In 1980 Carl Sagan offered these words as a sort of atheistic manifesto to explain the world we live in.

Sagan’s brilliant mind and winsome demeanor defused the provocative statement and popularized a philosophical commitment known as “naturalism.” While this concept is as old as ancient philosophy itself, going back to Democritus in 4th century BC, Sagan broadcasted it anew to a young generation who bought his book and watched the BBC documentary, both by the title of Cosmos.

Apart from the popular culture, however, another trend was developing that caught the attention of journalists. In 1980 Time Magazine published an article by the title of “Modernizing the Case for God” in which they observed:

God? Wasn’t he chased out of heaven by Marx, banished to the unconscious by Freud and announced by Nietzsche to be deceased? Did not Darwin drive him out of the empirical world? Well, not entirely. In a quiet revolution in thought and arguments that hardly anyone could have foreseen only two decades ago, God is making a comeback. Most intriguingly, this is happening not among theologians or ordinary believers … but in the crisp, intellectual circles of academic philosophers, where the consensus had long banished the Almighty from fruitful discourse. Now it is more respectable among philosophers than it has been for a generation to talk about the possibility of God’s existence….But if in an age of science, faith in God can be more rationally grounded, as a growing number of philosophers now attest, then the reasoning soul who is so inclined can more surely and assuredly feel comfortable in moving beyond reason. (Time Magazine, April 7, 1980)

Ah, the “reasoning soul” can feel comfortable in believing in God. The juxtaposition of the Time piece with Sagan’s Cosmos is interesting. While philosophical naturalism was popularized in print and on screen, theism was gaining ground in ivy league philosophy departments. Can it be that a deeper look doesn’t lead to a self-creating universe, but to an infinite Creator, or to use Aristotelian language, an “unmoved mover”? Could it be that the Socratic method is dangerous for unbelief?

Francis Bacon thoughts so. It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism,” he said, “but depth in philosophy bringeth men’s minds about to religion. If the reasoning soul in search of truth wants to avoid God, he will also need to avoid depth in philosophy, according to Bacon. C.S. Lewis offers an additional warning, “A young atheist cannot be too careful of his reading.” If a person in 1980 were to move beyond Sagan’s book and documentary, he might be in danger of discovering the same truth as Time Magazine: God isn’t dead after all.

To again quote Daniel Dennett, “There is no such thing as philosophy-free science; there is only science whose philosophical baggage is taken on board without examination.” Understanding the philosophy behind someone’s scientific claims is highly important. At a time when Sagan’s proposition permeated bookstores and television sets, there were men and women committed to critical thinking who evaluated his “philosophical baggage” and came to a very different conclusion: Before there was a Cosmos, there was a Creator. 

(Part 1) (Part 2) (Part 3) (Part 4) (Part 5)

That is except for the fact that this is a self-imposed nick-name.

I’ve known Dr. Russell D. Moore since he was a doctoral student teaching his first Systematic Theology class in which I was a first year MDiv student. At that time he and Maria lived in the Gospel Ghetto (a.k.a Village Manor). RDM, as he is known by many on campus, is as ghetto now as was back then: which is to say that in spite of his national presence as a preacher, author, and adoption advocate, he is still a humble man who loves to invest in future leaders. I’m thankful beyond words for his investment in my life.

C.S. Lewis wrote these words to his friend Dom Bede Griffiths on January 8th, 1936. Lewis was concerned that Griffiths was too enamored with Eastern philosophies and that he was vulnerable of diluting his Christian faith. This is a good illustration of the sort of deceptive philosophy we are admonished to avoid by the Apostle Paul in Colossians 2. Philosophy in general should not, however, be seen as an enemy of theology.

The Middle Ages recognized theology as the “queen of the sciences” and philosophy as “her handmaid.” Since the word science simply means “knowledge,” it makes perfect sense that both theologians and scientists give emphasis to philosophy, “the love of knowledge or wisdom.” But enough with definitions and etymology.

While philosophy offers us no abiding city, it does point us to one. Philosophy helps to connect the dots that span the ultimate questions every human being must face. That’s why the Apostle Paul took time in Acts 17 to dialogue with the Athenian philosophers. Paul’s statement, “In him we live and move and have our being,” touches at the heart of some of philosophy’s deepest questions. It was actually a quote from the philosopher Epimenides from Crete. Paul presented the Gospel as the answer to the perennial questions of philosophy.

The Stoics were among the philosophers present at Mars Hill for Paul’s famous sermon (Acts 17). They held that there was a “divine animating principle pervading the universe” which they called the Logos (or the word). Heraclitus and Aristotle used the term before them, but the Stoics considered it to be an ultimate reality. To use a philosophical word, they considered the Logos to be a metaphysical truth.

Thus, when the Apostle John begins his gospel he states, “In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God….And the Logos became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth” (John 1:1,14). Like Paul, John used a framework his readers would understand to introduce them to the living Son of God: The Word Incarnate.

To be continued.

(Part 1) (Part 2) (Par3) (Part 4)

These words find their home in the opening paragraph of G.K. Chesterton’s classic work Orthodoxy. The book was born out of a challenge. Chesterton was accused of critiquing others’ views while neglecting to build a case for his own in his earlier published work Heretics. G.S. Street said of the book, “I will begin to worry about my philosophy when  Mr. Chesterton has given us his.” Chesterton accepted the duel.

In Heretics Chesterton gives a negative appraisal of other worldviews. In Orthodoxy he gives a positive argument for his own.

This was the first book I ever read by G.K.C. I initially expected, both because of my ignorance of the author and due to the title of the book, to find something of a biblical outline or systematic theology. Of course Chesterton gives little space to such disciplines in any of his writings. This was a work of natural theology and autobiographical in nature.

As Chesterton states, “The book is therefore arranged upon the positive principle of a riddle and its answer. It deals first with all the writer’s own solitary and sincere speculations and then with all the startling style in which they were all suddenly satisfied by the Christian theology.” For Chesterton, philosophy began in desire and led to satisfaction. Philosophy led him to Christ.

The maxim, “All truth is God’s truth” is herein illustrated. As the Apostle Paul outlines in Romans, man recognizes the Divine both in the beauty of the external world (Romans 1:20) and in internal world of moral obligations (Romans 2:14). Both creation and moral duty lead men to consider God’s existence. Philosophy is the path upon which they travel for answers.

This is not to say philosophy is without limitations. But because God has revealed himself (his invisible attributes and divine power), philosophy is a helpful tool to connect the dots. Chesterton again illustrates this point in his aforementioned book:

This at least seems to me the main problem for philosophers, and is in a manner the main problem of this book. How can we contrive to be at once astonished at the world and yet at home in it? How can this queer cosmic town, with its many-legged citizens, with its monstrous and ancient lamps, how can this world give us at once the fascination of a strange town and the comfort and honour of being our own town? To show that a faith or a philosophy is true from every standpoint would be too give an undertaking even for a much bigger book than this; it is necessary to follow one path of argument; and this is the path I here propose to follow.

A man can easily avoid the Bible, but reality is another matter altogether. He must wake up in the morning and face the day. Philosophy matters because this man will begin asking questions about the world he lives in, a world in which God’s invisible attributes are shouting, as the Psalmist says, “The heavens declare the glory of God.”

Philosophy helps the man hear the song. If he listens long enough, it might begin to resonate, and soon he will be dancing to its melody. May he have ears to hear. In time, if philosophy serves her purpose, he will say with C.S. Lewis, “I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.”

To be continued.

(Part 1) (Part 2) (Par3) (Part 4)

Yet she still protected her baby. The Bible only tells us she was a prostitute. No other biographical information is added. Perhaps none is needed. She protected her baby. Her past didn’t determine her future. Her present challenges didn’t stifle her compassion. She put her baby’s future above her own need for social affirmation. She took what honor she had and she protected her baby.  And thousands of years later we are still telling her story.

Take a few minutes to read this surprising ProLife story found in the pages of the Old Testament (1 Kings 3):

Then two women who were prostitutes came to the king and stood before him. One woman said, “Please my lord, this woman and I live in the same house, and I had a baby while she was in the house. On the third day after I gave birth, she also had a baby and we were alone. No one else was with us in the house; just the two of us were there. During the night this woman’s son died because she lay on him. She got up in the middle of the night and took my son from my side while your servant was asleep. She laid him at her breast, and she put her dead son in my arms. When I got up in the morning to nurse my son, I discovered he was dead. That morning, when I looked closely at him I realized that he was not the son I gave birth to.”

“No,” the other woman said. “My son is the living one; your son is the dead one.”

The first woman said, “No, your son is the dead one; my son is the living one.” So they argued before the king.

The king replied, “This woman says, ‘This is my son who is alive, and your son is dead,’ but that woman says, ‘No, your son is dead, and my son is alive.’” The king continued, “Bring me a sword.” So they brought the sword to the king. Solomon said, “Cut the living boy in two and give half to one and half to the other.”

The woman whose son was alive spoke to the king because she felt great compassion for her son. “My lord, give her the living baby,” she said, “but please don’t have him killed!”

But the other one said, “He will not be mine or yours. Cut him in two!”

The king responded, “Give the living baby to the first woman, and don’t kill him. She is his mother.” All Israel heard about the judgment the king had given, and they stood in awe of the king because they saw that God’s wisdom was in him to carry out justice.