1 00:00:01,760 --> 00:00:06,120 Speaker 1: Hello, and welcome to the Apologetics three fifteen podcast with 2 00:00:06,200 --> 00:00:10,199 your hosts Brian Auten and Chad Gross. Join us for 3 00:00:10,320 --> 00:00:14,800 conversations and interviews on the topics of apologetics, evangelism, and 4 00:00:14,880 --> 00:00:24,480 the Christian worldview. Ollive meh, it makes perfect sense. Well, 5 00:00:24,559 --> 00:00:29,640 it's groundhog Day again. Welcome to the podcast. I say 6 00:00:29,640 --> 00:00:32,479 that because we tried to record yesterday and it was 7 00:00:32,520 --> 00:00:35,399 an hour and a half of not recording. Here. We 8 00:00:35,439 --> 00:00:38,520 are here, we are we welcome you to the podcast. 9 00:00:39,039 --> 00:00:41,880 I'm Brian Auten and I'm Chad Gross. This is a 10 00:00:41,920 --> 00:00:47,399 podcast where we talk about apologetic stuff. We interview apologists, authors, thinkers, 11 00:00:47,960 --> 00:00:52,000 all surrounding the idea of is Christianity true? In defending 12 00:00:52,039 --> 00:00:56,320 the faith and looking and exploring issues pertinent to the 13 00:00:56,359 --> 00:01:00,000 culture we're living in. So today we're doing a book review. 14 00:01:00,280 --> 00:01:02,479 If you were listening. A couple of weeks ago, we 15 00:01:03,039 --> 00:01:07,400 talked about this book and Chad suggested it. It's called 16 00:01:08,079 --> 00:01:12,000 Rational Faith, A Philosopher's Defense of Christianity. And as I 17 00:01:12,159 --> 00:01:14,359 stare at the name to get it right, Stephen T. 18 00:01:14,599 --> 00:01:18,359 Davis with a pH ched, how you doing today, man. 19 00:01:18,680 --> 00:01:21,400 Speaker 2: I'm doing well. I'm looking forward to discussing this book. 20 00:01:21,439 --> 00:01:24,439 As you know, it's one of my favorites. It's a 21 00:01:24,439 --> 00:01:28,439 little gem that I got years ago from IVP inter 22 00:01:28,560 --> 00:01:32,719 Varsity Press. I didn't request it, actually, and it just 23 00:01:32,799 --> 00:01:34,599 kind of showed up in my mail and it was 24 00:01:34,640 --> 00:01:38,000 on my shelf for a while. And it's a short book, 25 00:01:38,200 --> 00:01:41,359 and so I picked it up one day and man, 26 00:01:41,760 --> 00:01:43,959 I couldn't put it down. And I'm going to talk 27 00:01:44,000 --> 00:01:46,439 about when we get going here, I'm going to talk 28 00:01:46,439 --> 00:01:48,799 about some of the reasons I love the book so much. 29 00:01:49,359 --> 00:01:51,959 Speaker 1: Yeah, So when we say a short book, we're talking 30 00:01:52,040 --> 00:01:56,079 one hundred and seventy four pages, pretty standard print size, 31 00:01:56,640 --> 00:02:00,439 pretty standard hold it in your hands size. And how 32 00:02:00,439 --> 00:02:03,319 would you describe the book, jed Well, I think the 33 00:02:03,359 --> 00:02:05,239 best way to describe it would just be to talk 34 00:02:05,280 --> 00:02:08,439 about what I love about it. What I love about 35 00:02:08,479 --> 00:02:11,240 it is that a lot of times, especially when you 36 00:02:11,280 --> 00:02:15,240 have a podcast like this one, or you just read 37 00:02:15,280 --> 00:02:18,479 a lot of apologetics work, it just seems like you 38 00:02:18,599 --> 00:02:23,199 begin to come across the same arguments and regurgitated in 39 00:02:23,199 --> 00:02:26,439 a different form, and you feel like sometimes you're reading 40 00:02:26,479 --> 00:02:29,400 some of the same you're almost reading the same book 41 00:02:29,400 --> 00:02:32,159 over and over again in a sense. And one of 42 00:02:32,199 --> 00:02:34,879 the things I love about this book is that it gives, 43 00:02:34,919 --> 00:02:39,360 as the subtitle says, a defense of Christianity, but it 44 00:02:39,360 --> 00:02:41,199 does so in a way where it deals with some 45 00:02:41,280 --> 00:02:45,319 of the more prominent thinkers in the skeptical community. He also, 46 00:02:46,000 --> 00:02:49,879 Stephen Davis, does so with some original thinking and some 47 00:02:50,080 --> 00:02:53,879 original arguments, and you can tell as you're reading the 48 00:02:53,919 --> 00:02:57,240 book it's like thinking along with him. And I found 49 00:02:57,280 --> 00:02:58,599 that really refreshing. 50 00:02:59,319 --> 00:03:02,319 Speaker 2: And I just like the fact that he kind of 51 00:03:02,439 --> 00:03:05,520 argues a case for Christianity and then he takes on 52 00:03:05,639 --> 00:03:09,680 a couple of the more substantial challenges to Christianity and 53 00:03:09,719 --> 00:03:11,960 he does so and what I think is a very 54 00:03:11,960 --> 00:03:14,879 thoughtful way, in a very in a way that is 55 00:03:15,400 --> 00:03:18,719 unique to him, and again not something you hear repeat 56 00:03:18,719 --> 00:03:19,159 it often. 57 00:03:20,479 --> 00:03:24,919 Speaker 1: So, yeah, Philosopher's defensive Christianity. And that's really what makes 58 00:03:24,919 --> 00:03:27,400 it a little bit different for me reading it now. 59 00:03:28,120 --> 00:03:32,319 So the reader or the listener who is the potential reader. 60 00:03:33,759 --> 00:03:36,080 Here are nine chapters. Is there any such thing as 61 00:03:36,120 --> 00:03:39,360 objective truth? Good start? Kind of like the Turk style thing, 62 00:03:40,120 --> 00:03:40,719 you know what I mean. 63 00:03:41,080 --> 00:03:43,360 Speaker 2: I actually it's funny you said that, because I actually 64 00:03:43,400 --> 00:03:46,479 want to talk about the title of the book. And 65 00:03:46,639 --> 00:03:49,400 I'm going to use Frank Turk as a comparison, So 66 00:03:49,439 --> 00:03:50,840 it's funny that you brought him up. 67 00:03:51,039 --> 00:03:55,240 Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, Number two, why believe in God? So you know, 68 00:03:55,960 --> 00:03:58,800 that's reminiscent in my mind of like William Lane Greig. 69 00:03:58,879 --> 00:04:01,319 You know where he will before he goes into the arguments, 70 00:04:01,319 --> 00:04:04,240 he's talking about the relevance of it. Number three is 71 00:04:04,280 --> 00:04:08,080 the Bible's picture of Jesus reliable? Number four? Was Jesus 72 00:04:08,199 --> 00:04:12,159 raised from the dead? Number five does evolution disprove Christianity? 73 00:04:12,400 --> 00:04:16,480 Number six can cognitive science explain religion? Number seven is 74 00:04:16,560 --> 00:04:20,240 Christianity unique? Number eight do evil and suffering show that 75 00:04:20,319 --> 00:04:23,160 God does not exist? And number nine can we be 76 00:04:23,279 --> 00:04:29,000 happy apart from God? Yeah? So fairly good broad structure 77 00:04:29,079 --> 00:04:31,680 of the book. But man, he covers so much ground 78 00:04:31,759 --> 00:04:35,040 in such a short amount of time. And as you say, 79 00:04:35,279 --> 00:04:38,600 the thing that's enjoyable about it, if you like that 80 00:04:38,680 --> 00:04:42,519 sort of thing, is that he takes you along his 81 00:04:42,800 --> 00:04:46,199 chain of thinking. He's and one of the things is 82 00:04:46,279 --> 00:04:49,079 that he's not trying to prove Christianity is true, but 83 00:04:49,120 --> 00:04:52,800 to show it's rational and intellectually defensible. So that's a 84 00:04:52,839 --> 00:04:55,600 way different thing. Whereas if you were trying to prove 85 00:04:55,600 --> 00:04:58,639 it true, you would try to be just laying out 86 00:04:58,639 --> 00:05:01,600 all these arguments and making a hard cumulative or like 87 00:05:01,639 --> 00:05:04,839 a strong cumulative case, whereas in this case, in this 88 00:05:05,240 --> 00:05:08,040 he's like, well, here, here's sort of like the the 89 00:05:08,120 --> 00:05:12,439 overall logic of why you'd think it's true, and here's 90 00:05:12,480 --> 00:05:15,800 the chain of thought and all the various arguments that 91 00:05:15,879 --> 00:05:19,439 come along for the ride to get you there. But 92 00:05:19,519 --> 00:05:23,160 he's not like making a sales pitch or a hard 93 00:05:23,199 --> 00:05:25,399 case where it's like, Okay, now that I've proven this, 94 00:05:25,680 --> 00:05:27,639 now we can use another building block, and I'm going 95 00:05:27,720 --> 00:05:29,680 to give you this. It doesn't do that, And so 96 00:05:29,759 --> 00:05:32,639 that's refreshing because you can you can kind of read it, 97 00:05:32,839 --> 00:05:35,720 read through it without being like, well, I don't know 98 00:05:35,759 --> 00:05:38,319 if I accept that, because he's not trying to make 99 00:05:38,360 --> 00:05:39,000 you accept that. 100 00:05:40,920 --> 00:05:43,240 Speaker 2: Yeah. One of the things that I love about this 101 00:05:43,279 --> 00:05:47,720 book is I think it's a great example of humble apologetics. 102 00:05:48,279 --> 00:05:50,680 And you're touching on why I think that, and what 103 00:05:50,720 --> 00:05:54,480 I mean by that is, and you've you've brought up 104 00:05:54,480 --> 00:05:56,680 Frank Turik, who you know, we've had on the podcast, 105 00:05:56,720 --> 00:06:00,199 and I definitely have benefited from his work and and 106 00:06:00,920 --> 00:06:03,879 enjoy his stuff. But the difference between this book and 107 00:06:04,279 --> 00:06:06,639 Turk is, like you said, in this book, his goal 108 00:06:06,800 --> 00:06:10,920 is to just demonstrate that it is rational to believe, 109 00:06:11,000 --> 00:06:15,120 that Christianity is rational. It's almost like if you're going 110 00:06:15,199 --> 00:06:18,800 to believe or if you're going to disbelieve, he's just 111 00:06:18,839 --> 00:06:23,319 trying to remove that stumbling block of it, well it's irrational, right. 112 00:06:23,680 --> 00:06:27,600 He's trying to give people permission to look into this 113 00:06:27,800 --> 00:06:31,399 and to believe and to show whereas sometimes when you're reading, 114 00:06:31,439 --> 00:06:33,639 for example, I don't have enough faith to be an atheist, 115 00:06:34,120 --> 00:06:38,079 it's almost like there's this there's this feeling of this 116 00:06:38,519 --> 00:06:42,720 is the most rational view, and sometimes it even and 117 00:06:42,800 --> 00:06:45,800 again I benefit from doctor Turk's work, but sometimes it 118 00:06:45,839 --> 00:06:49,360 can even smack of like you're crazy not to believe this. 119 00:06:49,480 --> 00:06:52,800 It's almost there's a difference between I feel like Turk 120 00:06:52,839 --> 00:06:56,560 and Geisler in that book are attempting to compel someone 121 00:06:56,639 --> 00:07:00,680 to believe, whereas Davis is just trying to say, hey, 122 00:07:00,959 --> 00:07:03,199 this is rational, you know, check it out. 123 00:07:03,879 --> 00:07:06,959 Speaker 1: Mm hmmm, yeah yeah, And and and then I don't 124 00:07:07,000 --> 00:07:08,680 have enough to faith to be an atheist. They're they're 125 00:07:08,720 --> 00:07:12,360 basically even with the title saying you know, it's not 126 00:07:12,519 --> 00:07:15,959 rational or you know it requires it's not rational to 127 00:07:16,079 --> 00:07:18,519 have to not believe. It's sort of like saying you 128 00:07:18,600 --> 00:07:20,879 need more faith to be an atheist. They say that throughout. 129 00:07:21,279 --> 00:07:25,319 Uh yeah, and so I appreciate that. I I it 130 00:07:25,399 --> 00:07:27,959 was one of my favorite books, first books I read. 131 00:07:28,000 --> 00:07:31,000 You know, look, I look back in that I think Geisler, 132 00:07:31,959 --> 00:07:34,480 to my mind, is is a little too much of 133 00:07:34,480 --> 00:07:39,759 a here's the proof, accept it or not. Yeah, and 134 00:07:39,800 --> 00:07:42,199 it's just too hard, too hard of a sales. It's 135 00:07:42,199 --> 00:07:48,560 a little American for me in the sense of like, yeah, 136 00:07:48,560 --> 00:07:50,600 we're the we're the best, this is the best argument. 137 00:07:50,639 --> 00:07:53,800 This is you know, and rational faith. As you say, 138 00:07:53,839 --> 00:07:56,120 it's a little bit more of a humble approach. Now. 139 00:07:56,199 --> 00:07:57,920 I know we're going to talk about various things, but 140 00:07:58,480 --> 00:08:01,920 one thing that I think demonstrate that and you mentioned 141 00:08:01,959 --> 00:08:04,279 it when we were introducing the book a few weeks ago, 142 00:08:05,240 --> 00:08:10,879 a few episodes ago, I should say, you said people 143 00:08:10,959 --> 00:08:13,920 might disagree with certain conclusions. One one is this chapter 144 00:08:14,160 --> 00:08:18,879 on evolution. Now, so now this is not where we're 145 00:08:18,879 --> 00:08:21,600 going to sit on this book at all. Listeners in 146 00:08:21,639 --> 00:08:24,399 the case you're thinking, but he just says, well, you know, 147 00:08:25,040 --> 00:08:29,040 my view is I think the theistic evolution is true. 148 00:08:31,079 --> 00:08:34,519 But I don't read that and get all defensive. The 149 00:08:34,559 --> 00:08:38,360 way he writes it is like, well, here's my rationale 150 00:08:38,480 --> 00:08:43,919 behind that. And I actually like the fact that that's 151 00:08:43,960 --> 00:08:47,879 his view, because if you are trying to remove obstacles 152 00:08:49,080 --> 00:08:53,120 for the unbeliever, then you can say, like, here this 153 00:08:53,360 --> 00:08:57,960 philosopher who you know, Christians might disagree with this conclusion, 154 00:08:58,320 --> 00:09:02,279 but you know the is not. Oh, the only way 155 00:09:02,320 --> 00:09:04,799 you could be a Christian and accept the Bible is 156 00:09:04,840 --> 00:09:09,159 if you jettison evolution because it sabotages the entire thing 157 00:09:09,200 --> 00:09:12,519 from the ground up, you know. So I kind of 158 00:09:12,600 --> 00:09:14,519 like the fact that if you were giving this to 159 00:09:15,159 --> 00:09:18,039 a non believer, it would be way better for them 160 00:09:18,399 --> 00:09:22,440 than to say, oh, well, I'm a six day creationist. 161 00:09:23,240 --> 00:09:26,000 You know, it's going to lose some credibility in their mind, 162 00:09:26,159 --> 00:09:29,440 you know, most non believers, because of course they're not thinking. 163 00:09:29,840 --> 00:09:32,200 I mean, there's no atheist who's a six day creationists. 164 00:09:32,200 --> 00:09:35,279 At the same time, they have to be an evolutionist. 165 00:09:35,320 --> 00:09:39,159 So if you're lowering the bar to just say, hey, 166 00:09:39,399 --> 00:09:42,639 this is still rational and this is not a central 167 00:09:42,679 --> 00:09:44,120 tenet of faith. 168 00:09:44,600 --> 00:09:48,600 Speaker 2: No, it's really funny you've talked about, you know, the 169 00:09:49,679 --> 00:09:53,120 title rational Faith, and how that's Davis's project here is 170 00:09:53,159 --> 00:09:55,759 to just show that Christianity's rational. That was one of 171 00:09:55,759 --> 00:09:57,639 the things I had in my notes. One of the 172 00:09:57,639 --> 00:09:59,679 other things I had in my notes is very much 173 00:09:59,759 --> 00:10:02,279 like what you just said. So it's really funny how 174 00:10:02,320 --> 00:10:06,039 it's like you're reading a mail. So yeah, in that 175 00:10:06,159 --> 00:10:10,960 chapter where he you know, defends theistic evolution, it's a 176 00:10:11,000 --> 00:10:13,159 great example of what I'm talking about though, of that 177 00:10:13,279 --> 00:10:16,240 humble apologetic If you think back to that chapter, he 178 00:10:16,360 --> 00:10:22,200 lays out Young Earth creationism, Old Earth creationism, ID. He 179 00:10:22,240 --> 00:10:27,240 doesn't besmirch them if you will, or attack them or anything. 180 00:10:27,279 --> 00:10:29,480 He lays them out his views and then says here's 181 00:10:29,519 --> 00:10:32,639 where I come down, right. And so again it's just 182 00:10:32,759 --> 00:10:34,960 him saying this is how I make sense of this, 183 00:10:35,120 --> 00:10:38,159 But he doesn't make it a central issue or an 184 00:10:38,200 --> 00:10:41,360 issue that you know, will make or break whether or 185 00:10:41,360 --> 00:10:44,320 not you accept Christianity. And I very much agree with you. 186 00:10:44,360 --> 00:10:47,480 I remember once I was at Panera having a conversation 187 00:10:47,559 --> 00:10:50,960 with an atheist and he was very much putting a 188 00:10:51,000 --> 00:10:54,440 lot of stock, if you will, in evolution, and I 189 00:10:54,519 --> 00:10:58,399 remember I said to him look, i'll give you evolution. 190 00:10:59,200 --> 00:11:02,240 I'll give it to you. You can have evolution, I said, 191 00:11:02,519 --> 00:11:05,039 you still need to explain the origin of the universe, 192 00:11:05,120 --> 00:11:08,279 the fine tuning of the universe, objective moral truths, the 193 00:11:08,399 --> 00:11:12,679 historical evidence for Jesus's resurrection. Evolution doesn't touch any of that, 194 00:11:13,200 --> 00:11:16,200 I said, So even if I give you biological evolution, 195 00:11:16,759 --> 00:11:19,759 it really doesn't get you very far. And so I 196 00:11:19,879 --> 00:11:23,399 see this kind of like what you're saying is, even 197 00:11:23,440 --> 00:11:26,440 if you don't necessarily agree with theistic evolution, you could 198 00:11:26,480 --> 00:11:28,720 put this in the hands of somebody and this would 199 00:11:28,720 --> 00:11:31,159 at least lay out the views for them and help 200 00:11:31,200 --> 00:11:34,240 them to see that. Oh okay, I don't have to 201 00:11:34,279 --> 00:11:37,080 come down hard on one of these views in order 202 00:11:37,120 --> 00:11:41,519 to be a Christian or to conclude that Christianity is rational. 203 00:11:42,399 --> 00:11:46,519 Speaker 1: Yeah. Good point for anybody who's wondering, Well, where's Stephen T. 204 00:11:46,759 --> 00:11:50,080 Davis from? He was, He was a Christian philosopher, but 205 00:11:50,159 --> 00:11:54,679 he was at Claremont McKenna College, So yeah, maybe, as 206 00:11:54,679 --> 00:11:56,399 you said, he's now retired. 207 00:11:56,679 --> 00:12:00,320 Speaker 2: Yes, And last year I reached out to him via 208 00:12:00,360 --> 00:12:03,320 email and asked him to come on the podcast to 209 00:12:03,360 --> 00:12:06,320 talk about this book, and he wrote back and thank 210 00:12:06,399 --> 00:12:09,279 me very much for my positive comments about the book. 211 00:12:09,320 --> 00:12:11,919 But he said, I am retired and I don't do 212 00:12:12,080 --> 00:12:15,039 that kind of thing anymore. And I told my wife 213 00:12:15,080 --> 00:12:16,919 that it was the first time since we've been doing 214 00:12:16,960 --> 00:12:20,759 the podcast that I genuinely like, remember getting the email, 215 00:12:20,879 --> 00:12:23,080 My heart just sunk a little bit because I wanted 216 00:12:23,080 --> 00:12:24,279 to talk to him so bad. 217 00:12:24,440 --> 00:12:27,639 Speaker 1: Oh yeah, you probably saw that it arrived and you're like, yeah, 218 00:12:27,879 --> 00:12:28,840 well yeah, no. 219 00:12:29,399 --> 00:12:32,679 Speaker 2: Yes, but I totally respect that and totally get it. 220 00:12:32,720 --> 00:12:35,919 But you know, just selfishly, I really wanted to chat 221 00:12:35,919 --> 00:12:38,559 with him and pick his brain about some things and 222 00:12:38,600 --> 00:12:40,559 just let him know how highly I thought of the book. 223 00:12:40,879 --> 00:12:45,519 Speaker 1: Yeah, very selfish. So anyway, the relationship between faith and reason, 224 00:12:45,679 --> 00:12:50,200 that's one of the sort of themes the Discus discusses, 225 00:12:50,360 --> 00:12:53,120 arguments for God's existence and then the reliability of the 226 00:12:53,159 --> 00:12:56,320 Gospels of those sorts of areas. There are there anything 227 00:12:56,360 --> 00:12:58,279 you want that pops out? Do you want to talk about? 228 00:12:58,840 --> 00:13:03,279 Speaker 2: Yeah? What I really appreciated about Davis in this book, 229 00:13:03,480 --> 00:13:08,519 and I wish more Christian thinkers would do this, is 230 00:13:08,559 --> 00:13:12,559 that he comes right out and says, before he's giving 231 00:13:12,600 --> 00:13:16,480 a rational case right for the faith, he comes right 232 00:13:16,519 --> 00:13:19,399 out and says, hey, the number one reason I'm a 233 00:13:19,480 --> 00:13:22,919 Christian is because I was raised that way, and he 234 00:13:22,960 --> 00:13:26,080 doesn't try to hide it. He doesn't apologize for it, 235 00:13:26,879 --> 00:13:30,320 he doesn't lament it, and he doesn't feel the need 236 00:13:30,360 --> 00:13:33,960 to say, oh, you know, but that doesn't mean I 237 00:13:34,000 --> 00:13:37,240 can't have good reasons to believe or anything like that. 238 00:13:37,639 --> 00:13:41,000 He says, hey, I was raised this way. I was 239 00:13:41,120 --> 00:13:44,039 raised to believe this way. And then he moves forward 240 00:13:44,080 --> 00:13:48,279 with giving arguments and reason because he understands that he 241 00:13:48,360 --> 00:13:52,639 needs to offer you warrant for these beliefs to somebody 242 00:13:52,639 --> 00:13:55,919 who hasn't been raised that way, who hasn't had those experiences. 243 00:13:56,240 --> 00:13:57,840 But I don't know about you, but I found it 244 00:13:57,960 --> 00:13:59,960 very refreshing that he just came out of the gate. 245 00:14:00,639 --> 00:14:03,159 And one of the primary things he says when he's 246 00:14:03,200 --> 00:14:05,559 talking about the existence of God is that the number 247 00:14:05,600 --> 00:14:07,639 one reason I believe is because I was raised that way, 248 00:14:08,000 --> 00:14:09,440 and he didn't apologize for it. 249 00:14:09,879 --> 00:14:12,120 Speaker 1: Yeah. I think that's a good point, because you just 250 00:14:12,200 --> 00:14:14,279 got to be honest with people when you're talking to them, 251 00:14:14,600 --> 00:14:19,799 here's my journey. You don't need to present some like, oh, 252 00:14:19,919 --> 00:14:23,360 I never had any good reasons. But then I investigated it, 253 00:14:23,399 --> 00:14:25,720 and I came to the conclusion like nobody can be 254 00:14:25,919 --> 00:14:29,799 like Jay Warner Wallace or something where they go into 255 00:14:29,799 --> 00:14:33,559 their detective mode and then reach Christianity or least least 256 00:14:33,519 --> 00:14:36,840 strouble or something. You know. I think that the honesty 257 00:14:36,960 --> 00:14:40,399 approach in that is the key. And not to say 258 00:14:40,399 --> 00:14:42,240 that people are not going to be honest, but there 259 00:14:42,320 --> 00:14:45,639 might be the pressure to try to bolster one's case 260 00:14:45,679 --> 00:14:51,480 by appearing overly analytical and like appealing to this thing like, no, 261 00:14:51,960 --> 00:14:58,440 you have emotional reasons. You have emotional reasons, there heart reasons, 262 00:14:58,440 --> 00:15:02,080 so to speak. Heck, you could even have the journey 263 00:15:02,120 --> 00:15:05,279 where like maybe you came to faith at some hell 264 00:15:05,320 --> 00:15:07,960 fire preaching or something and you're scared of going to hell, 265 00:15:08,039 --> 00:15:10,480 and that's how you became a Christian. I don't think 266 00:15:10,519 --> 00:15:13,200 you should hide that, you know, but if you then 267 00:15:13,279 --> 00:15:16,519 later investigated and like you thought, hey, well then I 268 00:15:16,639 --> 00:15:19,159 realized that, you know, maybe is this true or not? 269 00:15:19,360 --> 00:15:23,559 Like did my experience was that just hype? I got 270 00:15:23,559 --> 00:15:25,840 to go check this out? And so I think that 271 00:15:25,919 --> 00:15:29,759 people if they hear this your full story without like 272 00:15:30,200 --> 00:15:33,120 ejecting parts that you might think, oh, that maybe they 273 00:15:33,200 --> 00:15:35,799 might not think I'm rational if I let them know. 274 00:15:35,879 --> 00:15:37,559 This not a good approach, you know. 275 00:15:38,360 --> 00:15:41,120 Speaker 2: Yeah, And I think of my own, you know, story, 276 00:15:41,159 --> 00:15:43,759 and I've shared my own story with people that you know, 277 00:15:43,840 --> 00:15:45,960 I guess I had what some people would call a 278 00:15:46,000 --> 00:15:49,600 little bit more of a dramatic conversion. And you know, 279 00:15:49,639 --> 00:15:51,960 I've had people say something like, oh, well, you know, 280 00:15:52,080 --> 00:15:55,240 I wish I had a testimony like that, and of 281 00:15:55,240 --> 00:15:58,879 course my first thought is, no, you don't trust me. 282 00:15:59,679 --> 00:16:02,120 But but secondly, I like the fact again that David 283 00:16:02,159 --> 00:16:05,360 shares this because it could allow somebody like that to think, oh, 284 00:16:05,480 --> 00:16:07,559 you know, here's here's a guy who was raised just 285 00:16:07,600 --> 00:16:10,600 like I was, and he's doing great philosophy, you know, 286 00:16:11,320 --> 00:16:15,080 And so I don't need to have that dramatic paul 287 00:16:15,840 --> 00:16:20,039 you know, kind of conversion in order to do great things. 288 00:16:21,519 --> 00:16:24,600 Speaker 1: So I want to talk about these cosmological arguments and 289 00:16:24,639 --> 00:16:25,919 such that he talks about. 290 00:16:26,279 --> 00:16:31,080 Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, So I really enjoyed the he presents kind 291 00:16:31,080 --> 00:16:35,279 of an argument from contingency. I like how he calls 292 00:16:35,320 --> 00:16:41,559 it his generic cosmological argument. I really appreciated that, and 293 00:16:42,399 --> 00:16:45,159 it was really cool just to see he basically lays 294 00:16:45,159 --> 00:16:49,120 out a couple options. He says, the world is entirely accidental, 295 00:16:49,600 --> 00:16:53,159 or just has no explanation, that's one option, or the 296 00:16:53,200 --> 00:16:56,960 world was brought into existence by some sort of creator. 297 00:16:57,519 --> 00:17:00,080 And he goes on to say that his contention is 298 00:17:00,159 --> 00:17:03,080 that this world is the sort of world we would 299 00:17:03,159 --> 00:17:09,160 expect to exist if it were created by God. And 300 00:17:10,279 --> 00:17:13,559 he believes that kind of God's central aim in creating 301 00:17:13,640 --> 00:17:16,920 human beings is that as many of them as possible 302 00:17:16,920 --> 00:17:20,240 would come to freely worship, love and obey Him. 303 00:17:20,759 --> 00:17:21,359 Speaker 1: And then he. 304 00:17:21,279 --> 00:17:25,400 Speaker 2: Goes into again an argument that Aquinas has argued for 305 00:17:25,599 --> 00:17:29,680 and Leibniz and Samuel Clark people like that, and his 306 00:17:29,880 --> 00:17:34,200 version the premises go like this, if the existence of 307 00:17:34,240 --> 00:17:39,000 the universe can be explained, then God exists. Everything can 308 00:17:39,079 --> 00:17:42,359 be explained. Talk about that in a minute. The universe 309 00:17:42,440 --> 00:17:46,640 is a thing. It's pretty uncontroversial. Therefore, the universe can 310 00:17:46,680 --> 00:17:51,720 be explained, and therefore God exists. Now. Of course, that 311 00:17:52,480 --> 00:17:56,960 idea that everything can be explained is what philosophers call 312 00:17:57,039 --> 00:18:00,759 the principle of sufficient reason. And of course that's the 313 00:18:00,839 --> 00:18:06,160 idea that everything has an explanation of his existence, either 314 00:18:06,240 --> 00:18:10,240 by an external cause or by the necessity of its 315 00:18:10,279 --> 00:18:14,920 own nature. Right, And what I was really impressed in 316 00:18:15,000 --> 00:18:20,200 the book, this is probably the best, most succinct defense 317 00:18:20,559 --> 00:18:24,559 of the PSR or the principle of sufficient reason that 318 00:18:24,960 --> 00:18:28,720 I've read. I thought it was clear. I thought it 319 00:18:28,880 --> 00:18:32,240 was in depth, and I thought that he argued very 320 00:18:32,240 --> 00:18:35,160 persuasively that that principle is indeed sound. 321 00:18:35,720 --> 00:18:40,079 Speaker 1: Yeah. And you know, although it's written by a philosopher, 322 00:18:40,680 --> 00:18:44,880 I didn't think he used overlay philosophical language. It seemed 323 00:18:45,000 --> 00:18:47,799 to be simple enough for the lay person, you know, 324 00:18:47,920 --> 00:18:50,519 without heavy jargon or anything like that. 325 00:18:51,319 --> 00:18:54,599 Speaker 2: Right, I think that's a strength honestly throughout the book. 326 00:18:55,319 --> 00:18:59,400 It is a philosopher's defense of Christianity. But he also 327 00:18:59,519 --> 00:19:02,319 states in the book that he wrote it largely for 328 00:19:02,440 --> 00:19:06,559 his students. Remember he talks about how you know, students 329 00:19:06,559 --> 00:19:10,240 were coming to him with questions and this was largely 330 00:19:10,359 --> 00:19:14,759 his attempt to show that show them that Christianity had 331 00:19:14,759 --> 00:19:18,480 a rational kind of foundation, and also to fellow faculty 332 00:19:18,480 --> 00:19:20,680 workers and people like that who were willing to look 333 00:19:20,720 --> 00:19:21,200 into it. 334 00:19:21,680 --> 00:19:25,640 Speaker 1: And back to the other theme, he's not using this 335 00:19:25,720 --> 00:19:28,880 as a proof but part of a case. He would 336 00:19:29,920 --> 00:19:34,640 anticipate a number of objections to that, like, for instance, 337 00:19:34,839 --> 00:19:37,960 if oh, the universe could be its own explanation. So 338 00:19:39,079 --> 00:19:42,160 then he says, well, that explained that contradicts the evidence, 339 00:19:42,480 --> 00:19:46,039 that contradicts law logic. The physical laws don't and matter 340 00:19:46,119 --> 00:19:49,599 alone don't have the power to cause themselves. So yeah, 341 00:19:49,599 --> 00:19:52,440 I mean, I think it's just a nice read through, 342 00:19:53,319 --> 00:19:55,640 you know, Yeah, without getting bogged down. 343 00:19:56,079 --> 00:19:58,480 Speaker 2: I just thought it was interesting. Before he kind of 344 00:19:58,519 --> 00:20:03,039 presents his cosmologic argument, he goes on to say that 345 00:20:03,079 --> 00:20:06,160 the kind of a couple purposes of arguments like this 346 00:20:06,880 --> 00:20:12,880 are number one, to show skeptics that religious belief is 347 00:20:12,920 --> 00:20:19,000 not gullible or superstitious, and it also can be useful 348 00:20:19,599 --> 00:20:24,480 in increasing the confidence of religious believers. And so I 349 00:20:24,599 --> 00:20:28,079 like that kind of two fold purpose of theistic arguments 350 00:20:28,079 --> 00:20:29,640 that he lays out, just. 351 00:20:29,559 --> 00:20:34,160 Speaker 1: Showing its rational but also like, oh, bolstering the faith 352 00:20:34,200 --> 00:20:35,119 of believers, you know. 353 00:20:35,400 --> 00:20:38,359 Speaker 2: And I think sometimes that's you know, getting away from 354 00:20:38,359 --> 00:20:41,279 the book a little bit. That's sometimes what at least 355 00:20:41,319 --> 00:20:43,440 when I speak on apologetics, a lot of times what 356 00:20:43,519 --> 00:20:45,799 happens is is that people will come up to me 357 00:20:45,880 --> 00:20:49,880 and they'll say something along the lines was, well, I 358 00:20:49,920 --> 00:20:52,839 don't need these arguments, you know. I know God exists, 359 00:20:53,119 --> 00:20:56,839 I experience him in my everyday life, And of course 360 00:20:56,920 --> 00:21:00,640 my response to that is as well, Number one, you 361 00:21:01,119 --> 00:21:04,400 are also sharing this with other people, and there might 362 00:21:04,440 --> 00:21:07,480 be other people who do need these arguments and to 363 00:21:07,599 --> 00:21:10,960 show that it's rational to give them permission to investigate 364 00:21:11,079 --> 00:21:13,240 this if you will. But then on the other hand, 365 00:21:13,680 --> 00:21:17,519 your faith might be enriched by learning these arguments because 366 00:21:17,599 --> 00:21:20,839 you realize that the confidence that you have in your 367 00:21:20,839 --> 00:21:24,079 faith is even more well founded than you knew prior. 368 00:21:25,079 --> 00:21:27,720 I know, the first time I learned the cosmological argument 369 00:21:27,720 --> 00:21:32,160 and the idea that the universe came into existence from nothing, 370 00:21:32,799 --> 00:21:35,799 the idea that this all powerful being was able to 371 00:21:35,839 --> 00:21:38,119 create out of nothing. I mean, it definitely was a 372 00:21:38,160 --> 00:21:42,599 worshipful kind of aha for me that I otherwise wouldn't 373 00:21:42,640 --> 00:21:45,119 have had if I wouldn't have been reflecting on these 374 00:21:45,160 --> 00:21:46,039 types of arguments. 375 00:21:46,359 --> 00:21:50,039 Speaker 1: Yeah, I think of the things within there when you're 376 00:21:50,039 --> 00:21:52,720 talking about the principle of sufficient reason, that's one of 377 00:21:52,720 --> 00:21:55,960 my fabs. I think that that's such a I think 378 00:21:56,000 --> 00:21:58,640 it's just intuitive, Like the design thing we've talked about 379 00:21:58,640 --> 00:22:02,960 in the past. I think appealing to design so intuitive. 380 00:22:03,359 --> 00:22:06,039 It's just a matter of reminding people of what's all 381 00:22:06,079 --> 00:22:09,359 around them because they're just blind to it because it's 382 00:22:09,440 --> 00:22:12,880 just everywhere of the design aspects. But with the principle 383 00:22:12,920 --> 00:22:17,359 of sufficient reason, it sort of like cause an effect 384 00:22:17,559 --> 00:22:21,319 this in a sense everything needs a cause. That's sort 385 00:22:21,359 --> 00:22:24,079 of part of it. But you know, even if the 386 00:22:24,160 --> 00:22:28,119 universe is eternal, if you were arguing that, well why 387 00:22:28,359 --> 00:22:31,839 why is it there? Why is it eternal? So there's 388 00:22:31,839 --> 00:22:35,039 always this for me, the principle of sufficient reason is 389 00:22:35,079 --> 00:22:39,480 that there has to be some explanation for things, for 390 00:22:39,680 --> 00:22:43,000 how things are. And the only thing that wouldn't require 391 00:22:43,039 --> 00:22:47,000 that is God because he would be self existence. He 392 00:22:47,200 --> 00:22:50,799 is his own explanation. But nothing else has that property. 393 00:22:51,359 --> 00:22:54,599 Like you can say the universe is just is. That's 394 00:22:54,640 --> 00:22:59,039 not satisfying. That doesn't make any sense. Why is it 395 00:22:59,279 --> 00:23:02,319 like it is? Why or the laws like that? Well, 396 00:23:02,359 --> 00:23:06,440 it just it just popped it into existence. Well why 397 00:23:07,480 --> 00:23:09,400 you know, even if you don't appeal to cause and effect, 398 00:23:09,640 --> 00:23:14,119 what from whence? So yeah, well I just think that's 399 00:23:14,160 --> 00:23:16,160 a really strong thing to appeal to because of its 400 00:23:16,319 --> 00:23:17,519 intuitive aspect. 401 00:23:17,880 --> 00:23:20,480 Speaker 2: Yeah, I've heard JP Moreland talk about how there has 402 00:23:20,559 --> 00:23:26,400 to be something self existence, self existent for existence to 403 00:23:26,759 --> 00:23:29,960 be a thing. And of course the problem is is 404 00:23:30,039 --> 00:23:32,839 that you know something exists, and it had to come 405 00:23:32,880 --> 00:23:36,160 from somewhere, and then you could say, well, okay, why 406 00:23:36,200 --> 00:23:38,759 does that thing have its existence? And then you could 407 00:23:38,759 --> 00:23:41,480 say why does that thing have its existence? And if 408 00:23:41,519 --> 00:23:45,480 there's nothing self existent, you just keep going back into 409 00:23:45,599 --> 00:23:48,880 what's known as an infinite regress of events. Right, So 410 00:23:48,920 --> 00:23:53,200 there's got to be something that's always existed that everything 411 00:23:53,240 --> 00:23:57,079 else comes from in order for there to be something 412 00:23:57,960 --> 00:24:00,960 in order to avoid that infinite regres And so that's 413 00:24:01,000 --> 00:24:03,160 kind of a similar ideas to what you're talking about. 414 00:24:03,319 --> 00:24:05,519 Speaker 1: Yeah, it's like this sort of ground of being or 415 00:24:05,680 --> 00:24:06,880 ground of reality. 416 00:24:07,279 --> 00:24:08,759 Speaker 2: Did my illustration make sense though? 417 00:24:09,000 --> 00:24:13,519 Speaker 1: Yes, believe me, it makes perfect sense. That's right. 418 00:24:14,519 --> 00:24:18,240 Speaker 2: So do you want to go on to the Bible's 419 00:24:18,279 --> 00:24:19,200 Portrait of Jesus? 420 00:24:19,480 --> 00:24:22,480 Speaker 1: I have to say for the first few chapters, because 421 00:24:22,559 --> 00:24:26,039 I read them. Here's how I read the book, not 422 00:24:26,240 --> 00:24:29,559 all in one go. I read like the first three chapters, 423 00:24:29,880 --> 00:24:31,359 and then it took a big old break, and then 424 00:24:31,400 --> 00:24:34,000 it read the rest of it leading up to our 425 00:24:34,640 --> 00:24:38,240 time of talking to it talking about it. So I'm 426 00:24:38,279 --> 00:24:43,759 a little fuzzy first three chapters. So some of this 427 00:24:43,839 --> 00:24:45,880 is going to be a refresher if we talk about 428 00:24:45,920 --> 00:24:46,680 it well, you. 429 00:24:46,640 --> 00:24:48,599 Speaker 2: Know what, that's great because I have a lot to 430 00:24:48,720 --> 00:24:51,400 say about the chapter on does the Bible give a 431 00:24:51,440 --> 00:24:54,519 reliable picture of Jesus? So that actually works out really well. 432 00:24:54,880 --> 00:24:55,720 Speaker 1: Cool. 433 00:24:56,000 --> 00:24:57,720 Speaker 2: So a couple of things that I took from this 434 00:24:57,799 --> 00:25:02,400 chapter that I really appreciated that come to mind right away, 435 00:25:02,400 --> 00:25:04,279 and then a third that we may or may not 436 00:25:04,319 --> 00:25:07,759 get to. The first thing is is this was the 437 00:25:07,799 --> 00:25:10,440 first time. Now, remember it's been several years since I 438 00:25:10,519 --> 00:25:12,880 first read this book. I've read it a couple times. 439 00:25:13,000 --> 00:25:15,400 I want to say three, but at least two. But 440 00:25:15,920 --> 00:25:20,240 what I love about this chapter is how he says. 441 00:25:20,039 --> 00:25:24,799 He talks about how, you know, okay, we've got these sources, 442 00:25:24,880 --> 00:25:28,440 and we've got the gospels, right, We've got the four Gospels. 443 00:25:29,039 --> 00:25:30,960 And of course he talks about the dating of the 444 00:25:31,000 --> 00:25:33,319 gospels and how most people think that Mark is the 445 00:25:33,359 --> 00:25:37,839 earliest gospel. And then he talks about basically the traditional 446 00:25:37,960 --> 00:25:40,519 dates of the four Gospels. But there are these seven 447 00:25:40,599 --> 00:25:43,599 uncontested letters of Paul. Now what does that mean. That 448 00:25:43,720 --> 00:25:48,599 means that within New Testament scholarship, these seven letters are 449 00:25:49,079 --> 00:25:54,880 without question that Paul wrote them. The large majority everybody says, yeah, 450 00:25:54,920 --> 00:25:57,799 these are uncontested the apostle Paul wrote them. Okay, why 451 00:25:57,880 --> 00:26:02,039 is that significant? Because Paul gives us a ton of 452 00:26:02,079 --> 00:26:06,759 information about Jesus. And so Davis lays out all the 453 00:26:06,799 --> 00:26:12,440 information that Paul gives us about Jesus. Now, what's interesting 454 00:26:12,559 --> 00:26:16,039 is is the letters of Paul were before the Gospel 455 00:26:16,079 --> 00:26:20,839 of Mark. So he creates this nice chain of custody 456 00:26:20,880 --> 00:26:23,960 where he says, Okay, let's look at all this information 457 00:26:24,039 --> 00:26:27,720 that we get about Jesus from these uncontested letters, from 458 00:26:27,720 --> 00:26:29,920 the seven uncontested letters. And I can tell you that 459 00:26:29,960 --> 00:26:33,319 it's a lot of information. Like it's a good bit 460 00:26:33,359 --> 00:26:36,359 of information. I have it all listed, but you know, 461 00:26:36,599 --> 00:26:39,200 just I don't know how exciting that would be, but 462 00:26:39,359 --> 00:26:41,319 let me tell you it's a lot of information. So 463 00:26:41,559 --> 00:26:43,759 what happens is is when you take a look at 464 00:26:43,799 --> 00:26:46,039 all that information that you get from these letters from 465 00:26:46,079 --> 00:26:49,799 Paul and then you parallel it or compare it to Mark, 466 00:26:50,640 --> 00:26:54,720 the information is almost identical. So, in other words, what's 467 00:26:54,720 --> 00:26:58,400 happening is is these earlier letters, right, what's one of 468 00:26:58,440 --> 00:27:01,640 the knocks against the Gospels. Right, Oh, they're written you know, 469 00:27:01,759 --> 00:27:05,240 much later after the events. Okay, Well, I would contest 470 00:27:05,279 --> 00:27:08,799 in the from the point of view of antiquity, they 471 00:27:08,799 --> 00:27:12,920 are not. But let's say that that holds right, Okay, yeah, 472 00:27:12,960 --> 00:27:16,640 but we've got Paul's letters that are much earlier. So 473 00:27:16,960 --> 00:27:19,400 we see kind of what Jay Warner Wallace would say, 474 00:27:19,519 --> 00:27:22,839 is this chain of custody right where we've got these 475 00:27:23,240 --> 00:27:25,279 letters of Paul that are early. They give us tons 476 00:27:25,319 --> 00:27:27,519 of information about Jesus. And then when we look at 477 00:27:27,559 --> 00:27:32,200 the Gospel of Mark, we can see that the information 478 00:27:32,240 --> 00:27:35,240 from Paul is very consistent with what we find in 479 00:27:35,279 --> 00:27:37,079 the Gospel of Mark. And then of course we have 480 00:27:37,200 --> 00:27:45,200 the synoptic Gospels, right, Mark, Luke, and Matthew, and so 481 00:27:45,400 --> 00:27:50,039 we have this nice picture of this early testimony that 482 00:27:50,240 --> 00:27:54,720 kind of substantiates what we find in our three synoptic gospels. 483 00:27:55,079 --> 00:27:58,200 And so to me, that's really powerful. He actually says this. 484 00:27:58,759 --> 00:28:01,480 The Pauline letters were all written well before Mark, and 485 00:28:01,559 --> 00:28:06,079 indeed within twenty to thirty years of the death of Jesus. Accordingly, 486 00:28:06,160 --> 00:28:09,079 what Paul said about the life of Jesus is much 487 00:28:09,119 --> 00:28:13,400 more likely to be reliable on purely historical critical grounds 488 00:28:13,440 --> 00:28:17,519 than something written much later, and this reliability confirms the 489 00:28:17,559 --> 00:28:21,440 authenticity of later texts like Mark that largely agree with 490 00:28:21,480 --> 00:28:24,519 Paul in the Life of Jesus, Mark does not appear 491 00:28:24,720 --> 00:28:27,759 to be a myth or fable or fiction. What we 492 00:28:27,880 --> 00:28:31,319 have here, then, is an impressive reason for regarding Mark 493 00:28:31,720 --> 00:28:35,920 as reliable. And so what he's saying is is that Paul, 494 00:28:36,640 --> 00:28:39,079 we can actually use the letters of Paul to validate 495 00:28:39,160 --> 00:28:41,559 the Gospel of Mark. And I find that to be 496 00:28:41,759 --> 00:28:45,880 very powerful, especially when you consider the relationship between Matthew 497 00:28:45,960 --> 00:28:46,640 Luke and Mark. 498 00:28:47,200 --> 00:28:50,359 Speaker 1: Yes, it's coming back to me now that you describe that. 499 00:28:50,359 --> 00:28:54,559 That is a I'd never sort of seen that approach before, 500 00:28:54,599 --> 00:28:59,359 But I mean again, that's not maybe my area of speciality. 501 00:29:00,079 --> 00:29:02,079 I like that. Do you think that's something you could 502 00:29:02,160 --> 00:29:03,480 use talking to people. 503 00:29:03,799 --> 00:29:07,799 Speaker 2: Yeah, I absolutely do, because I have used it in 504 00:29:07,839 --> 00:29:10,759 a conversation with somebody. I have a friend who is 505 00:29:10,799 --> 00:29:14,400 an atheist and is very skeptical about the reliability of 506 00:29:14,440 --> 00:29:17,799 the New Testament, and after reading this in Davis's book, 507 00:29:18,000 --> 00:29:21,440 I was actually able he was calling into question the 508 00:29:21,480 --> 00:29:25,480 reliability of the Gospels, and I was able to explain 509 00:29:25,519 --> 00:29:28,680 to him that we have these seven uncontested letters of Paul. 510 00:29:29,039 --> 00:29:31,039 I was able to read to him because I wrote 511 00:29:31,039 --> 00:29:33,400 a blog post about it. I was able to pull 512 00:29:33,480 --> 00:29:35,200 up the blog post, and I was able to read 513 00:29:35,200 --> 00:29:37,799 to him all the things that these letters tell us 514 00:29:37,960 --> 00:29:42,400 about Jesus and show him that these letters could confirm 515 00:29:42,599 --> 00:29:45,599 the Gospel of Mark. And I also told him, you know, 516 00:29:45,640 --> 00:29:48,200 explain to him the relationship between Matthew, Mark Luke and 517 00:29:48,240 --> 00:29:52,440 John as they are synoptic, and able to show him 518 00:29:52,599 --> 00:29:54,920 the kind of that chain of custody that I was 519 00:29:54,960 --> 00:29:57,559 talking about. And he had not heard that either, and 520 00:29:57,599 --> 00:29:59,359 I think it gave him something to think about. So 521 00:29:59,400 --> 00:30:01,400 I absolutely think you could use it in a conversation. 522 00:30:02,000 --> 00:30:04,400 Speaker 1: Well you heard it here first, you can use that 523 00:30:06,640 --> 00:30:09,640 the next thing. Next chapter he's talking about the resurrection 524 00:30:09,720 --> 00:30:12,319 of Jesus. Was Jesus raised from the dead? How would 525 00:30:12,319 --> 00:30:13,440 you describe the approach? 526 00:30:13,759 --> 00:30:17,359 Speaker 2: This is where it's very tempting to get into the 527 00:30:17,440 --> 00:30:22,240 minimal facts versus the maximal facts debate and all of that, right, 528 00:30:22,759 --> 00:30:26,759 But I think that both parties here, honestly, if they 529 00:30:26,799 --> 00:30:30,039 read Davis's book, I would like to think. I do 530 00:30:30,119 --> 00:30:33,400 have a side note though about in Errancy that I'll 531 00:30:33,440 --> 00:30:36,599 get to, but I do think both parties would find 532 00:30:36,640 --> 00:30:38,599 some things in here to Like I mean, as I 533 00:30:38,680 --> 00:30:42,039 said in chapter three where he talks about does the 534 00:30:42,039 --> 00:30:44,839 Bible give a reliable picture of Jesus. He argues for 535 00:30:44,920 --> 00:30:49,240 the reliability of the Gospels, he argues for the reliability 536 00:30:49,279 --> 00:30:54,079 of Paul. And so you see this argument for as 537 00:30:54,119 --> 00:30:57,079 I said, the Gospels and Paul. But then he goes 538 00:30:57,119 --> 00:31:00,519 on in chapter four and then he says, Okay, now 539 00:31:00,519 --> 00:31:03,119 that we've kind of established this idea that we have 540 00:31:03,200 --> 00:31:06,400 a reliable we have some reliable texts, like what can 541 00:31:06,440 --> 00:31:10,759 we garner from these texts? And that's when he does 542 00:31:10,880 --> 00:31:15,680 take what would be kind of a minimal facts approach, 543 00:31:16,240 --> 00:31:18,799 which I have some thoughts on. He argues for the 544 00:31:18,839 --> 00:31:24,039 empty tomb, he argues for the appearances, and he uses 545 00:31:24,200 --> 00:31:30,000 those kind of as his central arguments to demonstrate that 546 00:31:30,079 --> 00:31:34,039 the resurrection happened. He also uses an argument from Swinburne 547 00:31:34,960 --> 00:31:39,759 on probability. Now, this debate between the maximum facts and 548 00:31:39,799 --> 00:31:41,480 the minimal facts, which I don't want to get into 549 00:31:41,519 --> 00:31:43,319 that a lot. I just want to make a point 550 00:31:43,319 --> 00:31:46,400 here that I think is salient, and I also think 551 00:31:46,400 --> 00:31:49,119 it is helpful when it comes to these two chapters. 552 00:31:49,160 --> 00:31:51,359 Just allow me to make the point. I like how 553 00:31:51,440 --> 00:31:54,000 in chapter three he argues for the reliability of the Gospels, 554 00:31:54,000 --> 00:31:55,680 and then he goes on and says, Okay, let's look 555 00:31:55,680 --> 00:31:57,680 at a few facts from the Gospels and we're going 556 00:31:57,759 --> 00:32:00,920 to make a case. I think so sometimes people get 557 00:32:01,000 --> 00:32:04,680 hung up on that term minimal right, because they want 558 00:32:04,720 --> 00:32:06,079 to say, oh, well, we don't want to use the 559 00:32:06,119 --> 00:32:09,519 minimal facts. I like this idea of just using the 560 00:32:09,559 --> 00:32:10,960 central facts. 561 00:32:11,400 --> 00:32:13,440 Speaker 1: Yeah, so I think that's that's what he says. The 562 00:32:13,480 --> 00:32:16,920 central facts are regarding it, the things that are most pertinent, 563 00:32:17,640 --> 00:32:22,200 that are historically credible that no one's going to contest. 564 00:32:22,799 --> 00:32:25,920 But he's not appealing to this. Many people agree and 565 00:32:25,960 --> 00:32:29,160 one hundred percent agree, and these are the very we're 566 00:32:29,200 --> 00:32:31,519 going to only going to go with the ones that 567 00:32:31,559 --> 00:32:34,680 people agree on or no, he's just saying, these are 568 00:32:34,680 --> 00:32:38,359 the these are the core components of making a case 569 00:32:38,759 --> 00:32:42,599 for the resurrection. So it's it's almost like going like this, 570 00:32:43,200 --> 00:32:46,480 I don't care if it's mix, noemial, maximum, whatever. These 571 00:32:46,559 --> 00:32:49,599 are the pillars for making the case. Now that just 572 00:32:49,599 --> 00:32:55,720 so happens that they're really realiable pillars to use. So 573 00:32:55,960 --> 00:32:58,359 it's like kind of like's, as Craig would say, it 574 00:32:58,359 --> 00:33:04,119 doesn't end run the whole debate, like you know, hey, 575 00:33:04,200 --> 00:33:06,759 you're gonna have to argue that the tomb was empty, 576 00:33:06,920 --> 00:33:09,319 You're gonna have to argue that Jesus died, and then 577 00:33:09,319 --> 00:33:11,400 you're gonna have to argue that everyone saw him and 578 00:33:11,440 --> 00:33:16,759 there was eyewitness testimony. So and then there you have it. 579 00:33:16,799 --> 00:33:19,839 You know, you're starting to build a case with those 580 00:33:19,839 --> 00:33:20,759 big pillars. 581 00:33:21,759 --> 00:33:25,200 Speaker 2: Yeah, and so I very much like the fact that 582 00:33:26,119 --> 00:33:28,640 also that because if you're in a conversation, if you've 583 00:33:28,640 --> 00:33:31,319 ever been in a conversation with somebody about the evidence 584 00:33:31,319 --> 00:33:35,039 for the resurrection, sometimes it's difficult to present it if 585 00:33:35,119 --> 00:33:37,799 you present it in the way of, oh, okay, well 586 00:33:38,240 --> 00:33:42,480 we've got these reliable documents. Okay, well, but that doesn't 587 00:33:42,519 --> 00:33:45,359 tell you what the reliable documents say, right, So let's 588 00:33:45,400 --> 00:33:47,119 take it a next step and let's say we've got 589 00:33:47,200 --> 00:33:50,680 these documents. We have good reason to believe they're reliable, 590 00:33:51,119 --> 00:33:53,480 but we're just going to focus on these facts because 591 00:33:53,519 --> 00:33:57,079 it allows for a concise case to be made. So, 592 00:33:57,119 --> 00:33:59,920 for example, if I say, okay, the Gospels are reliable, 593 00:34:00,039 --> 00:34:02,680 we've got these early letters of Paul, and we're going 594 00:34:02,720 --> 00:34:04,720 to focus on the fact that they tell us that 595 00:34:04,839 --> 00:34:09,280 Jesus was crucified, that his disciples claimed and believed that 596 00:34:09,320 --> 00:34:14,000 he rose from the dead, that the apostle Paul and James, 597 00:34:14,639 --> 00:34:18,039 the skeptics changed their minds, and that the tomb was empty. Okay, 598 00:34:18,079 --> 00:34:20,000 so that's what we're going to focus on. Well, that 599 00:34:20,039 --> 00:34:22,760 doesn't say I'm throwing out the other things that the 600 00:34:22,760 --> 00:34:25,159 Gospels present, and I can call upon those if I 601 00:34:25,239 --> 00:34:28,119 need them, But that allows me to centralize my case 602 00:34:28,159 --> 00:34:31,679 into something that's digestible to somebody, especially for somebody who's 603 00:34:31,760 --> 00:34:36,760 not familiar with the Bible, right, because there's a lot 604 00:34:36,800 --> 00:34:40,760 going on in the Gospels around the resurrection accounts and things. 605 00:34:41,039 --> 00:34:45,719 Speaker 1: Yeah. You know, I'm just reminded here about how the 606 00:34:45,760 --> 00:34:49,559 evidence you bring to a case really depends on your audience. 607 00:34:50,119 --> 00:34:53,400 If you think, okay, let's say I'm interacting with a 608 00:34:53,480 --> 00:34:56,440 hardcore skeptic who has read all of Bard Airman's books, 609 00:34:56,599 --> 00:35:03,159 who's been watching all the atheists stuff, and now like, okay, well, 610 00:35:03,960 --> 00:35:10,320 I need a really robust, very detailed, very meticulous, air 611 00:35:10,440 --> 00:35:13,320 tight case, and I need to know every counter argument 612 00:35:13,360 --> 00:35:17,639 they're going to make. Okay, Right, you might choose a 613 00:35:17,679 --> 00:35:22,239 certain sort of strategy, you're gambit that you might use 614 00:35:22,679 --> 00:35:26,880 in that sort of interaction because you know that Okay, 615 00:35:26,920 --> 00:35:30,199 this is going to be meticulously torn apart if I 616 00:35:30,360 --> 00:35:34,360 don't give them, well, if I give any any holes 617 00:35:34,360 --> 00:35:36,880 in my case where people are going to try to 618 00:35:36,920 --> 00:35:38,920 tear it apart, then I have to be very careful. 619 00:35:39,159 --> 00:35:42,039 Now it's going to be a completely different approach. I 620 00:35:42,039 --> 00:35:44,559 know I'm using way extremes here. If I'm trying to 621 00:35:44,639 --> 00:35:48,360 say to my son, who's ten, why should you believe 622 00:35:48,440 --> 00:35:52,280 Jesus rose from the dead, you know, way different, Or 623 00:35:52,320 --> 00:35:55,199 if you're talking or you're talking to a Christian who's like, yeah, 624 00:35:55,199 --> 00:35:58,039 I believe it, but why should I believe it? I mean, 625 00:35:58,519 --> 00:36:01,000 I just believe by faith. Then you're going to make 626 00:36:01,039 --> 00:36:04,079 a different case one that where you don't have to 627 00:36:04,199 --> 00:36:08,760 appeal to facts that are hugely historically you know backed, 628 00:36:08,800 --> 00:36:11,519 because the only way that someone's going to receive that 629 00:36:13,039 --> 00:36:16,800 is if they have confidence, historical confidence, you know what 630 00:36:16,840 --> 00:36:20,480 I'm saying. So I just I'm reminded of that when 631 00:36:20,559 --> 00:36:24,880 when we're talking here, because he seems to just say, well, 632 00:36:25,039 --> 00:36:27,920 here's how do I really know it's true? He's yes, 633 00:36:27,960 --> 00:36:34,000 he's appealing to historical credibility, he's appealing to the evidence 634 00:36:34,039 --> 00:36:36,239 that we have, and I think that's what the normal 635 00:36:36,320 --> 00:36:40,559 person who is a little skeptical and needs to have 636 00:36:40,639 --> 00:36:46,159 a rational grounding and a reasonable rational grounding. Nut Okay, 637 00:36:46,440 --> 00:36:49,079 can you prove it historically or something? Or is this 638 00:36:49,199 --> 00:36:51,559 truly the best explanation? Well, he does say that it's 639 00:36:51,599 --> 00:36:56,519 the best explanation. But for a Christian who needs backing 640 00:36:56,639 --> 00:36:59,559 of their faith, I don't think we have to worry 641 00:36:59,800 --> 00:37:04,280 so to speak about having a huge, you know, air tight, 642 00:37:05,199 --> 00:37:09,440 kind of meticulous sort of thing. Is it actually will 643 00:37:09,440 --> 00:37:11,960 turn them off because they think that the only way 644 00:37:12,159 --> 00:37:16,119 you can have confidence is if you're meticulously realized, you know, 645 00:37:16,519 --> 00:37:20,920 have every I dotted and every T crossed historically and 646 00:37:22,119 --> 00:37:26,880 every possible objection defended against. Does that make any sense? Yeah? 647 00:37:26,920 --> 00:37:29,000 Speaker 2: And I mean what who can say that about any 648 00:37:29,519 --> 00:37:32,280 any view they hold, I mean, regardless of what your 649 00:37:32,320 --> 00:37:34,239 view is. I mean, who can say, oh, yeah, I've 650 00:37:34,239 --> 00:37:37,679 got answers to all my questions and I'm not curious 651 00:37:37,679 --> 00:37:39,800 about anything. I figured everything out. 652 00:37:40,239 --> 00:37:44,960 Speaker 1: So that's basically four out of the nine chapters we've 653 00:37:45,079 --> 00:37:48,000 kind of covered. That's halfway through the book, and so listener, 654 00:37:48,000 --> 00:37:51,000 we're going to wrap it up for now. This is 655 00:37:51,039 --> 00:37:53,400 part one of our review, probably our part one of 656 00:37:53,440 --> 00:37:56,559 two of the review of this book and discussion about 657 00:37:56,599 --> 00:37:59,360 some of the themes. If you have any thoughts, you 658 00:37:59,400 --> 00:38:02,440 can tell us by sending an email to podcast at 659 00:38:02,480 --> 00:38:05,840 apologetics three fifteen dot com. Thank you so much for listening. 660 00:38:05,920 --> 00:38:08,400 We hope you enjoy this and we'll be having further 661 00:38:08,480 --> 00:38:11,519 interviews after we're done with this book, so we'll talk 662 00:38:11,559 --> 00:38:15,840 to you then later. Thanks for listening to the podcast. 663 00:38:16,079 --> 00:38:18,039 If you have a question you'd like us to address, 664 00:38:18,159 --> 00:38:20,519 or just a message for us feedback good or bad, 665 00:38:20,599 --> 00:38:23,880 you can either email us at podcast at apologetics three 666 00:38:24,000 --> 00:38:27,039 fifteen dot com or leave a voice message for us 667 00:38:27,159 --> 00:38:31,320 using speak Pipe. Just go to speakpipe dot com slash 668 00:38:31,360 --> 00:38:35,000 apologetics three fifteen to leave us a message. And remember, 669 00:38:35,079 --> 00:38:37,679 if you include a Ghostbusters quote in your question, we 670 00:38:37,760 --> 00:38:40,519 guarantee that we'll read it on the podcast. We also 671 00:38:40,639 --> 00:38:44,119 ensure up to fifty percent better quality answers. Also, if 672 00:38:44,159 --> 00:38:47,360 you've enjoyed today's podcast, please leave a review in iTunes 673 00:38:47,440 --> 00:38:50,440 or the podcast platform me your choice, and please share 674 00:38:50,480 --> 00:38:52,519 this episode with a friend if you've found it useful. 675 00:38:53,039 --> 00:38:56,280 Remember you can find lots of Apologetics resources at apologeticspree 676 00:38:56,320 --> 00:38:59,840 fifteen dot com, along with show notes for today's episode. 677 00:39:00,199 --> 00:39:03,880 Find Chad's apologetic stuff over at truth bomb Apologetics. That's 678 00:39:03,960 --> 00:39:07,639 truthbomb dot blogspot dot com. This has been Brian Aughton 679 00:39:07,679 --> 00:39:10,679 and Chad Gross for the Apologetics three fifteen podcast, and 680 00:39:10,719 --> 00:39:11,559 thanks for listening.