Can You Believe It's True?: Christian Apologetics in a Modern and Postmodern Era

by John S. Feinberg

Overview

Truth?

Can we know it? Many people today would say no–we can’t. This paradigmatic shift to relativism presents a direct challenge to the Christian’s witness and the challenge must be answered.

In this timely new resource, noted scholar John Feinberg argues that truth is both real and knowable, offering us a robust guide to Christian apologetics for engagement with our world today.

Product Details

ISBN-13:	9781433539039
Publisher:	Crossway
Publication date:	06/30/2013
Sold by:	Barnes & Noble
Format:	eBook
Pages:	528
File size:	1 MB

About the Author

John S. Feinberg (PhD, University of Chicago) is department chair and professor of biblical and systematic theology at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. He is the author of Ethics for a Brave New World (with Paul D. Feinberg) and is general editor of Crossway’s Foundations of Evangelical Theology series.

Read an Excerpt

CHAPTER 1

Introduction

The great twentieth-century philosopher Bertrand Russell was once asked what he would say if, after he died, contrary to his expectations, he found himself standing before God and God asked him why he hadn't believed in God. Russell replied that he would say, "Not enough evidence, God! Not enough evidence!" Russell believed, in the words of W. K. Clifford, that "it is always wrong, everywhere, and for anyone to believe anything upon insufficient evidence." Russell further believed that our world doesn't contain enough evidence for God's existence for anyone to believe in him. As Clifford wrote about beliefs based on insufficient evidence, it is our duty "to guard ourselves from such beliefs as from a pestilence."

Implicit in what Russell and Clifford said is a belief that it is rational to hold only beliefs supported by evidence. There is also an implicit faith in our ability to gather accurately (by observation of the world and by reflection on observed data and on principles of reasoning) and to evaluate accurately the quality of various purported evidences in support of an idea. Reason can be trusted to tell us what to believe and what to reject about the world around us.

Somewhat later in the twentieth century a very different perspective on the search for truth by compiling evidences arose. Willard Van Orman Quine, espousing the view that what we know and understand is a product of the communities in which we were raised, wrote the following:

The totality of our so-called knowledge or beliefs, from the most casual matters of geography and history to the profoundest laws of atomic physics or even of pure mathematics and logic, is a man-made fabric which impinges on experience only along the edges. Or, to change the figure, total science is like a field of force whose boundary conditions are experience. A conflict with experience at the periphery occasions readjustments in the interior of the field. Truth values have to be redistributed over some statements. Re-evaluation of some statements entails re-evaluation of others, because of their logical interconnections. ... But the total field is so underdetermined by its boundary conditions, experience, that there is much latitude of choice as to what statements to re-evaluate in the light of any single contrary experience. No particular experiences are linked with any particular statements in the interior of the field, except indirectly through considerations of equilibrium affecting the field as a whole (italics mine).

These are remarkable claims! If all our concepts are man-made, then the world is not simply mirrored on our mind through sense perception, allowing us objectively to read off the results. Nor do our observations and reasoning "see things as they are." What we claim to know is actually an interconnected web of beliefs that touch reality, experience, only at the borders of that web. But, note that Quine says that the total field of our knowledge is underdetermined by experience. This means that experience and our contact with it are such that there simply is insufficient evidence from experience for us to know which beliefs are true or false or whether our whole perspective on the world is right or wrong.

The problem of deciding which views are correct is further exacerbated by the fact that different cultures have their own constructions of reality which are not the same as another culture's. As Diogenes Allen explains about the most radical current approaches to epistemology,

We not only construct the world, so that all knowledge, value, and meaning are relative to human beings, as Idealists since Kant have argued, but now the radical conclusion is drawn that there is no reality that is universally constructed because people in different periods of history and in different societies construct it differently. There is no definitive procedure or universal basis to settle disputes in the natural sciences, in ethics, and in the interpretation of literature. Every domain of inquiry and every value is relative to a culture and even to subcultures.

In short, there is no absolute truth, or if there is, no one is in a position to know what it is. If so, what is the point of marshaling evidences in support of a belief?

As is clear from comparing the comments of Russell and Clifford, on the one hand, and those of Quine and Allen, on the other, something very significant has changed. Sometimes in philosophy it takes a long time for entrenched ideas to change; at other times change seems to come rather quickly. Shortly after the middle of the twentieth century, philosophers made some major changes in their assessment of reason's abilities to know the world aright. Doubts about whether there is such a thing as absolute truth (and whether, if so, anyone is in a position to discover it) became the norm. In addition, philosophers raised serious doubts about whether some set of beliefs should be seen as foundational to all other beliefs and hence relatively or even totally immune from all attack. Of course, there have always been some skeptics about the mind's abilities to "get things right," even in Western cultures that shared a basic commitment to Christianity. There were, for example, skeptics in Augustine's era, and he addressed the issues they repeatedly raised. In addition, there was widespread skepticism about knowledge and religion in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, and it became even more vocal in later centuries. In our day skepticism seems to be the predominant attitude toward knowledge, not just among trained philosophers but among ordinary, everyday people.

These more recent beliefs about reason's inadequacies involve what scholars call a move from a modern to a postmodern understanding of our world. While it is safe to say that not everyone has made this switch, evidences of the postmodern mind-set becoming increasingly entrenched are too numerous to deny. We cannot merely say these are views relegated to ivory-tower academics who need something to think and write about in order to justify their salaries. In many areas of life, we find that various postmodern themes have trickled down into everyday life among "ordinary" people. Some believe this flirtation with things postmodern will be short-lived, for when one understands its contours, its most radical expressions, and its ultimate implications, one realizes that no one can or does live consistently with such a mind-set. I am not a prophet, so I cannot predict how long postmodern thinking will last, but I do know that many non-academics with whom we rub shoulders every day are very much captivated by some of postmodernity's most fundamental themes. Hence, in constructing a strategy for defending Christianity, if we are to challenge nonbelievers who are postmodern in their outlook, we must take postmodern themes seriously. Of course, not everyone has completely abandoned the modern mind-set, and thus, we must also think of how to defend the Christian faith to people of that persuasion.

At this point you may be interested but uncertain about how to proceed, because you are not quite sure about what modernity and postmodernity are and how they differ. Rather than first present a set of ideas associated with each perspective, let me introduce you to these understandings of reality through two imaginary conversations which will illustrate them.

Let us imagine first a conversation between two university students that takes place sometime between 1955 and 1969. One student is a nonbeliever working within the modern mind-set. Let us call him Modern Joe, or MO JOE for short. The second participant knows Christ as his personal Savior. Let us call him Joe Christian, or JOE C for short. JOE C is quite concerned about the spiritual condition of his university friends and acquaintances, and so he witnesses to them whenever possible. Let's listen to this imaginary conversation between MO JOE and JOE C:

JOE C: I'm really glad we could get together for coffee today, Mo Joe.

MO JOE: Thanks for the invite. I'm always open for free coffee. What did you want to talk about?

JOE C: I wanted to talk to you about spiritual matters.

MO JOE: Spiritual matters? I don't believe in ghosts! Is that what you mean?

JOE C: No, I'm talking about what you think about God and whether you have a relationship with him. Specifically, I want to share with you what's called "the four spiritual laws."

MO JOE: Joe C, I didn't know you were into some religious cult. Mind control and all that. Oh, well, I guess everyone has a right to do his own thing. But that's not for me.

JOE C: Mo Joe, I understand your concerns, but I'm not into any cult. I am concerned, though, about what you think about God and where you're planning to spend eternity.

MO JOE: Oh, brother! I'll spend it where everyone else does. Planted six feet under in some cemetery. Reason and experience tell us that death ends it all — period! So, you'd better plan to enjoy yourself while you're here, because there's no second chance once you're dead and gone.

JOE C: That's an interesting philosophy, Mo Joe. I'd like to share a different one with you that I've found very meaningful. It's based on God's Word, the Bible, and it involves those four spiritual laws. The first law says that God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life.

MO JOE: Hold on, Joe C. Your so-called first law contains a lot of unproved assumptions, and I don't think you can prove any of them.

JOE C: Uhm, can I go on to the second law?

MO JOE: Not so fast! We need first to identify those unproved assumptions in your first law, and you need to give me some evidence why I should believe them. Without sufficient evidence, I can't believe anything, even if it is something others find helpful. Let me point out those unproved assumptions I was talking about. For example, your first law assumes that there is a God, but offers no proof. I think we can explain everything in our universe by an appeal to natural laws and evolution. Don't you know that science tells us everything we need to know to get along in our world? There's no need to appeal to the supernatural. Anyway, I only believe what's provable through reason and the five senses.

JOE C: That's a very interesting theory, Mo Joe. Are you saying that human reason and sense perception never make mistakes?

MO JOE: No, Joe C. Reason and sense perception aren't infallible, but that doesn't mean they don't work at all. There is a real world outside of our minds, and through our reason and sense perception we are able to understand that world correctly most of the time. When we're wrong, others with the same intellectual equipment can steer us in the right direction. Joe C, I'm not a skeptic about knowing anything. I'm just skeptical when someone wants me to believe something without evidence.

JOE C: But, Mo Joe, I'll bet you do believe in things you can't confirm by reason or experience through the five senses. For example, I bet you believe there's such a thing as love.

MO JOE: Sure, but I can feel what love is like. And, I can see love's results when I look at a newlywed couple, for example. So, it's not so invisible as you suggest. Anyway, speaking of love, you said your God is a loving God. That's another unproved assumption. If God is so loving, why do terrible things happen in our world? Murders, disease, wars, famines? No, I can't believe in a loving God, when so many evil things happen. If God really does care about all this, then he must be powerless to do anything about it. And, if that's so, then he's no God after all.

JOE C: I agree that those problems are hard to explain, but they aren't impossible to answer. Anyway, Mo Joe, answer me one question: If there is no God, why does anything ever go right in our world?

MO JOE: That's easy. Natural laws run our world. Our universe is all a product of chance, but once it got here, it keeps running according to natural laws. There's plenty of evidence that this is how things work; hence I don't see that it's rational to postulate a supernatural being who keeps our world running. If you want me to believe otherwise, you need to present enough evidence to support your belief. As for me, I trust what reason and my senses teach me about the world, and they don't show me that there's a God. If you want to believe in such things, that's your business, but I'm not going to be so irresponsible as to believe what can't be proved!

JOE C: But that's my point. Who runs the natural laws and keeps things going according to those laws?

MO JOE: I don't know. Maybe Mother Nature. Maybe not. But why do we have to have an explanation for everything? Things just run by natural laws in our universe. That's a fact, and that's all there is to it. But we're digressing. Your so-called spiritual law not only says God is loving. It says he loves me and has a plan for my life. There you go again. More unproved assumptions.

JOE C: What do you mean?

MO JOE: I mean that if you knew what's been going on in my life, you wouldn't say God loves me. My life is a mess, and no one steps in to help, least of all your supposed God. If there is a God and he loves me, he sure has a funny way of showing it.

JOE C: No one is guaranteed exemption from all problems in life, Mo Joe. As bad as things are now for you, they might be worse if not for God's loving hand in your life. Besides, he showed his love for you by sending Christ to die for you.

MO JOE: I don't need Christ or anyone else to die for me. I need help with living — you know, paying bills, staying well, and the like. No, there's little evidence of a God of love in my life. In addition, you say that God has a plan for my life. There's another unproved assumption. Even if God does care about our world, what's the proof that he can act in history or that he does? History is going nowhere, and so is my life. Neither has any meaning.

JOE C: Christ would give meaning to your life, if you'd let him.

MO JOE: I'm sorry, but how can someone who's dead bring meaning to my life? I know you believe God has this great plan for my life, but how can that be? And even if he does, I repeat that nowhere do we see God's hand in history. Evidently he's locked out of this world, if he even exists in the first place.

JOE C: Actually, he's acting all around us all the time. If you only had the faith to see his hand!

MO JOE:Yeah, that's what you Christians always say. I'm still waiting to see the hard evidence to support your claims. As for me, I believe what I can touch, see, smell, and the like, and what appears reasonable to me.

JOE C: How sad that you feel that way. There's so much more to life with Christ at its center.

MO JOE: Joe C, that may be fine for you, but not for me. You utter all these pious-sounding phrases, but what do they mean? I think what you're talking about amounts to nothing, since you can't prove a thing you say. You know, the logical positivists warned us about people like you. You go around using theological and religious language as though you are making meaningful claims about the world. But you aren't. Logical positivism has shown us that unless we know how to verify a sentence, what it asserts is meaningless. Since no one knows how to verify theological and religious propositions, all of them are meaningless, and what they talk about is probably nonexistent. By the way, that includes your first spiritual law (and probably all the others as well).

JOE C: My, you have thought a lot about this! Have you ever considered the claims of Christ?

MO JOE: No, nor those of Muhammad, Buddha, or anyone else. Why should I? I consider seriously only what I can touch, feel, et cetera. Things that run by natural laws. Which reminds me, Joe C. You've been talking about spiritual laws. What sort of thing is a spiritual law? Is it some law that controls my driving? Is it a law passed by Congress? Is it something like the law of gravity? Is it a law about spirits? I have no idea of what you are talking about, and I doubt that you know what it means either. Just points up the problems I was mentioning about religious and theological language.

JOE C: Well, Mo Joe, I'd really like to talk to you more about all of this, but I have a class in a few minutes. Can we get together and talk about this some other time?

MO JOE: Sure, talk is cheap, and I'm always happy to have someone buy me coffee. But next time, bring evidence to support what you're saying! Have a good class, Joe C. See you later.

If you went to a secular university or college during the 1960s or before, I'm sure you can identify with this conversation. You've probably run into some "Mo Joes" before. For those of us who were undergraduates during those years, it is easy to think at first that on university campuses today little has changed about basic outlooks on life and the world. But a closer look at academia and, more broadly, at popular culture shows that there has been a major shift in the way many people see the world. That different approach is the postmodern point of view, and our second imaginary conversation illustrates it.

(Continues…)

---

Excerpted from "Can You Believe It's True?"
by .
Copyright © 2013 John S. Feinberg.
Excerpted by permission of Good News Publishers.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.

---

Table of Contents

Preface,
Part One The Question of Truth,
1 Introduction,
2 Modernity and Postmodernity,
3 Answers to Postmodern Skepticism (I),
4 Answers to Postmodern Skepticism (II): Objectivity, Subjectivity, and Apologetics,
5 Answers to Modern Skepticism (I),
6 Answers to Modern Skepticism (II): Doubt and Certainty,
Part Two Ways of Defending Christian Truth,
7 Reformed Epistemology,
8 Presuppositionalism,
9 Christian Evidentialism,
Part Three Methodology Illustrated — Some Christian Evidences,
10 The Problem of Evil,
11 The Reliability of the Gospels,
12 The Resurrection of Jesus Christ,
13 Religious Pluralism,
Notes,

What People are Saying About This

From the Publisher

“Many Christians are unprepared to answer the postmodern notion that truth is unknowable and hence ultimately unimportant. That premise refutes itself, of course, but for those already steeped in existential and postmodern ways of thinking, self-defeating propositions are standard fare, and even the simplest truths can seem elusive. Persuading those who love darkness and revel in contradiction can be quite a challenge. Dr. John Feinberg is uniquely qualified to untangle the knots of modern and postmodern thought, pointing us to a better way of understanding truth in the clear light of Scripture. This is an extremely helpful study.”
—John MacArthur, Pastor, Grace Community Church, Sun Valley, California; President, The Master's University and Seminary

“John Feinberg meets the challenge of modern skepticism head on, with the full confidence that Christianity is rational and defensible in the marketplace of ideas. Your mind will be stretched and your faith strengthened when you read this book.”
—Erwin W. Lutzer, Senior Pastor, The Moody Church, Chicago, Illinois

“Dr. Feinberg, a well-respected philosopher and theologian, has written a rigorous and learned work. The first two sections give a careful prolegomena to apologetics, emphasizing epistemology and apologetic method—subjects that are all too often ignored or glossed over in works on apologetics. He then applies his apologetic method to some of the most important questions in apologetics. The attentive reader will be richly rewarded.”
—Douglas Groothius, Professor of Philosophy, Denver Seminary; author, Christian Apologetics

“John Feinberg’s book is an insightful, thoughtful, and thorough analysis of the modern and postmodern mindsets and a guide on how to engage them. In addition to astute treatments of traditional apologetical themes, such as the Gospels’ reliability and religious pluralism, this volume incisively engages skepticism, truth, and knowledge quite unlike the standard texts in apologetics. Carefully-argued, yet quite readable, Feinberg’s book has much to offer the expert, the novice, and those in between.”
—Paul Copan, Pledger Family Chair of Philosophy and Ethics, Palm Beach Atlantic University

“John Feinberg is one of today’s most accomplished Christian scholars. Having written on ethics, the doctrine of God, and the problem of evil, he here turns his attention to apologetics in a modern and postmodern world. Can You Believe It’s True? manages to make a large and complex body of material accessible. In Feinberg’s rendering, truth is neither irrational nor strictly modern (foundational), but biblical. Both theoretically solid and ultimately practical, this book will contribute enormously to showing how Christian faith is reasonable, credible, and pertinent to our confused world."
—William Edgar, Professor of Apologetics, Westminster Theological Seminary

“John Feinberg is one of the most perceptive Christian thinkers of our time. In Can You Believe It’s True? he affords an accessible and helpful guide for pastors, ministerial students, and laypersons about how to articulate the truth of Christianity effectively in our postmodern era.”
—Steve Lemke, Provost and Professor of Philosophy and Ethics, New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary; Director of the Baptist Center for Theology and Ministry; editor, Journal for Baptist Theology and Ministry

“Having provided detailed analyses and assessments of modernist and postmodernist assumptions, Professor Feinberg offers a sympathetic critique of Reformed Epistemology (Plantinga) and presuppositionalism (Van Til), noting virtues and limitations. He follows this with a presentation and defense of his own evidentialism, including sample applications. This is a major contribution to current discussion as to the best approach to Christian apologetics.”
—Keith E. Yandell, Julius R. Weinberg Professor of Philosophy, Emeritus, University of Wisconsin Madison

“This volume by John Feinberg presents a more extensive range of subjects than many apologetics textbooks. Beginning with truth and the modern-postmodern debate, Feinberg wades into waters that are explored too seldom in this context but that perhaps include the most gems. Other topics include a detailed investigation of apologetic methodologies, along with specific issues such as the problem of evil, the reliability of the New Testament text, Jesus’s resurrection, and pluralism and tolerance. Each is discussed with understanding and insight. While this is the thorough treatment one would expect from Feinberg, its accessible and relaxed tone gives it a sense of a conversation throughout. I recommend this enjoyable text that can be used at more than one level, depending on the student’s needs."
—Gary R. Habermas, Distinguished Research Professor and Chair, Department of Philosophy, Liberty University