Backchat

Answering Christianity's Critics

Chris Sinkinson

• Publisher: Christian Focus Publication
• Year: 2014
• eBook ISBN: 9781781914489

Part 1

Talk about the News

ONE

On the Discovery of Noah's Ark

In April 2010, a Hong Kong-based exploration team claimed to have discovered Noah’s Ark, or at least several large wooden compartments, 13,000 feet above sea level on Mount Ararat. Carbon-dating of the wood was supposed to demonstrate it was 4,800 years old. The discovery was reported in the mainstream tabloid press.

Photographs from the interior of the wooden structure even showed a scattering of straw. Given our Christian concern for evidence and apologetics, should we have been first to promote this great news story? Absolutely not. In fact, there are good reasons for us to give these stories a wide berth. As far as apologetics is concerned, sensational claims can quickly become an ‘own goal’.

The claim to have discovered Noah’s Ark surfaces regularly in the popular press. It captures the imagination like no other story. There is something plausible about the idea of a wooden structure being revealed untouched in the melting snows of Mount Ararat.

However, there are some good biblical reasons for doubting the ark would be found. Would the fresh timber used really have survived so many years without rotting? Would such a valuable amount of worked timber not have been immediately recycled and put to good use in the post-flood world? As for videos and photographs of such pristine wooden stalls, straw included, surely the only animal we could smell would be a rat?

So, if this report is another hoax (to add to a long legacy of hoaxes regarding discoveries of the Ark), then does that put the biblical account into doubt? Only if we give too much credence to sensationalised claims. This is particularly regrettable for us when evangelicals have contributed so much to credible, mainstream biblical archaeology.

The serious work of evangelical Christians, like archaeologist Donald Wiseman (1918-2010), Professor of Assyriology, Alan Millard, and Egyptologist, Kenneth Kitchen, have all been respected in mainstream scholarship, while also providing robust grounds for trusting the biblical record. Of course, many of the discoveries that have been made do not seem so spectacular and might not make the pages of a red-top tabloid. But, for the honest sceptic or thoughtful enquirer, these evidences will be trustworthy and persuasive.

To take a relatively recent example, we need to understand just how cynical and sceptical some historians are of the biblical record. Among archaeologists and historians there are those called ‘minimalists’ who (unlike ‘maximalists’) claim that the stories of the Exodus and the united monarchy of Israel are much later legendary accounts with only minimal historical value. The minimalists imagine that Israel emerged when unrelated tribes gradually united in Canaan and wanted to invent a common history. King David is understood to be as historical for Israel as King Arthur is for Britain – a legendary figure embellished by later romantic notions.

Between 1993 and 1994, excavations at Dan, the northern-most city of the Israelites, discovered three fragments of a victory inscription. These were part of a very ancient Aramaic monument produced by enemies of the Israelites and probably broken up by the people of Dan. The fragments had been reused in the walls of the ninth-century city and that helped establish that they were very old. Archaeologists arrived at a date of approximately 850 b.c. for what became known as the Tel Dan Inscription or Stele.

The inscription makes reference to the ‘house of David’ and ‘King of Israel’. It is the earliest direct reference to the dynasty of King David. Produced within a century of the life of King David and by his enemies, it provides direct evidence for this early period of Israel’s history. Of course, those minimalist scholars sought alternative interpretations to avoid the implications. Claims appeared that the Hebrew consonants of the name David could be translated differently or that the inscription itself was a fake. These claims were given little time among mainstream historians and only served to highlight how important the discovery had been. King David and his royal dynasty could not be dismissed to the shadows of mythology.

Of course, a find like the Tel Dan Inscription is not quite as spectacular as the claim to have discovered Noah’s Ark. But poorly researched and over-sensationalised discoveries do evangelical witness no favours. More significantly, apologetics is not really a tool for proving that the Bible is true. The Word of God is its own best evidence. What historical and archaeological studies can do is to demonstrate that there are good reasons to trust the record of the Bible. More than that, we can show alternative explanations are not at all plausible in the light of history. We should join the sceptics in being cautious about the more sensational claims; too often these are offered for a quick bite of publicity and contribute nothing to this long-term task of confirming the trustworthiness of the Bible.

TWO

Is this really the God Particle?

A 2012 announcement in the news generated some extraordinary claims. Possible sighting of the elusive ‘God Particle’ caused one scientist, Michio Kaku, to state on CNN that it ‘takes us to the instant of creation itself’. Notorious atheist and Oxford University chemist Peter Atkins claimed on the BBC that its discovery was ‘another nail in the coffin of religion’. Does this particle really have implications for faith in God? Is there reason for a Christian to be unsettled?

The particle is properly called a ‘Higgs boson’. Its existence was predicted in 1964 by Professor Peter Higgs at Edinburgh University. Scientists assumed it must exist because it explained why matter has ‘mass’. It is a bit like the way we predict the existence of all sorts of everyday things we cannot see. When a letter lands on the doormat, we assume the existence of a sender even if we do not know who they are. There are many phenomena in the universe that lead scientists to predict the existence of other things we cannot yet observe. We will hear more and more about ‘Dark Matter’ in the years to come. So the Higgs boson was simply a particle that is predicted to have briefly existed soon after the moment of creation.

To track down this particle, the ‘Large Hadron Collider’ was built in Switzerland. Costing about $10 billion, it is essentially an 18-mile circular, underground tunnel staffed by 3,000 people. The purpose of this vast machine is to simulate some conditions similar to those that existed soon after the Big Bang. This is done by accelerating hydrogen atoms close to the speed of light (that means traversing the tunnel at 11,000 times a second!), and then observing the energy released when atoms collide. Recent reports indicate that the Higgs boson particle has been observed. Of course, the particle only exists briefly, and then disappears, so it will be some time before most professionals will be willing to state categorically that it exists.

But let us be clear what the ‘God particle’ actually is. Its existence has been assumed for over forty years. It is part of the standard model for the Big Bang. It is a particle that explains why the universe has mass. It is a particle that existed during an early period after the Big Bang (creation). Its discovery gives confirmation to a lot of complex, theoretical physics. What is the God particle not? It is not an explanation of where the universe came from. It is not a new theory about the universe. It offers nothing that contradicts what we read in Genesis, or indeed anywhere in Scripture. In fact, the very name ‘God particle’ is a hopeless misnomer. Coined by experimental physicist Leon Lederman, it was intended as a humorous reference to the difficulty of observing it. Professor Higgs was not keen on the nickname but, unfortunately, it stuck. As a consequence, some scientists and media outlets with an eye on publicity and profit use it for headline-grabbing remarks about religion.

What should a Christian say in response to these headlines? Firstly, I think we should celebrate human achievement and discovery. The modern scientific world view is founded on the biblical principles of Reformation Europe. All truth is God’s truth. Secondly, we should be aware that rarely are facts allowed to speak for themselves. Scientists are not unlike politicians in sometimes putting a spin on their claims. Some atheists betray their own materialistic agenda in putting such a spin on the discovery of the Higgs boson. The wild theological claims made by Peter Atkins do little for his credentials as a scholar. Thirdly, we should emphasise that a scientific description of how something works does not contradict the theological description of why God made it. Paul wrote that in Christ ‘all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him.’ (Col. 1:16) Does the Higgs boson exist? I will listen to the explanations of those brilliant scientists in Switzerland. But to ask who made the Higgs boson and why, I will turn to Scripture for an answer.

THREE

God is Dead (again)

The denial of the existence of the God of Christianity is nothing new – Bertrand Russell’s collected essays and lectures, published as Why I am not a Christian, were written or delivered between 1927 and 1954. Earlier brash arguments against the God of the Bible had been offered by Voltaire (1694-1778) and Nietzsche (1844-1900).

So what is new about contemporary atheism? The term ‘New Atheism’ was coined by Wired magazine in 2006 as a way of identifying a new, militant, popular brand of unbelief. U.K.-based groups like the National Secular Society now seem tired and old-fashioned. So, like Tony Blair’s British Labour Party of the 1990s, atheism has had a rebranding since the turn of the millennium. New Atheism holds to the traditional atheist family values, but the packaging is much fresher, youthful and vibrant. There is no new content being offered. What is new about this atheism is its populist, aggressive militancy. In the U.K., atheists launched a bus poster campaign to inform us that ‘There Probably is No God.’ This new breed of atheists are evangelists for their cause. Can we now look forward to a new atheist version of the popular Alpha Course? We already have a church for atheists in London.

The watershed moment is almost certainly 11 September 2001. The terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, with their appalling consequences, were inspired by religion. Therefore, it is felt that religious belief must be attacked and condemned. Previous generations had their polite forms of atheism that simply wanted to keep religion at a distance. The new atheism is militant in its desire to attack, critique and ridicule religious belief in any form.

Those described as new atheists include popular writers Richard Dawkins, Philip Pullman, Sam Harris and the late Christopher Hitchens. The comedians Ricky Gervais, Bill Maher and Eddie Izzard also share the platform. The diversity of these characters ensures that the arguments against the existence of God find many channels, including sober TV documentaries, best-selling children’s fiction and light-hearted comedies. These atheists are often crude and delight in what a previous generation called blasphemy. They are aware of the power of film, humour and literature to make a point and win hearts and minds.

Bill Maher, a popular American broadcaster, produced the comedy documentary Religulous in 2008 as an attempt to spoof, mock and undermine religious faith. Christianity is the main target, though Islam, Judaism and fringe religions also get a lashing. The film is slick and engaging, apparently presenting well-researched facts that count against religious faith.

One claim is that the story about Jesus is simply one example among many of the dying-rising redeemer god of the ancient world. The god takes many forms – Horus, Mithra, Dionysus – but the story follows a common form. At one point the film reels off a long list of claims about the Egyptian sky god Horus that parallel the life of Jesus. In on-screen text, the film declares that Horus was born of a virgin, baptised by a man later beheaded, worked miracles, walked on water, raised a man called Lazarus from the dead, had twelve disciples, was crucified and after three days rose again from the dead. It all seems rather unsettling and gives the impression that the Gospel accounts are made-up stories reflecting a myth in common currency across the ancient Near East.

But what are the facts? Not a single claim made about Horus in the movie was ever made in the ancient world. It is pure fiction. No one ever claimed Horus was born of a virgin, had twelve disciples or was crucified. Even more significantly, there is no resurrection account of Horus. Bill Maher’s claim that these facts are found in the 3,000-year-old Egyptian Book of the Dead is entirely fictitious. Yet these bogus claims are promoted by a lavishly made film and witty script. If they are not true, then where did they come from? What seems to be the source are books written by a Victorian poet, Gerald Massey (1828-1907), called Natural Genesis and Ancient Egypt, the Light of the World. The works have no scholarly weight and are the product of a great imagination. But in popular thought they have been continually recycled, most recently by Tom Harpur in The Pagan Christ and the internet documentary Zeitgeist.

Adolf Hitler purportedly advised his propagandists with these words: ‘Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it.’ Religulous boldly repeats simple claims that are manifestly untrue. Said enough times, people will think: ‘I know that’s true … I heard it somewhere…’ For Christian apologe...

Table of contents

• Testimonials
• Title
• Indicia
• Contents
• Dedication
• Introduction
• PART 1: TALK ABOUT THE NEWS
• PART 2: TALK ABOUT HISTORY
• PART 3: TALK ABOUT THE BIG QUESTIONS
• PART 4: TALK ABOUT THE CHURCH
• PART 5: TALK ABOUT CULTURE
• Conclusion
• Going Further: An Apologetics Reading List
• Christian Focus