Norman Geisler's Christian Apologetics: Thoughts?

[KrazyKaiju]

This thread is mainly for anyone who has read Norman Geisler’s Christian Apologetics.

I read the book a few months, ago, and I have mixed feelings about it. Not because of its approach to strictly Christian material (like biblical interpretation and such) but because of its take on other worldviews (skepticism, rationalism, etc.).

Geisler’s approach seems rather…simplistic. His main mode of refutation is to first say that a worldview is “self-defeating” and then say that a weaker version of it is “special pleading.” Hopefully, people who have read the book know what I’m talking about.

Does Geisler’s approach seem overly simplistic? Or does it hit the mark? If anyone needs clarifications, I’ll be happy to open up the book and explain.

 

[bolsheviks]

I read Geisler’s I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist a few years ago.

From what you said, I can tell he must have used the same arguments. (I remember he recalled a story where, as a philosophy student, he claimed to have defeated his teacher’s philosophy, logical positivism, with one sentence.) His arguments were mainly about showing a contradiction in someone’s philosophy and then assuming the entire philosophy is faulty. I don’t think it’s that simple. The first few chapters were pro-creationist, too.

His defense of scriptural authenticity was very thorough and reasonable. The Catholic side in my family is the type who would insist that Catholicism is purely faith. I disagree, and Geisler’s argument for scripture is one of the best examples.

 

[spockrates]

… Does Geisler’s approach seem overly simplistic? Or does it hit the mark? If anyone needs clarifications, I’ll be happy to open up the book and explain.

Yes, please explain by way of an example from the book.

 

[spockrates]

Guess I was crazy to think Krazy would respond!

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Guess I was crazy to think Krazy would respond!

This book let me down big time; As soon as he started challenging evolution, i put down the book. There is nothing wrong with bible criticism when it is done right. Its a shame because he actually made a good case for Jesus. Then he ruined it.

 

[KrazyKaiju]

Guess I was crazy to think Krazy would respond!

Sorry, this semester has been extremely busy. I haven’t been able to pick up the book to refresh my memory on the passages I’m thinking about.

I intend to get back to this when the semester is over.

So it’ll be a while.

 

[jeremyharmsen]

This book let me down big time; As soon as he started challenging evolution, i put down the book. There is nothing wrong with bible criticism when it is done right. Its a shame because he actually made a good case for Jesus. Then he ruined it.

Why did Geisler let you down by challenging evolution? Were his arguments lacking, or are you close-minded about evolution?

 

[Fireblade]

I have read several of Geisler’s books. I think they are great especially in the scope of deductive arguments around scripture. His best material though is the 4 vol set on Systematic Theology.

For example, Geisler proof for the existence of God:

1. Something exists (e.g., I do)
2. I am a contingent being
3. Nothing cannot cause something
4. Only a Necessary Being can cause a contingent being
5. Therefore, I am caused to exist by a Necessary Being
6. But I am a personal, rational, and moral kind of being (since I engage in these kinds of activities).
7. Therefore, this Necessary Being must be a personal, rational, and moral kind of being, since I am similar to him by the Principle of Analogy
8. But a Necessary Being cannot be contingent (i.e., not-necessary) in its being which would be a contradiction
9. Therefore, this Necessary Being is personal, rational, and moral in a necessary way, not in a contingent way.
10. This Necessary Being is also eternal, uncaused, unchanging, unlimited, and one, since a Necessary Being cannot come to be, be caused by another, undergo change, be limited by any possibility of what it could be (a Necessary Being has no possibility to be other than it is), or to be more than one Being (since there cannot be two infinite beings).
11. Therefore, one necessary, eternal, uncaused, unlimited (= infinite), rational, personal, and moral being exists.
12. Such a Being is appropriately called “God” in the theistic sense, because he possesses all the essential characteristics of a theistic God.
13. Therefore, the theistic God exists.

This is an excellent proof based upon a Necessary being. However, Geisler’s strength is his knowledge of scripture. Just read The Big Book of Bible Difficulties and you will see what I mean.

I have read all of these books and have nothing but positive views about these.

• Systematic Theology I
• Systematic Theology 2
• Systematic Theology 3
• Systematic Theology 4
• Come Let us Reason
• Apologetics
• Introduction to Philosophy
• The Big Book of Bible Difficulties
• Roman Catholics & Evangelicals
• When Skeptics Ask

If you prefer a more hardcore Natural Theology approach to Apologetics then William Lane Craig is the man. I strongly recommend the following:

• On Guard
• Reasonable Faith
• God is Great, God is Good
• To Everyone an Answer
• Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview
• Natural Theology

In Craig, you will find really strong philosophical arguments on Kalam.

Why Does The Universe Exist

Leibnizian Cosmological Argument (p. 106)

Anything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.
If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
The universe exists!
Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence. (from 1, & 3)
Therefore, the explanation of the existence of the universe is God. (from 2 & 4)

Kalam Cosmological Argument

Whatever Begins to Exist Has a Cause (p. 111)
The Universe Began to Exist (p 116.)
Therefore, the Universe Has a Cause (p. 150)

He is very systematic in his coverage and highly technical. Here are some of Craig’s works:

Williams Lane Craig’s Proof s
5 Proofs’ for the Existence of God

God makes sense of the origin of the universe.
God makes sense of the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life.
God makes sense of objective moral values in the world.
God makes sense of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.
God can be immediately known and experienced.

The Universe Has a Beginning:

Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause.

The Intelligent Design of the World

The fine-tuning of the universe is due to physical necessity, chance, or design.
It is not due to physical necessity or chance.
Therefore, it is due to design.

The Moral Argument for God

If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
Objective moral values do exist.
Therefore, God exists.

Historical Proof of God

Beliefs which are appropriately grounded may be rationally accepted as basic beliefs not grounded on argument.
Belief that the biblical God exists is appropriately grounded.
Therefore, belief that the biblical God exists may be rationally accepted as a basic belief not grounded on argument.

Historical Evidence

There are three established facts concerning the fate of Jesus of Nazareth: the discovery of his empty tomb, his post-mortem appearances, and the origin of his disciples’ belief in his resurrection.
The hypothesis “God raised Jesus from the dead” is the best explanation of these facts.
The hypothesis “God raised Jesus from the dead” entails that the God revealed by Jesus of Nazareth exists.
Therefore, the God revealed by Jesus of Nazareth exists.
God can be immediately known and experienced.

hth

Gregory S. MacBeth

 

[Call_Me_V]

1. Something exists (e.g., I do)
2. I am a contingent being
3. Nothing cannot cause something
4. Only a Necessary Being can cause a contingent being
5. Therefore, I am caused to exist by a Necessary Being
6. But I am a personal, rational, and moral kind of being (since I engage in these kinds of activities).
7. Therefore, this Necessary Being must be a personal, rational, and moral kind of being, since I am similar to him by the Principle of Analogy
8. But a Necessary Being cannot be contingent (i.e., not-necessary) in its being which would be a contradiction
9. Therefore, this Necessary Being is personal, rational, and moral in a necessary way, not in a contingent way.
10. This Necessary Being is also eternal, uncaused, unchanging, unlimited, and one, since a Necessary Being cannot come to be, be caused by another, undergo change, be limited by any possibility of what it could be (a Necessary Being has no possibility to be other than it is), or to be more than one Being (since there cannot be two infinite beings).
11. Therefore, one necessary, eternal, uncaused, unlimited (= infinite), rational, personal, and moral being exists.
12. Such a Being is appropriately called “God” in the theistic sense, because he possesses all the essential characteristics of a theistic God.
13. Therefore, the theistic God exists.

I have issues with premises 3, 4, 7, and 10, the criticism being the same in all of them, they’re not backed up by anything (though I realize that you weren’t trying to here)

Leibnizian Cosmological Argument (p. 106)

Anything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.
If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
The universe exists!
Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence. (from 1, & 3)
Therefore, the explanation of the existence of the universe is God. (from 2 & 4)

My problem is with the part I bolded. Why would it have to be God? Why would the Flying Spaghetti Monster not work as well?

The Universe Has a Beginning:

Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause.

There are mechanisms within quantum physics that would allow the Universe to emerge, uncaused, from nothing. I know that it sounds counter intuitive, but almost all of the quantum physics that I’ve read are counter intuitive. I probably shouldn’t be bringing this up yet since I’m only just now beginning to learn more about this theory, but just keep in mind that there are legitimate theories as to where the Universe came from that do not invoke God.

The Intelligent Design of the World

The fine-tuning of the universe is due to physical necessity, chance, or design.
It is not due to physical necessity or chance.
Therefore, it is due to design.

In reference to the bolded part… why not?

The Moral Argument for God

If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
Objective moral values do exist.
Therefore, God exists.

How do we know that objective moral values exist?

Historical Proof of God

Beliefs which are appropriately grounded may be rationally accepted as basic beliefs not grounded on argument.
Belief that the biblical God exists is appropriately grounded.
Therefore, belief that the biblical God exists may be rationally accepted as a basic belief not grounded on argument.

Again, my issue is with the bolded part… why? What are his criteria for what is “appropriately grounded”?

Historical Evidence

There are three established facts concerning the fate of Jesus of Nazareth: the discovery of his empty tomb, his post-mortem appearances, and the origin of his disciples’ belief in his resurrection.
The hypothesis “God raised Jesus from the dead” is the best explanation of these facts.
The hypothesis “God raised Jesus from the dead” entails that the God revealed by Jesus of Nazareth exists.
Therefore, the God revealed by Jesus of Nazareth exists.
God can be immediately known and experienced.

Why is God the best explanation for these facts?

Again, I know you weren’t trying to actually argue for any of these things. But to answer the OP, if Geisler presents any of the above arguments, then my responses above are my thoughts on them.

V

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Why did Geisler let you down by challenging evolution? Were his arguments lacking, or are you close-minded about evolution?

I just think that it is weak thinking when one thinks that one has to disprove a scientific theory in order to justify a belief. If a belief is true then you shouldn’t feel threatened by a theory, unless it challenges logic.

 

[KrazyKaiju]

Sorry I took so long to respond. Here is an example of one of Geisler’s overly-simple refutations of a theory. The following is an excerpt his chapter on agnosticism, titled “Agnosticism Is Self-Defeating”:

“Complete agnosticism is self-defeating; it reduces to the self-destructing assertion that ‘one knows enough about reality in order to affirm that nothing can be known about reality.’ This statement provides within itself all that is necessary to falsify itself. For if one knows something about reality, then he surely cannot affirm in the same breath that all of reality is unknowable. And of course if one knows nothing whatsoever about reality, then he has no basis whatsoever for making a statement about reality. It will not suffice to say that his knowledge about reality is purely and completely negative, that is, a knowledge of what reality is not. For every negative presupposes a positive; one cannot meaningfully affirm that something is not-that if he is totally devoid of a knowledge of that ‘that.’ It follows that a total agnosticism is self-defeating because it assumes some knowledge about reality in order to deny any knowledge of reality.” (21)

This, I claim, fails to capture particular nuances about agnosticism and knowledge. To see why, let’s consider knowledge, and for simplicity, let’s assume it is justified, true belief (JTB). A subject S does not know that a proposition p is true iff at least one of the following conditions holds:

1. p is not true.
2. S is not justified in believing p.
3. S does not believe p.

So when might S not know ANYTHING? In a trivial case, S does not believe anything. If it is possible for a human, dog, dolphin, or similar type of creature to have no beliefs, then that creature certainly does not know anything. Agnosticism is not self-defeating in this case.

But let’s take a more complex one that might capture what the agnostic is claiming. S does not know anything when none of his beliefs are JUSTIFIED. Roughly, S’s belief that p is justified iff his belief is appropriately hooked up to the truth in a certain way. I won’t elaborate on this definition any further; that is the job of the epistemologist. It’s possible that no one’s beliefs are “appropriately hooked up to the truth” in a way that makes them justified.

It is then possible that S does not know the proposition “S does not know anything”, yet he can still form a true belief about it. Even if S believes that “S does not know anything” and the belief is true, that does not commit S to knowing the proposition. Why? Because his belief may not be justified. He then “has no basis whatsoever for making a statement about reality” (21), but that’s okay. S need not commit himself to knowing that “S does not know p” in order to affirm it. He can simply believe this unjustified, true belief. There is a fact of the matter about whether the statement is true, and this is independent of justification. There is no contradiction.

 

[P_drum]

I agree, I respect Dr. Geisler but it’s not enough to show something is self-deafeating when it comes to living according to a certain philosophy (Example" Thomism vs. anti-realism) (But that maybe be what apologetics is anyways).

 

[dcastlen50]

I have read several of Geisler’s books. I think they are great especially in the scope of deductive arguments around scripture. His best material though is the 4 vol set on Systematic Theology.

For example, Geisler proof for the existence of God:

1. Something exists (e.g., I do)
2. I am a contingent being
3. Nothing cannot cause something
4. Only a Necessary Being can cause a contingent being
5. Therefore, I am caused to exist by a Necessary Being
6. But I am a personal, rational, and moral kind of being (since I engage in these kinds of activities).
7. Therefore, this Necessary Being must be a personal, rational, and moral kind of being, since I am similar to him by the Principle of Analogy
8. But a Necessary Being cannot be contingent (i.e., not-necessary) in its being which would be a contradiction
9. Therefore, this Necessary Being is personal, rational, and moral in a necessary way, not in a contingent way.
10. This Necessary Being is also eternal, uncaused, unchanging, unlimited, and one, since a Necessary Being cannot come to be, be caused by another, undergo change, be limited by any possibility of what it could be (a Necessary Being has no possibility to be other than it is), or to be more than one Being (since there cannot be two infinite beings).
11. Therefore, one necessary, eternal, uncaused, unlimited (= infinite), rational, personal, and moral being exists.
12. Such a Being is appropriately called “God” in the theistic sense, because he possesses all the essential characteristics of a theistic God.
13. Therefore, the theistic God exists.

This is an excellent proof based upon a Necessary being. However, Geisler’s strength is his knowledge of scripture. Just read The Big Book of Bible Difficulties and you will see what I mean.

I have read all of these books and have nothing but positive views about these.

• Systematic Theology I
• Systematic Theology 2
• Systematic Theology 3
• Systematic Theology 4
• Come Let us Reason
• Apologetics
• Introduction to Philosophy
• The Big Book of Bible Difficulties
• Roman Catholics & Evangelicals
• When Skeptics Ask

If you prefer a more hardcore Natural Theology approach to Apologetics then William Lane Craig is the man. I strongly recommend the following:

• On Guard
• Reasonable Faith
• God is Great, God is Good
• To Everyone an Answer
• Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview
• Natural Theology

In Craig, you will find really strong philosophical arguments on Kalam.

Why Does The Universe Exist

Leibnizian Cosmological Argument (p. 106)

Anything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.
If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
The universe exists!
Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence. (from 1, & 3)
Therefore, the explanation of the existence of the universe is God. (from 2 & 4)

Kalam Cosmological Argument

Whatever Begins to Exist Has a Cause (p. 111)
The Universe Began to Exist (p 116.)
Therefore, the Universe Has a Cause (p. 150)

He is very systematic in his coverage and highly technical. Here are some of Craig’s works:

Williams Lane Craig’s Proof s
5 Proofs’ for the Existence of God

God makes sense of the origin of the universe.
God makes sense of the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life.
God makes sense of objective moral values in the world.
God makes sense of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.
God can be immediately known and experienced.

The Universe Has a Beginning:

Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause.

The Intelligent Design of the World

The fine-tuning of the universe is due to physical necessity, chance, or design.
It is not due to physical necessity or chance.
Therefore, it is due to design.

The Moral Argument for God

If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
Objective moral values do exist.
Therefore, God exists.

Historical Proof of God

Beliefs which are appropriately grounded may be rationally accepted as basic beliefs not grounded on argument.
Belief that the biblical God exists is appropriately grounded.
Therefore, belief that the biblical God exists may be rationally accepted as a basic belief not grounded on argument.

Historical Evidence

There are three established facts concerning the fate of Jesus of Nazareth: the discovery of his empty tomb, his post-mortem appearances, and the origin of his disciples’ belief in his resurrection.
The hypothesis “God raised Jesus from the dead” is the best explanation of these facts.
The hypothesis “God raised Jesus from the dead” entails that the God revealed by Jesus of Nazareth exists.
Therefore, the God revealed by Jesus of Nazareth exists.
God can be immediately known and experienced.

hth

Gregory S. MacBeth

I have read many articles by these thinkers. I am particularly impressed with J.P. Moreland; I do not believe you mentioned him, his book “Scaling the Secular Wall” is powerful and his “Love the Lord Your God with all Your Mind” is a must.
I am perplexed; Os Genius (spelling), Geisler, Craig, Moreland, Koukle, Brown, Ravi Zacharia and Hugh Ross, why are they not Catholics - they are so logical and they know history…I just can not understand it.

 

[jpelham]

I have read many articles by these thinkers. I am particularly impressed with J.P. Moreland; I do not believe you mentioned him, his book “Scaling the Secular Wall” is powerful and his “Love the Lord Your God with all Your Mind” is a must.
I am perplexed; Os Genius (spelling), Geisler, Craig, Moreland, Koukle, Brown, Ravi Zacharia and Hugh Ross, why are they not Catholics - they are so logical and they know history…I just can not understand it.

That they are not Catholic is proof sufficient that, somewhere on the field of theology, they abandon logic and objectivity. Hence I urge vigilance when reading their works. Be an informed Catholic first. ‘Proofs’ of the existence of God are innocous enough. Otherwise, on the nature of the Incarnation, and on the source of the truths of Christian faith, their arguments can be valid only insofar as they address matters not fundamental, for lodged in their foundation are fundamental flaws. This is Protestant theology, by definition.

And consider too that goodness, no less than beauty, is contingent upon Truth. Intellectually sound Catholic minds, with many more centuries of reflection to build upon, have produced theological and apologetic works without such flaws, and with far more eloquence. Except for apologetic purposes that specifically call for it, why reservedly sort through what is broken when you have what is whole?

 

[dcastlen50]

And consider too that goodness, no less than beauty, is contingent upon Truth.

**
I like this very much, Adler would have loved it more; let’s see if I a layman understand it. Goodness is contingent on Truth. Beauty is contingent on Truth. Both Goodness and Beauty are not able to exist without Truth. Intuitly I believe this. On another thread or writing I would love to “see” you expand on it.
I would expect you to define Goodness, Beauty and Truth. Then from there, (what is it called the type of definition that defines a things cause of existance?) the cause of the existance of Beauty and Goodness. Tell me where to go (pray, not that same place my prospects tell me to go) **

 

[MindOverMatter2]

jpelham;6894902:

And consider too that goodness, no less than beauty, is contingent upon Truth.

**
I like this very much, Adler would have loved it more; let’s see if I a layman understand it. Goodness is contingent on Truth. Beauty is contingent on Truth. Both Goodness and Beauty are not able to exist without Truth. Intuitly I believe this. On another thread or writing I would love to “see” you expand on it.
I would expect you to define Goodness, Beauty and Truth. Then from there, (what is it called the type of definition that defines a things cause of existance?) the cause of the existance of Beauty and Goodness. Tell me where to go (pray, not that same place my prospects tell me to go) **

Metaphysically speaking, the ultimate truth, which is subsistent being, is “Goodness”. Thus there is truth only because there is that which is true; and that is goodness. Goodness is truth. Both concepts are equally contingent upon one another in order to be real and meaningful.

 

[dcastlen50]

dcastlen50;6895028:

Metaphysically speaking, the ultimate truth, which is subsistent being, is “Goodness”. Thus there is truth only because there is that which is true; and that is goodness. Goodness is truth. Both concepts are equally contingent upon one another in order to be real and meaningful.

---

Now, MindOverMatter2, would my friend Fred down at the gas station understand this? Can you put this in terms that he and I (will at least he) would understand?****

 

[jpelham]

I like this very much, Adler would have loved it more; let’s see if I a layman understand it. Goodness is contingent on Truth. Beauty is contingent on Truth. Both Goodness and Beauty are not able to exist without Truth. Intuitly I believe this…

I think you had ‘Os Guinness’ in mind further above. I gently urge you to give more attention to Catholic theology, and be guided in this by your intuitive belief.

 

[cpayne]

Dear “Call Me V”:

You wrote, “My problem is with the part I bolded. Why would it have to be God? Why would the Flying Spaghetti Monster not work as well?”

Any perfect and unchanging Being would possess neither extension in space nor in time. Since the FSM presumably flies (through space) and is physically constructed (of spaghetti), the FSM could not qualify as a perfect and unchanging Being–could not, in other words, be God.

Of course, if you respond, “Well, the FSM is non-physical, has no extension, is perfect, is unchanging, and so on”–well, in that case you are simply talking about God, but with a silly name. I presume the name is used for the sake of ridicule.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

MindOverMatter2;6895062:

---

Now, MindOverMatter2, would my friend Fred down at the gas station understand this? Can you put this in terms that he and I (will at least he) would understand?****

I sympathise, for I was once frustrated to the point of tears not being able to understand what Thomas Aquinas was saying; and yet his summa theologica was made for beginners!!! Its very difficult for me to be simple about the truth.

Being/reality/existence, is the ground of truth. Without existence, there is no such thing as truth; for there is no truth in absolutely nothing. Which means absolutely nothing can never be a truth. Therefore existence is what makes truth meaningful. Similarly, where there is no absolute truth, there is no absolute being. They are not two separate things relating to one another. They are one and the same thing. To speak about truth is to speak about existence; and to speak about existence is to speak about the truth.

The necessity of the two concepts makes them dependent upon the existence of one another; for they are the same.