today, even those calling themselves Christians, only know a caricature of Christianity, so that if ever they come into conversation with a knowledgeable Christian, a lot of what the Christian communicates is filtered through a faulty worldview and so is lost in translation. The first hurdle to overcome is to make sure we know what their worldview is, including their view of Christianity, so that we speak their language and nothing is lost in translation. We are the ones with a message to deliver, and so we are the ones who need to learn how to speak their language—not the other way around. Continue reading

Posted in Apologetics, Reviews and Interviews, The Gospel | 2 Comments

Ethics & Morality

Pontius Pilate's "What is Truth?" - stylized inscription at entrance to Antoni Gaudi's Sagrada Família (Barcelona).

Pontius Pilate’s “What is Truth?” – stylized inscription at entrance to Antoni Gaudi’s Sagrada Família (Barcelona).

Below is a collection of my thinking on the grounding and justification of moral truth. I am warming up for something.

Divine Essentialism

God wills it (right) because He is good — essentialism. 1/4/08 (Not mine. Precursor.)

The Sword and the Sacrifice Philosophy (c. 2008) (In progress.)

Are you an essentialist or a voluntarist? 5/26/09

Poll: What grounds objective moral truth? 12/31/12

The Euthyphro Dilemma

Good 101: Is there a solution to the Euthyphro dilemma? 12/24/09 Continue reading

Posted in Apologetics, Divine Essentialism, Euthyphro Dilemma, Gettier Problem, Golden Rule, Is-Ought Fallacy, Justified True Belief, Moral Argument, Natural Law and Divine Command, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, William Lane Craig | 3 Comments

6 blogposts you won’t find on Ichthus77

CAA_BannerSometimes I do stuff somewhere else. Here are 6 of those times, over at The Christian Apologetics Alliance:

Does The Moral Argument Reify Subjective Morality? 10/7/14

Matthew Lawrence wrote in this question and gave permission to blog it and my answer below:

Hello Christian Apologetics Alliance. I would like to first off say thank you for the resources that you’ve given to me. This has helped me boost my faith up greatly. (cont. at link above)

Initial Thoughts: Copan & Litwak’s “The Gospel in the Marketplace of Ideas” 8/12/14

The CAA is participating in Apologetics 315’s weekly Read Along program. We are reading “The Gospel in the Marketplace of Ideas: Paul’s Mars Hill Experience for Our Pluralistic World” by Paul Copan and Kenneth D. Litwak. (cont. at link above)

Continue reading

Posted in Apologetics, Moral Argument, Poetry, Poetry and Fiction, Problem of Evil & Hell, Youth Apologetics | Leave a comment

Reliability of the Gospels (Lecture Series) | Tim McGrew

McGrewTim McGrew from the Library of Historical Apologetics has a famous series that I wanted to make available on my blog. Dr. McGrew is Professor of Philosophy at Western Michigan University, where he has taught since 1995. His areas of specialization include Epistemology, History and Philosophy of Science, Probability Theory, Formal Logic, and Philosophy of Religion. His work in apologetics focuses on the Gospels, miracles, the Resurrection of Jesus, and the history of apologetics. You can make a full Friday and Saturday morning of the following lecture series. In fact, I have suggested a schedule, for fun. Continue reading

Posted in Apologetics, Undesigned Coincidences | Leave a comment

Kindling Conversations with Modesto Neighbors

kindling conversationsYou want to love your neighbor as yourself, but it’s hard to get to know them in the space between when the garage door opens and closes. No one answers the door anymore, because the only ones knocking are trying to sell you on something. What do you do? Hang out on the front lawn, or take your dog for a walk in the park, and start talking to random stran…neighbors. Here are a few questions you can ask, depending on the circumstances. Base your follow-up questions on whatever answers you get back. Be mindful for your neighbor’s signals that they’re overloaded and need to go home and recharge.

The Questions

What do you love most about your dog? Did you rescue it from the pound or adopt it?

Doing anything new this weekend? Have you walked the Virginia Corridor Trailway?

Are you going to see the upcoming superhero movie? What would be your super power if you had one?

How long have you lived in the neighborhood? What do you like about it? Continue reading

Posted in Golden Rule, Neighboring | Leave a comment

Reply to WLC’s answer to my question regarding anti-realism (QoW #379)

I am saving my reply here, as it is already getting buried.

Dr. Craig, thank you for answering my question. I am glad you are a realist about the Good and concede *that* much to the realist. Do you actually mean the Platonist when you say you “see no reason to concede so much” to the realist (see links ‘a’ and ‘b’)?

a) https://www.facebook.com/reasonablefaithorg/posts/10152300210348229
b) https://www.facebook.com/williamlanecraig/posts/10203920584525754

You see the importance of conceding the existence of the Good to the realists (not the Platonists, to be sure). So why take an anti-realist position? Why not take a divine essentialist, rather than a Platonic essentialist, position? I don’t think that is conceptualist, because I see it as describing his nature–the Logos wills/thinks in accordance with his nature. I am curious how you base the Good in God in a non-conceptualist way, but think it would concede too much to base other seemingly abstract objects in God?–I say seemingly abstract, because they aren’t so abstract if they are grounded in God, are they? Btw, I’m not so sure Plato didn’t consider the Good to correspond to real Being, but that’s a slightly more involved discussion: http://www.christianapologeticsalliance.com/2012/10/16/resolving-euthyphros-dilemma

What I know of realism/anti-realism I learned from Christopher Norris’ “Epistemology”. It is interesting to note that Dummett: “denies the existence of objective, recognition-transcendent truth-values for statements of the so-called ‘disputed class’, i.e., those for which we possess no means of ascertainment or decisive proof”—including “standards of objective moral good or natural justice” (from Norris’ concluding postscript I). That’s why Norris is a convergent, or critical, realist — though, I think his morality lacks ontology (only in his mind, of course), considering he leaves no room for God in reality. The theist, however, grounds the Good in God, so…why not the rest of the “disputed class” (even to the same extent, where you do not consider essential certain extrapolations, only the basic core underlying all the extrapolations–like the Golden Rule, for example…the sum of the Law and the Prophets Jesus came to fulfill on the cross)? — how is the Good different from the rest of it, so that you would allow for its reality, but be anti-realist about the rest? Would Dummett agree with you that you have means of ascertainment or decisive proof for the Good? Do you think ontology is more decisive than justification when it comes to knowledge? I think both are needed (I agree with Plato, but not with Platonism).

No worries if you have no time to answer. Thank you for the answer you were able to provide. I am truly honored.

Posted in Norris' Epistemology, Reviews and Interviews, William Lane Craig | Leave a comment

Positive Modesto News

10502074_779965998720980_6272097615267583232_nCheck out the new Facebook page just created to shed light on all the  good stuff going on all around us in this city we love. It’s called Positive Modesto News, and it will feature relevant articles I publish on Examiner.com, as well as positive blog/news articles from other like-minded authors. If you’re one of those, contact me with your work and I will gratefully promote it!

Posted in News | Leave a comment

Since January, I’ve been…

ubiee-banner-small-extra-extra-read-all-about-it…Working at Athanatos Christian Ministries and Bard and Book, but currently taking a hiatus.

Obtaining an Associate of Arts degree in Humanities, finally achieved this past spring semester at Modesto Junior College. I was privileged enough to be able to take the first astronomy lab after the opening of the best planetarium in the world. After my husband has achieved his BA in Organizational Management and my sons are out of high school, I will hopefully be able to continue on.

Helping Ethan acquire a new cat, Mia:

10308208_461749307291622_7107725096572130467_n

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Celebrating 17 years married to my best friend:

10308224_465663190233567_2048135481781624663_n

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Did you notice the aquarium in the background? Got it for $50 from family. It didn’t stop there. There are now three tanks in the house, with many, many fish in them.]

Day-trippin’ it to the beach:

10374001_467241340075752_7114090228406933435_n

 

 

 

 

 

 

Waiting for Lee and David to collect drift wood off the beach for the fish tanks:

10308182_467242056742347_8621367074402581088_n

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Volunteering as President for The Christian Apologetics Alliance since June 1:

Going to see Wicked in Sacramento:

1964988_478979985568554_2929694276494438856_n

 

 

 

 

 

 

Getting involved in Modesto’s neighboring movement:

10245490_462566730543213_847020146724855577_n

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Blogging:

Training my kids in apologetics:

10369697_464768573656362_6335475349544090360_n

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • David turned 13 in February and Ethan just turned 16 in June! David is continuing in honors classes when he starts 8th grade, and Ethan is beginning early college classes when he enters his junior year in August.
  • Ethan presented this at his school: The Problem of Evil (guest post)
  • Ethan and David read these books with me, then Ethan goes with me to meetings:
    • “Handbook of Christian Apologetics” by Kreeft & Tacelli for Apologetics @ the Bean
    • “On Guard” by WLC for Reasonable Faith chapter meetings

[David’s deal in 7th grade was Minecraft Club. Ethan got to go to a beach by Cal Poly and also to Disneyland with his Robotics and Skills USA peeps.]

1533831_415260401940513_1607156828_n

10177883_473674242765795_8751431073277320687_n

10340009_473674246099128_3594915989264667853_n

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Going to Apologetics @ the Bean before Ethan made it cool:

1507870_405941679539052_669976296_n

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Creating a YouTube playlist for Young Apologists (and compiling other resources).

***

Current:

I am job hunting, as we are in need of more predictable income that freelancing so far has not provided.

Future:

I will continue hang-time with God and family, improving as a neighbor, and developing various projects with The Christian Apologetics Alliance, like the CAA Catechism and other resources for young apologists.

***

What have YOU been up to? This year is half over!

Here is our most recent family pic, in case you missed it:

1466248_382994378500449_1145754958_n

Posted in News | Leave a comment

Leibnizian Moral Argument?

I think my moral argument for God’s existence is similar to Leibniz’ cosmological argument (except it has to do with the explanation of the Good, a.k.a. the Golden Rule).

If you’d rather not say “the Golden Rule,” then say what everyone else says: “objective moral values and duties.” If it isn’t obvious, I took my phrasing from William Lane Craig.

1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.

2. If the Golden Rule has an explanation for its existence, that explanation is the same explanation for God’s existence: the necessity of His own nature.

[That statement is logically equivalent to the atheist’s own statement that if God does not exist, a) the Golden Rule has no explanation for its existence (or does not exist), or b) the Golden Rule exists by the necessity of its own nature (only a personal being can have a necessary nature that is described by the Golden Rule). Now, if the atheist would rather claim that the Golden Rule is a social construct and that different cultures will come up with different values and duties, they must account for premise 3. However, if the atheist accounts for premise 3 by claiming that the Golden Rule is a natural construct common to all humans, and thus all cultures, that is (again) logically equivalent to premise 2, but doesn’t jive with our moral intuitions–it equates to claiming the universe doesn’t really exist.]

3. The Golden Rule exists (is discovered independently) in various forms in every major culture in history.

4. Therefore, the Golden Rule has an explanation for its existence (from 1 and 3).

5. Therefore, the explanation of the existence of the Golden Rule is the same explanation for God’s existence: the necessity of His own nature (from 2 and 4).

Related: Resolving Euthyphro’s Dilemma

Posted in Apologetics Toolbox, Divine Essentialism, Euthyphro Dilemma, Golden Rule, Is-Ought Fallacy, Natural Law and Divine Command | Leave a comment

The Problem of Evil (guest post)

This post was put together from the power point slides of a presentation given by my soon-to-be sixteen-year-old, Ethan Spikes. He delivered this presentation in front of 19 fellow students and a teacher.

The Problem of Evil


What is it?

The problem of evil is THE argument used in favor of God not existing. It is the objection that an all powerful and all loving God does not reconcile with the existence of evil. There are two parts to the intellectual version of this problem: the logical problem (if evil exists, then God cannot), and the evidential problem (it is improbable that an all loving and all powerful God would let suffering exist). The emotional problem of evil deals with a non-intellectual rejection of God based in feelings. I will focus on the intellectual first. Continue reading

Posted in Apologetics, Apologetics Toolbox, Euthyphro Dilemma, Evil as Privation of Good, Problem of Evil & Hell | Leave a comment