The Divine Mathematician and His Image-Bearers

Originally posted on School of Christian Thought:

In his celebrated book, The First Three Minutes: A Modern View of the Origin of the Universe, Dr. Steven Weinberg said that mankind is a “farcical outcome of a chain of accidents reaching back to the first three minutes” after the Big Bang. According to Weinberg and many other atheist thinkers past and present, the cosmos is not purposeful and we, its observers, amount to nothing more than self-aware cosmic dust bunnies.

Dr. Weinberg is a Nobel Prize winning physicist, a brilliant scholar who has spent decades investigating the intricacies of the material universe. I find it astonishing that individuals with such extensive, intimate knowledge of the mathematics of nature could so confidently dismiss the implications of the fact that we are conscious, intelligent beings capable of ascertaining these complex truths in the first place.

Consider this. Humans developed fundamentals of mathematics before they were applied to nature. We first had to…

View original 598 more words

Oops? Reality TV Promoting the Pro-Life Message

I’m not much of a television watcher. There are too few hours in the day and precious little programming that is time worthy, in my opinion. I must admit, however, that I’ll often pull up a random episode of some mindless TV show on my iPad when I’m running on the treadmill. This week, I saw an internet blurb that mentioned a prenatal ultrasound happening on the “Men Tell All” episode of that reality show, The Bachelorette, which is broadcast by ABC

“What?!” I thought to myself. “They showed an unborn baby on national television, on a popular prime time show?”

Yes, yes they did, and when I streamed the episode from the ABC website to see it for myself, I was awestruck. That segment of the show inadvertently but beautifully promoted the pro-life message in an extremely effective way. They called the unborn entity a baby and a child, over and over again. They showed the ultrasound on a huge screen and pointed out all the little body parts to an utterly spellbound audience.

Here’s how it went down:

[Host] Chris Harrison: We’re about to witness a Bachelor first: a live ultrasound of their baby to find out the sex of this child. (Turns to the parents, Ashley and JP, former Bachelorette stars who are now married.) Are you sure you want to do this, are we excited? This has got to be a little nerve-wracking.

Ahsley: We’re excited, we’re excited.

Chris Harrison: I’m excited. Look, we’ve seen this thing come full circle. Everybody’s been on this journey with you guys, from the Bachelorette to falling in love with this pretty fantastic guy, obviously the wedding, and now, a baby! So, let’s bring out the technician, Greg. Greg, come on in here. Let’s do this! Greg is our ultrasound technician, and we’re going to find out the sex of this baby!

Technician Greg: Okay, make yourself comfortable and we’ll rock and roll here.

Chris Harrison: Greg, you’ve done this before, right? Haha.

Technician Greg: This if my first day.

Chris Harrison: On the job training, it works.

Ashley: (Opens the side of her dress to expose part of her belly) Don’t look, guys! Haha.

Chris Harrison: JP, were you hoping for a boy or a girl?

JP: Doesn’t matter to me. Healthy baby, that’s all that matters.

Chris Harrison: Good answer.

<Audience applause>

Chris Harrison: Okay, are you ready? Can we tell?

Technician Greg: (Moving the ultrasound wand around, looking at his monitor) Ummmm…Your fluid is really good, so we’ll get the baby to move around a little bit.

Chris Harrison: Alright, let’s put it up on the big screen here…

<Live feed of ultrasound pops up on the big screen, and the audience murmurs excitedly. A joke ensues, with Chris Harrison’s face superimposed over the ultrasound image. Everyone laughs.> 

Chris Harrison: Okay, are you ready? It’s time to reveal Ashley and JP’s beautiful baby.

<The sound of the heartbeat is loud and clear through the studio speakers.> 

Technician Greg: Heartbeat…

Ashley: That’s so crazy.

Chris Harrison: Look at that heartbeat. Does that just get you every time?

Technician Greg: That’s a little ear there. That’s the ear.

Ashley: That’s so cool. That’s a funny ear.

JP: Amazing…

Technician Greg: There’s a little thumb.

Ashley: Thumbs up, everyone!

Chris Harrison: That doesn’t look like a thumb to me, Greg. (Everyone laughs.) Well, can we tell?

Technician Greg: We can tell! JP, Ashley, it is…a boy!

<Audience erupts into enthusiastic applause.> 

Chris Harrison: Thanks, Greg.

Ashley: Love it!

Chris Harrison: (Slapping JP on the shoulder) Mazel tov, buddy.

JP: Thanks!

Chris Harrison: Congratulations! Having a boy!

Ashley: Thank you.

Chris Harrison: Look at the tears in your eyes!

JP: It’s emotional, you know.

Ashley: He’s gonna look just like little JP over here.

JP: I hope so, haha.

Chris Harrison: The new short stop for the Yankees, congratulations. Every dad has that dream, of having that son.

JP: A girl would have been just as nice, but a  baby boy, the fist grandchild in the family, the first child between me or my brother, it’s kind of nice to pass the name on…watch football with.

Ahsley: I knew all along, from the beginning. I told JP early on…this feels like a boy, it just feels like a boy to me, very early on. Momma’s intuition.

JP: You had a 50-50 shot.

Ashley: Ha, that’s true. My odds were pretty good.

Chris Harrison: Well guys, congratulations. It’s so beautiful. I could not be happier for the two of you. The baby, your new life in Miami. You know I love the two of you dearly, so I wish you nothing but the best. Congratulations.

End of segment. 

Usually, the ultrasound to determine the sex of a baby is done roughly halfway through the pregnancy, and Ashley mentioned that the baby is due in October. I’ve included an example of a 20-week ultrasound image here.

All this excitement about what they were all calling a baby, a child. Ashley referred to herself as a “momma” from very early on in the pregnancy.


In America, it would be completely legal to kill that baby within his mother’s womb for no better reason than the convenience of the mother.

Let that sink in.

But on national, prime time television, that precious unborn baby was put on display for all the world to see, his heartbeat was clearly heard. His features were pointed out. His parents were overjoyed. The studio audience celebrated.

It made me wonder how many pro-abortion folks were sitting in the audience, or how many were watching all this unfold on television. Were they angry that the words “baby” and “child” were used instead of “fetus” or “product of conception”? Did seeing the ultrasound affect their feelings about abortion? Somewhere in America, is there a woman dealing with a crisis pregnancy who saw this episode and then chose life for her own baby?

When it comes to the bioethics of abortion, everything boils down to one question: What is the unborn? The answer to this question does not change based on whether or not the content of the womb is wanted. Looking at the ultrasound image, it was so very plain that this was a human being, a baby with eyes and ears, fingers and toes. Yet the pro-abortion faction in our country insists that if Ashley decided tomorrow that she just wasn’t ready to be a mother, it would be acceptable for her to have that baby boy killed and removed from her body. Only the “pro-choice” crowd, and the abortionist, would call it a “product of conception,” not a baby.

What do you know, something amazingly good can come out of vapid reality television. They actually called an unborn baby a baby, a child. Because that’s exactly what it is.

Pray to end abortion.

On Film and Philosophy: Transcendence and the Existence of the Soul

Much more often than many people realize, philosophy is communicated through the art of film, the usual subjects being ethics and metaphysics–the branch of philosophy that deals with the question: What exists? The metaphysical discussion that fascinates me more than any other is the case for and against the existence of an immaterial soul. So, when I became aware of the recent Johnny Depp  film, Transcendence, and the subject matter it addresses, it went to the top of my must-watch movie list. You can see the Transcendence trailer HERE.

In the film, Dr. Will Caster (Depp) is a brilliant,  famous computer scientist working in the field of AI (artificial intelligence). His mission is to develop a truly sentient (self-aware) quantum computer that will transcend the collective intelligence of humanity–a point he calls “the singularity”.  The dual goals being to unlock the secret of human consciousness, what Dr. Caster justifiably calls the “deepest mystery of the universe,” and create a biotechnological utopia on earth.

After an attack from an anti-AI extremist group, Caster is mortally wounded and given only a few weeks to live. His wife–who is also his research and development partner–and his best friend, another researcher, devise a plan to “save” Castor’s life by uploading his consciousness into part of his company’s super-computer. The metaphysical assumption made here is that the human mind is nothing more than–and reducible to–its collection of electrical impulses and stored memories, which a powerful computer system should be able to precisely replicate, thus providing a conduit for a person’s consciousness.

The underlying question that runs throughout the film is whether or not the seemingly self-aware, freely-acting computer entity IS Dr. Will Caster, or if it is just a digital simulation of his consciousness. In other words, is the human self an immaterial entity (a soul), or is it only a mass of electrochemical patterns in the brain that could persist through a non-biological medium? The wife and the best friend have conflicting views on the situation.

Philosophers of mind and neuroscientists have debated the nature of the human person for a very long time. There are strict materialists as well as proponents of an immaterial soul in the higher ranks of each of these disciplines. As much as many materialist scientists would like to make this a scientific question only, it isn’t. To approach it that way is egregiously naive.

Imagine that we eventually develop the AI technology necessary to digitally upload a person’s brain patterns into a computer, every bit identical. This doesn’t involve killing the person, so the biological entity could exist alongside of the computer entity. Suppose, for example, we do this with Stephen Hawking. We scan his brain activity for a period of time and then upload the comprehensive neurological information into a computer capable of running and interpreting the patterns correctly. The obvious questions would be: Which one is Stephen Hawking? Where does his self now reside? Is it only in the body, or is it now in both the body and the machine? Does the computer have self-awareness? If so, who is it?

One major point to understand here is that the self is not divisible or multipliable. Hawking would not be consciously present in both the body and the computer, exercising free agency and thought in both at the same time. When we say “I” in reference to ourselves, by definition we mean a single, whole being. The computer may have an exact copy of Hawking’s brain patterns, but it cannot also house Hawking’s actual self, which resides in his body, experiencing the sensations (sight, touch, sound, etc.) of that body. Once Hawking’s biological body dies, his self doesn’t somehow migrate into the computer. Basically, this demonstrates that the self is not a person’s collective material brain states. Those states could, theoretically, be identically replicated by a machine, yet the machine would not be a second Hawking self. Furthermore, the material brain or the material computer is divisible, meaning it could be physically broken up into parts. You could remove a percentage of Hawking’s brain, but that would not remove a portion of Hawking himself. He would still have his whole self; he would still be a complete person in the metaphysical sense. Yet, the brain patterns are theoretically multipliable in the sense of being reproducible.

If it is simply your brain that is conscious, then an exact duplicate of your electrochemical brain activity in this hypothetical quantum computer should also duplicate your consciousness, your self. But first-person introspection is a singular phenomenon. Do we simply deny the existence of the self altogether?

Further compelling support for the existence of an immaterial component is the phenomenon of a person’s intentional brain state manipulation. This can, over time, lead to a physical “rewiring” of the brain itself.  We can consciously choose what to think about, thus manipulating our own brain activity. In other words, we are agents that can consciously change the physical pattern of our neural pathways.

The question arises: Who or what is acting upon the physical brain? It is the self. But because of the law of identity, the self cannot also be the brain. In logic, the law of identity says that for A (the brain) to be identical with B (the self) they have to have all the same properties, no exception. For example, if the self is the agent that desires to think about purple-feathered dinosaurs and then does so, the self is manipulating the electrochemical patterns in the physical brain to visualize a purple-feathered dinosaur. The self is the agent, the physical brain is what the agent is acting upon and what undergoes change. The two cannot be one and the same thing. The agent is not the brain. Note that this is not to say that the brain cannot impact consciousness. This is what happens in psychological disorders–abnormal brain states giving the person false beliefs. But a causal relationship, in one direction or the other, does not indicate they are one and the same thing, and a dependence of one upon the other doesn’t, either.

Dr. Jeffrey Schwartz, a neuroscientist and physician (Buddhist I believe), has written fascinating case studies about this. Experimentation with OCD (obsessive-compulsive disorder) patients has shown that over time, intentionally choosing not to think about a particular thing (the object of the OCD behavior) can eventually change the patient’s neurochemical pathways and drastically reduce the person’s drive to perform the obsessive-compulsive actions. The patient is the conscious agent exercising free will to change the material brain. The brain doesn’t have free will. So, if you give up the concept of the immaterial soul, you give up free will (yes, despite what advocates of emergent consciousness claim).

I won’t spoil the movie for you, and I won’t tell you what philosophical conclusion the characters reach by the end. But I encourage you to check it out along with a few videos on this topic. First, futurist/technologist (and atheist) Ray Kurzweil, whose ideas the film seems to be based upon, has a series of interview videos on the Closer to Truth website. CLICK HERE and then you can scroll to the bottom of Kurzweil’s profile to watch the series of short videos. Next, I encourage you to watch Dr. J.P. Moreland’s lecture on the existence of the soul, which I include here.


Something Other Than God–A Journey from Staunch Atheism to Christianity

Something Other Than God: How I Passionately Sought Happiness and Accidentally Found It

Something Other Than God: How I Passionately Sought Happiness and Accidentally Found It by Jennifer Fulwiler

My rating: 5 of 5 stars

Something Other Than God is a dramatic, brutally honest conversion story from a woman born to and raised by atheist parents. Ms. Fulwiler describes, in great detail, the role apologetics (including the work of J.P. Moreland and Lee Strobel) had in pointing her towards the ultimate truth of Christianity. In an account that reads like a well-written novel, she walks you though her personal journey from hostile atheism to Roman Catholicism. Her fascinating story, intelligent insights, and dry witt made the book a real page-turner.

You can watch a great short video of Ms. Fulwiler by CLICKING HERE.


William Lane Craig Responds to Victor Stenger

How to Debate a Christian ApologistI highly recommend Dr. William Lane Craig’s latest Reasonable Faith Podcast, in which he masterfully demonstrates the impotence of Victor Stenger’s latest rant, “How to Debate a Christian Apologist.” As usual, the anti-theist’s counter-arguments collapse logically (not shocking) or else fail to address the theist’s actual argument (also not shocking).

You can listen to the podcast HERE.

Natural Theology and the Resurrection: Part 2

Dear Readers,

This is part 2 of a 2-part series from my guest contributor, Ken Mann. Click here to read Part 1


In this second post considering the Resurrection as a topic of natural theology, we will consider the approach found in The Resurrection of Jesus. Because the history and the study of ancient manuscripts are not normally associated with topics in natural theology, we will look at Licona’s thesis in more depth.

The first chapter looks at the nature of history and how it is practiced outside of biblical scholarship. We learn that after a certain dalliance with post-modernism, historians as a group are overwhelmingly realist. That is to say, “They maintain that the past is knowable to a limited extent and that narratives constructed of the past correspond to the actual past to varying degrees.”[1] Because of the tenuous nature of the data historians use, this is an important conclusion. The study of the natural world that laid the foundations for modern science started with the belief that knowledge of the natural world was possible. In addition to the philosophy of history, the philosophical views held by the historian are also discussed in depth. Licona refers to this as a historian’s horizon, which he defines as, “how historians view things as a result of their knowledge, experience, beliefs, education, cultural conditioning, preferences, presuppositions and worldview.”[2] This is by far the most significant recurring theme in any discussion related to natural theology or Christian apologetics. (Sadly, in the other fields of study, the “horizons” of physicists and evolutionary biologists are never discussed.)

Chapter 2 focuses on the question of whether or not a miracle can be the subject of an historical investigation. Licona defines a miracle as event that defies natural explanation and occurs in a context with religious significance. Miracles defined in this way are not generally the subject of natural theology (as the religious significance could only be supplied by special revelation). However, if we focus on the first part of the definition, a miracle is an event with a cause beyond nature, beyond the material universe, a cause that is super-natural. In other words, a miracle is an event where the best explanation is God. Clearly this is simply another way of describing what the origin of the universe or the origins of biological information point toward, a cause beyond the natural realm.[3]

Chapters 3 and 4 explore the historical evidence that is available for the resurrection. Licona surveys all of the ancient writings within an adequate timespan of Jesus’ life for any references to the crucifixion and the resurrection. He further assesses the various sources for their credibility (e.g. when were they written and did the authors have access to eye witnesses). In a similar manner, the effectiveness of natural theology arguments relies on selecting the most relevant and widely accepted data. Licona argues for three facts that “are acknowledged as facts by a nearly unanimous and heterogeneous consensus of scholars who have studied the subject.”[4] These are: (1) Jesus died by crucifixion, (2) the disciples had experiences that led them to believe that Jesus had been resurrected, and (3) Paul converted after experiencing that he believed was a post resurrection appearance of Jesus.[5]

Finally, in chapter 5 Licona discusses and evaluates six different hypotheses that are representative of what scholars offer to explain the accepted historical facts surround the death of Jesus. Each hypothesis is analyzed to determine which is the best explanation of the historical bedrock. Four of the criteria used: plausibility, explanatory power and scope, and least ad hoc, are perfectly at home in the discussion of any natural theology argument.[6] Under the scrutiny of these criteria, against five other theories, relying on only three facts the resurrection hypothesis stands out as the best explanation.

The powerful case Licona has created for the resurrection has a great deal in common with arguments for God’s existence in natural theology. There must be a sound method, which includes a deep understanding of the discipline in question, typically from the philosophy of that discipline. A sound method also includes an understanding how worldviews impinge on how any subject is approached. There must be solid evidence or data. If you are going to make an argument from within a discipline, whether in cosmology or history, you must use evidence or data that is accepted within that discipline. This is a crucial element of natural theology arguments. By using the knowledge accepted in a given field the argument becomes an explanation of what the discipline tells us about reality. Finally, an inference to the best explanation or abductive reasoning is the best way to argue from the evidence to a conclusion. Such arguments cannot yield the certainty of a deductive argument, but such limits are diminished when compared to the power of finding arguments for God in ostensibly secular domains of human knowledge.

Why is it important to portray a defense of the resurrection as a natural theology argument? Historically, when Christian doctrines are attacked, especially those derived directly from the Bible, the nominal response has been to either surrender or fight back. Arguably, there are ample reasons to push back against many criticisms. As Licona amply demonstrates, there are many fanciful interpretations of Bible based on mythical source documents or anti-supernatural bias that deserve to be discredited. However, Licona’s book also demonstrates that many of these have been discarded by peer review (by historical scholars and biblical scholars). This may lead us to another tact that relies more on our trust in Christian theism than our ability to dispatch the critics or their arguments. Given sound methodology, credible evidence, and a reasonable search for the best explanation, almost any field of human knowledge can be turned into a tool of apologetics. Rather than circling the wagons and defending every “jot and tittle” of God’s word or Christian doctrine as being perfect and beyond criticism, we can engage the skeptics in their own disciplines, on their own turf, and we can have confidence that God’s truth will be shown.


[1] Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus, Kindle Locations 6316–6317.

[2] Ibid., Kindle Location 420.

[3] While Licona’s discussion focuses on historical assessment of miracles, the subjects addressed, especially a discussion of Hume are also found in R. Douglas Geivett and Gary R. Habermas, In Defense of Miracles: A Comprehensive Case for God’s Action in History (Downers Grove, Ill: IVP Academic, 1997).

[4] Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus, Kindle Locations 6379–6380.

[5] Ibid., Kindle Locations 3036–3038.

[6] For that matter these criteria are equally comfortable in any scientific setting as well.

Cambrian Fossils, Biological Information, and Countering Naturalism

Cosmos, the latest attempt at materialist indoctrination of the public, recently finished its 13-week television run. A reboot of the 1980 miniseries co-written and presented by the late Carl Sagan, it was a spectacle of historical misinformation and blatant atheistic propaganda that even included Sagan’s famous declaration, “The cosmos is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be.” The worldview implication is evident: that there is no mind behind the material world and that mankind is nothing more than a cosmic accident, a bi-product of purposeless, undirected physical processes. This sharply conflicts with the Judeo-Christian worldview in which man, intentionally made in the image of God, is the crown of creation.

Some viewers of Cosmos may have wondered: does science truly point to a godless universe? Is there no evidence of a designer’s hand in the natural world? That’s what the creators of the program set out to communicate it seems, but one glaring omission was any attempt on their part to answer one of the most important scientific questions: how did the biological information necessary for life originate? The answer is fundamental to determining the correct worldview. Are blind material processes sufficient to explain life, or is there evidence of a mind behind the matter?

Darwin-Doubt PicThankfully, not all theorists avoid the biological information question like it’s some sort of plague. In Darwin’s Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design, Dr. Stephen Meyer tackles that issue head-on and (as the title states) makes a compelling argument for intelligent design. The book’s release in June, 2013 shook the evolutionary biology and paleontology communities, and the aftershocks persist. Darwin’s Doubt made an impressive debut at the number seven spot on the New York Times bestseller list for nonfiction and has been hailed as “an accurate and comprehensive review of the evidence” and “a game-changer” by credentialed scientists in fields such as paleontology, genetics, and biology. Meyer’s central thesis stands in direct opposition to the materialist view by claiming that open-minded scientific evaluation of living things and natural history strongly suggests a transcendent intelligence.

In his book, Meyer explores the history, mystery, and current scientific state-of-affairs surrounding an event known as the Cambrian explosion. In a geological blink of an eye, the vast majority of animal phyla appear in the fossil record without viable evidence of evolutionary precursors. Charles Darwin was acutely aware of (and troubled by) this conundrum. In the ensuing century and a half since his Origin of Species was published, the Cambrian dilemma has only intensified. It presents a grave problem for evolutionary theory—the problem of the origin of the biological information needed to launch such a monumental zoological revolution.

Meyer contends that unguided natural selection acting upon random genetic mutations cannot explain the influx of biological information necessary for the Cambrian explosion. What makes his case particularly powerful is that it is built upon a broad range of respected, peer-reviewed scientific publications. He examines the latest evidence from evolutionary and developmental biology, genetics, and epigenetics in order to highlight the severity of the problem and demonstrates that materialist attempts to explain it away often beg the question, miss the point, or rely upon phantom “data.”

The new, expanded edition of Darwin’s Doubt includes a substantial epilogue in which Meyer offers a thorough response to the book’s critics. Unfortunately, the vast majority of detractors never addressed the central arguments of the book. In fact, even the writers of some high-profile, oft-cited negative reviews seem to have not engaged most of the material. But a few scientists did, notably UC Berkeley paleontologist Charles Marshall, who wrote a respectful rebuttal to the book in the September 10th edition of the prestigious academic journal, Science, last year. A wonderful BBC radio debate soon followed. 

Marshall argued that new animal body plans could arise through the rewiring of gene regulatory networks, the genetic programs that guide early animal development. Meyer’s response is that the experimental data have demonstrated that mutations in these genes are always fatal to the organism, and that moreover, Marshall hasn’t offered an explanation for the origin of the pre-existing genetic and epigenetic information his explanation presupposes. Meyer explains why Marshall’s (and others’) counterarguments not only fail, they inadvertently offer extra support for Meyer’s thesis.

Ultimately, the materialist theories offered by critics of Darwin’s Doubt have done nothing to diminish the problem of the origin of biological information. Experience has made it clear, Meyer argues, that only minds produce information. Thus, intelligent design remains the best explanation, not only for the Cambrian information explosion, but for all of life.

We are no accident.

For more information, visit