Contemporary Philosophy attempts to identify current “hot issues” within the field of philosophy. This course in Contemporary Philosophy will attempt to answer the following question: Is Secular Humanism philosophy's best method for answering problems facing humanity in the 21st century? We will give special attention to the following "hot issues": Meta-Philosophical Foundations to 1) The New Atheism; 2) The Epistemology of Scientific Naturalism; 3) Secular Humanism; 4) The Meta-Ethics of Moral Knowledge; 5) Justice, Human Rights, and the Problem of Genocide (and whether any of the above secular outlooks have a sufficient answer to the problem); and 6) Meta-Ethical / Moral Psychological Concerns with a Realist Ethic

James S. Spiegel, The Making of an Atheist: How Immorality Leads to Unbelief Chicago, Ill: Moody Press, 2010. 141 pages. $12.99.

Philosopher James Spiegel has written a clear, biblically-informed, philosophically-astute and well-documented account of the ultimate origins of atheism. Unbelief, he argues, is not attributable to a lack of evidence for God. Rather, the problem is fixed in human rebellion against God himself, just as Paul explained in the first chapter of Romans. This book provides a much needed dimension of analysis in light of all the press received in the past few years by “new atheists” such as Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris.

Some of those who believe that atheism is rooted more in rebellion than in argument foreswear the need for any constructive case for theism or for particular Christian beliefs. Not so for Professor Spiegel. Instead, he argues that the evidence supports theism (the laws of nature, the existence of the universe, and the emergence of life) and that naturalism is self-defeating since it cannot account for human rationality (summarizing Alvin Plantinga’s argument). But positive apologetics is not the main purpose of his book. Spiegel aptly summarizes his book’s thesis on pages 113-114.

"The descent into atheism is caused by a complex of moral-psychological factors, not a perceived lack of evidence for God’s existence. The atheist willfully rejects God, though this is precipitated by immoral indulgences and typically a broken relationship with his or her father. Thus, the choice of the atheist paradigm is motivated by non-rational factors, some of which are psychological and some of which are moral in nature.

The hardening of the atheist mind-set occurs through cognitive malfunction due to two principle causes. First, atheists suffer from paradigm-induced blindness, as their worldview inhibits their ability to recognize the reality of God that is manifest in creation. Second, atheists suffer from damage to their sensus divinitatis [the sense for God’s existence], so their natural awareness of God is severely impeded. Both of these mechanisms are aspects of the noetic effects of sin."

After articulating the intellectual and moral errors of atheism, Spiegel concludes with a brief but insightful chapter called “The Blessings of Theism.” Here he explains that Christian theists can develop intellectual and moral virtues and live honestly before God. They are free to both complain to God and praise God. All aspects of the human personality can be offered to a personal and moral Creator, thus insuring human flourishing in ways impossible for atheism. Atheism is simply incompatible with a life well-lived (shalom).

Atheists may complain that Spiegel is poisoning the well or begging the question against the unbeliever, that he simply assumes theism and then dismisses atheism as something morally and intellectually defective. This is not so. Contrariwise, as mentioned, Spiegel does not disavow arguments for theism; but instead of pursuing that (very common) route, he considers the psychology of atheism from the vantage point of biblical theism. (In this, his book is similar to R.C. Sproul’s earlier work, The Psychology of Atheism; later republished as If There is a God, Why are There Atheists? as well as Kierkegaard’s The Sickness Unto Death.) The atheist who reads this book is therefore enjoined to consider whether or not the biblical explanation of the origin, nature, and continuation of his unbelief may, in fact, ring true.

Apologetics is the discipline of defending Christianity as true, rational, and pertinent to life. The apologist may be a philosopher, historian, theologian, or a practitioner of some other intellectual discipline. However, in the broadest sense, all Christians are commanded to have a reason for the hope within them, to offer this with gentleness and respect (1 Peter 3:15), and to love God with all their minds (Matthew 22:37-38; see also Romans 12:1-2). Jesus defended his views through argument (see three examples of this in Matthew 22), as did the Apostle Paul throughout the Book of Acts (see especially his speech to the Athenians in Acts 17). (I defend the claim that Jesus was a philosopher and apologist in On Jesus [Wadsworth, 2002]).

Learning apologetics (first from Francis Schaeffer) transformed me from an intellectually insecure and timid Christian into a thinker who had found confidence and certainty in the challenging world of ideas. All Christians need this kind of confidence and should receive the exhortation that the Apostle Paul gave to his disciple Timothy, “God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power, love, and a sound mind” (2 Timothy 1:7). While I have learned much from many apologists, William Lane Craig work’s has been formative for me in many respects. As a respected philosopher who often writes at the highest intellectual levels in academic journals and books, Craig has, through his long and fruitful career (which includes debating influential atheists and other non-Christians), also offered apologetics at a more popular (but always intellectually serious) level. With On Guard, Craig distills and simplifies work available in other books (such as Reasonable Faith and God: A Debate Between a Christian an a Atheist) in order to present a thorough defense of Christianity. While taking the reader fairly deep into apologetic arguments, the book does not presume much knowledge of philosophy. To keep the reader’s interest, it uses charts and graphics—but not to excess. The book is also punctuated by two “personal interludes” in which Craig presents his own “journey to faith.”

In ten chapters, Craig explains the nature and purpose of apologetics, the significance of God’s existence for the meaning of life, why the existence of the universe is best explained by God, how the universe reveals God’s design, and how the existence of morality is best explained by God as its source. He also takes up the problem of suffering, and the identity of Jesus as God Incarnate and as raised from the dead. The final chapter asks, “Is Jesus the Only Way to God?” and addresses the claim that Christianity is too exclusive and harsh (consigning unbelievers to hell). While presented in a rather popular form, Craig does not cut any corners, and he gives ample documentation where needed.

While I disagree with Craig’s strategy at a few points (particularly on religious exclusivism and the problem of evil), the book deserves high praise as a complete, readable, and compelling defense of Christianity. While Craig uses the design inference to defend the fine-tuning of the universe for human life (given its unlikely combination of constants, proportions, and laws), he fails to use this argument to infer design at the biological level, as do the proponents of Intelligent Design such as William Dembski, Stephen Meyer, and Michael Behe. But this is a small complaint given the overall excellence of this work, which I highly recommend to who are all interested in apologetics at the beginning to intermediate level. After reading On Guard, one will want to explore Craig’s more advanced works, as well as writings by J.P. Moreland, Paul Copan, Winfried Corduan, Norman Geisler, Richard Swinburne, Alvin Plantinga, and other philosophical apologists. Nothing less than the rational defense of eternal truth is at stake.

Admission is free, and the conference will be at Timberline Church in Fort Collins. For complete information, please visit the website.

USA Today reported recently that "More US Christians mix 'Eastern,' New Age Beliefs." Sadly, many churchgoers are taking unbiblical beliefs with them and into the rest of their lives.

Much to my amazement, my first book, Unmasking the New Age, has been reprinted, now in the 23rd printing. 151,863 copies are in print. It was published in 1986. While some of the players have changed, the basic issues concerning the New Age worldview (pantheism, monism, occultism, reincarnation) have not changed. If you want to understand the thinking of Deepak Chopra, The Secret, etc., and compare it with Christianity, this book can help.

The narrator, Christian author and video producer, Caryl Matrisciana, is well-versed in the philosophy and mysticism of India, and in its essential spiritual practice: yoga. Through interviews, historical background, and quotations from various sources, the video conclusively shows that yoga is a Hindu practice through and through. There is no yoga without Hinduism and no Hinduism without yoga. Moreover, Hinduism and Christianity are entirely different worldviews. Therefore, it is impossible to Christianize yoga and Christians should not participate in it.

The video gives ample opportunity for a proponent of Christianized yoga to make her point (too much time, in fact), but her words ring hollow. The combined testimonies of experts and former parishioners of yoga is overwhelmingly against the claim that yoga is a merely physical exercise which can be practiced without spiritual involvement, which can include demonic oppression or worse.

On the down side, the video is somewhat repetitious and a bit too long (80 minutes). It also makes some claims about premillennial eschatology that are not necessary to its central thesis. Near the end the film shows book covers by Rick Warren and Richard Foster to the effect that they promote yoga. However, no citations from their writings are given to make that point. I am a fan of neither author, but some evidence for their endorsement of yoga seems needed in the film.

There are a few other difficulties One gets the impression that all of Hinduism if pantheistic, when, in fact, there are various schools of Hindu philosophy besides pantheism. True, pantheism is the school that has influenced the West most powerfully, but it is not the only approach Hinduism takes. The religion is vary diverse in its worldview, although all Hindus affirm: reincarnation/karma, maya, nirvana, the author of the Vedas, and yoga. One expert says that Hinduism (taken as pantheism) is relativistic and subjective. This is false: it makes absolute truth claims about Brahman as the supreme reality and self (Atman) as one with Brahman.

Overall, this film can help people become more informed on the history and philosophy of yoga, it incompatibility with Christianity, and the basic Christian message of salvation through the grace of God shown in Jesus Christ alone. But given some of its inaccuracies (and simply the medium of video) it is not the best scholarly source on Hinduism/yoga.

The lecture is available below in two parts:

Steven Meyer, The Signature in the Cell. New York: HarperOne, 2009.

One could not ask for more in a philosophy of science treatise that what we find in The Signature in the Cell. The book is no less than magisterial, an adjective that curmudgeons such as myself seldom use. At every level—philosophical, scientific, historical and literary—it is a superb treatise.

Reading every word of its 508 pages of text (not counting end notes)--as I did--repays the reader greatly. Meyer thoroughly examines a most significant topic--how life came about--and does so in an engaging, warm, and philosophically rigorous fashion. (Few books ever do such a thing.) In fact, I have never read a book that goes so deep while remaining so welcoming to the reader. It does do by using a minimal narrative structure--there is no obtrusive autobiography here--to guide us through the issues and arguments pertaining to the nature and origin life at the genetic level. The reader is lead step-by-step into the question of the origin of biological information, and so receives a hearty education in the history of science in general and the scientific question to understand life itself.

Meyer doggedly pursues all the possible explanations for the informational nature in DNA and RNA. He carefully explores the philosophy of scientific explanations with respect to unrepeatable events in the past (such as the origin of life on earth). It is a search for clues in the present to explain the past. One needs a causally adequate explanation for past events relies on known features to produce the state of affairs in question.

Having found all the materialistic explanations desperately wanting, he concludes that intelligence is the best explanation for the highly concentrated, amazingly complex, and carefully specified information in the DNA and RNA of the cell. Neither chance nor natural law nor a combination of both are remotely plausible explanations. Yet everyday we perceive that intelligence produces information (such as the words of this review). Nothing else can. Meyer argues convincingly that materialism cannot survive when biology enters "the information age," as it did in 1953 when the double helix structure of the DNA was discovered by two atheists, Crick and Watson.

Critics who dismiss this book as merely religiously motivated should themselves be dismissed. Meyer appeals to no uniquely religious assumptions in his philosophy of science and uses principles broadly employed in the historical sciences. Moreover, while his conclusion--life is best explained by a designing intelligence of some kind--is friendly toward theism, he grants that it does not give us a full Christian account of existence.

This short review cannot praise adequately all the philosophical, scientific, and (yes) literary values of this magnificent work. Its publication may prove to be a decisive moment for the Intelligent Design movement.

First, the Bible is a long, ancient, and sometimes perplexing book for contemporary people. Defending what the Bible teaches is no simple task, and certainly does not admit of a formula. Even the stellar apologist must face her intellectual limits and never bluff knowing more than she knows. However, to admit this difficulty is not to revel in mysteries, paradoxes, or (worse yet) absurdities. Rather, we should realize that all of our intellectual endeavors—especially those dealing with the broadest and deepest questions of life’s meaning—will be dogged to some degree by misunderstanding, ignorance, and intellectual disappointment. To hold that the Christian worldview is the best rational explanation for the things that matter most does not imply that we have a lock on all the best arguments or have attained all the truths we need.

Second, apologetics is not only limited by the difficulty of the subject itself, but by the weaknesses of the subjects who practice it—you and I. We commend and defend Christianity through our speech, our writing, and our demeanor. And we are sinners. We are the medium for this matchless message, but we are flawed. The best argument carried forth by a bad character will not likely have the desired effect. We may know strong apologetic arguments, but lack courage to present them, or, conversely, we may confidently offer arguments that we think are strong, but are not. We may study too much and pray too little, or the opposite. And so it goes. Yet we may be thankful that “God can make a straight line with a crocked stick,” as the medieval saying goes.[1] If we fall short as apologists, this does not mean that Christianity is untrue or irrational or that all our efforts are vain. Our job is to faithfully give the best arguments possible from the purest heart possible.

Third, apologetics must be understood within the framework of God’s secret counsels, as Calvinists like to put it.[2] God often does not tell us how or why he brings some things about. As the hymn puts it, “God works in mysterious ways, his wonders to perform.” God may use any means at his disposal, and every means are at his disposal. As the majestic Westminster Confession of Faith puts it, “God, in his ordinary providence, maketh use of means, yet is free to work without, above, and against them, at his pleasure.”[3] The apologist might be likened to a physician trying to cure an ailment. He can only use the tools of his trade, but he realizes that some people spontaneously recover without treatment and some do not respond well to treatment that should help them. Nevertheless, he does not despair of his task.

---------------

[1] See also See Francis Schaeffer, “The Weakness of God’s Servants” in No Little People, No Little Places (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1974), 43-60.

[2] They typically appeal to Deuteronomy 29:29; see also Romans 11:33-36.

[3] Chapter V, section 3.

Ian Colle (‘09 M.A. in Philosophy of Religion) has established an endowed graduation award to honor Gordon Lewis, senior professor of Christian philosophy and theology, and Doug Groothuis, professor of philosophy. Colle says, “Some of the greatest moments of inspiration I received as a student at Denver Seminary were in classes taught by Dr. Lewis and Dr. Groothuis. At first glance, we knew students might have easily overlooked these seemingly mild-mannered professors of philosophy. Little did any of us know that we were about to begin learning at the feet of battle-hardened warriors in the fight against the powers of evil. They taught us that ideas have consequences and that intellectual warriors must join the fight by being able to defend their faith with sound arguments. Holing up in our Christian compound and ignoring what was going on in the world around us was never an option. Both men teach with a passion for the objective truth of Christianity and for equipping future leaders to defend that truth. By creating this endowment, I hope to ignite that passion in future generations of philosophers from Denver Seminary and ensure they remember the great shoulders upon which they are standing.”

This award will be given at graduation to an outstanding philosophy of religion student. Colle encourages all students and alumni impacted by these two professors to make additional gifts to support this award fund. To make a gift, please contact Jim Howard, Vice President of Advancement, at 303.762.6941 or jim.howard@denverseminary.edu, or send a gift directly to the Office of Advancement, noting that your gift is for the Lewis/Groothuis graduation award fund.

Eric Goodman is a musician and videomaker living in New York City. He is a graduate of Cornell University, where he led off the first annual "MIDI Madness" Digital Music Festival. He has studied electronic music, music composition, video production and film scoring at Cornell and the Center for the Media Arts. His project of conceptual music videos, "Thus Spoke The Spectacle," fuses original compositions, video clips, and narration from the fields of media studies, literature and philosophy. Drawing upon a wide range of theories, the project explores the meaning and effects of our corporate-controlled, media-saturated, technological society.

An Introduction:

Part 1 of the Complete Lecture:

Part 2 of the Complete Lecture:

J.P. Moreland, The God Question: An Invitation to a Life of Meaning. Harvest House Publishers, Eugene, Oregon, 2009. Reviewed by Doug Groothuis.

Although J. P. Moreland is a distinguished Christian philosopher who has written numerous academic articles and books at a high academic level, he is also a passionate follower of Christ who wants to ignite that same passion in others. To that end, he has written this remarkable book, which combines philosophical reflection with spiritual instruction.

Moreland begins by reflecting on our quest to be happy and our inability to find genuine satisfaction in life. Social scientists have noted that the incidence of depression has skyrocketed in recent years, even as our standard of living rises. Moreland describes “the empty self” that consumes popular culture in copious quantities, but ends up restless, bored, impatient, and immature. Instead of giving yet more self-help advice, Moreland argues that only a true and rational worldview and wise living based on that worldview can adequately treat the problem of unhappiness.

Therefore, Moreland makes a philosophical and historical case for the Christian God, covering the best of natural theology (cosmological, design, and moral arguments), as well as the historical reliability of the Gospels. But unlike some apologetic approaches, Moreland always has the human subject in view, being concerned to relate the rationality of Christian truth to the individual in search of meaning. Along these lines, his defense of the uniqueness and supremacy of Jesus is closely tied to the human fulfillment found in “the luminous Nazarene,” as he aptly puts it.

The God Question is both warmly personal (featuring a chapter on Moreland’s testimony) and intellectually challenging (although not overly technical). Not content to merely to defend the Christian worldview as intellectually compelling, Moreland beckons the reader to live a Christian life through the spiritual disciplines and an openness to the supernatural work of God. Moreland also gives personal examples of encountering the supernatural power of God and alerts the reader to the realities of spiritual warfare. His excellent discussion of life in the Kingdom of God should inspire and excite the reader to be whole-hearted participant in this wonderful manifestation of God’s rule over a fallen world. (He develops this vital theme more fully in Kingdom Triangle.) The Christian life offers true happiness, in which the entirety of the human person can flourish to the glory of God (see John 10:10).

Moreland calls us to a life of drama and meaning in Christ. He writes wisely about the need to practice self-denial, which can be painful, although it is ultimately the gateway to joy. However, he says little about the Christian’s personal struggle with suffering and evil. While he doesn’t ignore the subject, his practical advice on living the Christian life mentions little about the need for lament, grieving, and suffering well in the presence of God—something we find so often in the Psalms, for example. (This topic is wisely addressed in Michael Card’s book, A Sacred Sorrow.)  Of course, one cannot do everything in a medium-sized book, so this is a minor complaint.

May God use this unique and important book to raise up many Christ-followers who desire to develop both a Christian mind and a godly heart.

The film begins well with a tall and hunched over Cornell West philosophizing passionately in the back seat of a car. Ironically, the most animated character in the film is cooped up in a small car talking to the driver (the producer) and camera. West is the only philosopher to appear in three different segments.

Things go south rapidly as a dour, self-important, and nonsensical philosopher (who I had never heard of and have no interest in knowing about) named Avital Ronell. She serves up mounds of recycled postmodernism: there is no objective meaning; to think so makes one a fascist, serious people have a bad conscience (unlike Bush who kills people without regret and for no reason); and so on ad infinitum, ad nauseum. What a long ten minutes that was. Of course, if there is no objective meaning, nihilism follows. If nihilism is true, then anything goes...and why not be a fascist or anything else? Next.

Michael Hardt is interviewed while rowing a boat in a large pond. He, like many of the philosophers, seems uncomfortable. He speaks of yearning for "the revolution" and wondering how it might come about in America. Hardt co-authored Empire (2001) with Antonio Negri, a domestic terrorist who was in jail in Europe when the book was released. The book made a splash until 9/11 eclipsed it. Hardt is a warmed-over Marxist who doesn't believe there is an objective human nature; it is all determined by historical, social, economic forces. As soon as I heard this I thought, "What a recipe for totalitarianism!" And so it is. If there is no normative human nature, then there is no good life to discover and encourage. Therefore, "revolutionaries" who are whimsically upset with the present order--usually through resentment--can destroy as much as they want to bring about their constructed new model of humanity (which has no determinative nature). One wonders if Mr. Hardt has learned anything from history. Over a hundred million human beings were murdered in the Twentieth Century at the hands of "revolutionaries" of like mind. Utopia has been deferred once again. Perfection awaits the Messianic Eschaton. Those who labor to create heaven on earth will, given their false and futile philosophies (see Colossians 2:8), only kindle more hell and inspire more hellions such as themselves.

Peter Singer strolls through New York's opulence explaining his idea that developed nations owe the rest of the world far more help than they ever give. He clearly explains his ideas, which were first laid out in 1971 in an essay much anthologized and which I teach in my introduction to ethics courses. This should trouble our conscience, since so many suffer needlessly. But Singer disavows any religious motivations, saying we do not need religion to be moral. True, people may do good things and have legitimate moral concerns without religious belief. However, the deeper issue is whether we can find a coherent account of any objective morality or our knowledge of it or give an adequate motivation for living the moral life apart from God as the personal-infinite source of moral and the author of human nature made in his image. Singer has repudiated not only God, but many of the moral entailments that follow from theism. Humans as a species have no special moral standing, he asserts. He supports infanticide if the infant is killed before he or she reaches a sense of self-interest. One can also lose the right not to be killed if one loses certain functions; so, he supports active euthanasia--at least in principle. He continues to support his own senile mother. Singer also tolerates bestiality (if it is consensual...). Of course, the film does not mention these items. Nor does it mention that Singer is banned from speaking in Germany, since his ideas--that there are many human lives not worthy to be lived--are all too close to Nazi ideology.

Martha Nussbaum articulates her moral, political vision while walking and talking more briskly than anyone else. She can lecture on her feet quite well. She argues that we should move beyond social contract theory--with its emphasis on individuality, power, productivity, and danger--and embrace a "capability ethic" that includes and honors all people, however much or little they "contribute to society." (She says nothing about the unvalued unborn, who are aborted at the rate of over one million a year in the United States.) Nussbaum also likes the idea of "the nanny state," since this recognizes maternal values for politics. I am not sure what all the implications of Nussbaum's view may be, but "the nanny state" does not trouble me because it is maternal, but because it is statist. The state is not the family; neither is it the church. But for many secular thinkers (libertarians notwithstanding), the state becomes the only hope for justice, fairness, and even utopia (as mentioned earlier). As such, it becomes an idol.

Judith Butler (another postmodernist who has written on gender as socially constructed) and a disabled young woman move about the streets of San Francisco for the last long segment. The young woman speaks of her orientation to life and how the non-disabled need to respect and understand the plight of those different from themselves. I enjoyed her calm and insightful comments; but I was repulsed by Butler, whose demeanor was caustic and arrogant. Butler is a lesbian who has tried to evacuate herself of anything feminine. She has nearly succeeded, if appearances are to be trusted; but the fact that she is a woman who denies being a woman is rather unnerving. Christians should be compassionate on those who are not heterosexual, but those who claim that gender is constructed and that it fits no normative structure should be criticized. Butler says that "there is no normative morphology" (concerning disability) and no normative sexual behavior: we simply do different things with our bodies. She unhappily fills in the gaps with respect to homoerotic activities. She also takes a swipe at "creationists." No wonder, since she denies any transcendent moral authority.

The fallacy of Butler's approach is that physical disability is not on same order as non-heterosexual orientations: homosexuality, bi-sexuality, or transsexuality. Yes, they are all effects of the fall, the fragmentation of creation due to human sin (see Genesis 3). But the disabled person must live within their physical and/or mental limits, such as the young woman being confined to a wheel chair. The nonheterosexual may find sexual healing through the power of God if he or she becomes a Christian. There are many happy stories to this effect, and organizations such as Exodus International exist to offer such help. But a person does not need to act out of one's disordered and wounded sexual orientation--just as one prone to addiction need not engage in behaviors that put him at risk of addiction. But postmodernists such as Butler believe that human norms are entirely contingent and constructed; there is no normative pattern for human sexuality. If so, lesbianism (and just about anything else) is permissible--and should be honored. But, of course, it should be honored only if there is some objective moral truth to that effect. But given postmodernism, there is no such objective moral truth, since truth is constructed all the way down. Therefore, sexual behavior--and any response to it--is merely conventional and circumstantial. Imperatives and virtues in any objective or binding sense are nowhere to be found. Nihilism returns.

The film ends with West crammed into a car and articulating madly about tragedy and hope. He several times refers to himself as "a Christian," but never spells out what this means. He does say that we should transcend romanticism by recognizing that even our failures may be "gifts." I wish he would have developed that idea, but he did not. If life is truly a gift, then there is a Giver, who transcends our aims, ideas, and fallibilities. If so, the nihilism that haunts this film would be overcome by theism: a worldview that offers objective meaning, value, and morality; a metaphysic that gives all humans dignity and hope for redemption; a perspective that neither promises a political utopia nor gives up on history as linear and meaningful because it ultimately fulfills the purposes of the Triune God, who invaded it and changed it forever through the Incarnation.

If we examine life more deeply, we find at its center a Cross, a Lamb, and a Lion. Nihilism is overcome by the Nazarene.

The four Gospels of the New Testament all report that Jesus predicted his death, burial, and resurrection. He was born to die. All of his wondrous teachings, healings, exorcisms, and transforming relationships with all manner of people--from fishermen to tax collectors to prostitutes to revolutionaries--would be incomplete without his crucifixion and resurrection. Shortly before his death, "Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priest and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life" (Matthew 16:21). Peter resisted this grim fact, but Jesus rebuked him. There was no other way (vs. 22-23). For, as Jesus had taught, he "did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many" (Matthew 20:28).

And give his life he did, on an unspeakably cruel Roman cross-impaled for all to see before two common criminals. We call this day Good Friday because it was good for us; but it was dreadful for Jesus. Before I became a follower of Christ, I always associated this day with the Alaskan earthquake on Good Friday, 1964, one of the largest quakes ever in North America. I was there in Anchorage. After the death of Jesus, the earth quaked on the first Good Friday as well, heaving with a significance that far exceeds any geological upsurge in world history. As Jesus' disciple Matthew recounts: "And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit. At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from the top to the bottom. The earth shook and the rocks split" (Matthew 27:50-51). When the guards at the crucifixion experienced the earthquake and the other extraordinary phenomena, "they were terrified, and exclaimed, 'Surely he was the Son of God!'" (v. 54). Yet another miracle was waiting, waiting-as the dead Messiah was pried off his bloody cross, embalmed, and laid in a cold, dark tomb, guarded to the hilt by Roman guards.

All seemed to be lost. The one who had boldly claimed to be "the way, the truth, and the life" (John 14:6), the prophet who had announced that "God so loved the world that he sent his one and only son that whoever believes in him would not perish but have eternal life" (John 3:16)--this man now had died. The man who had raised the dead was dead.

On the first day of the week, two women, both named Mary, came to visit the tomb of their master. They had stayed with him as he died; now they visited his tomb in grief. Yet instead of mourning a death, they celebrated a resurrection announced by an angel, who rolled back the stone sealing the tomb and charged them to look at its empty contents. He then told them to tell Jesus' disciples of the resurrection and to go to Galilee where they would see him. As they scurried away, Jesus himself met them, greeted them, and received their surprised worship (Matthew 27:8-9). He directed them, "Do not be afraid. Go tell my brothers to go to Galilee; there they will see me" (v. 10).

The rest is history, and it changed history forever. The fact that women were the first witnesses to the resurrection puts the lie to the notion that the idea of Jesus' resurrection was concocted at a later point to add drama to his life. Women were not taken to be trustworthy witnesses in courts of law at that time (although Jesus always respected them). If someone had wanted to create a pious fraud, they never would have included the two Marys in their story. Moreover, all four Gospels testify to the factual reality of the resurrection. They were written by eyewitnesses (Matthew and John) or those who consulted eyewitnesses (Luke and Mark); they were people in the know, not writers of myths and legends (see Luke 1:1-4; 1 Peter 1:16).

After the resurrection, the gospel of the risen Jesus was quickly proclaimed in the very area where he was crucified. This upstart Jesus movement would have been easily refuted by someone producing the corpse of Christ, which both the Jewish establishment and the Roman government had a vested interest in doing, since this new movement threatened the religious and political status quo. But we have no historical record of any such thing having occurred. On the contrary, the Jesus movement grew and rapidly spread. Christian Jews changed the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday, in honor of Jesus' resurrection. Pious Jews would never do such a thing on their own initiative, because it would set them against their own tradition and their countrymen. Nor would they have ceased offering the prescribed sacrifices their Scriptures required had not Jesus proven himself to be the final sacrifice for sin, the lamb of God (see John 1:29 and The Book of Hebrews). The resurrection best accounts for this change in their day of worship, their manner of worship, and the transformation at the core of their lives. Moreover, the two key rituals of the earliest church--communion and the baptism--both presuppose the historicity of the resurrection and both are very difficult to explain without it.

The Apostle Paul, a man revolutionized through an encounter with the risen Christ (Acts 9), taught that "if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith" (1 Corinthians 15:14). Paul listed many witnesses of the risen Christ, some of whom were still living when he wrote (1 Corinthians 15:3-8), and confidently affirmed that "Christ has indeed been raised from the dead" (v. 20). He also proclaimed that Jesus "through the Spirit of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead" (Romans 1:4).

Easter is the core of Christian faith and life. Without the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ, there is no gospel message, no future hope, and no new life in Christ. But with the resurrection at its center, Christianity stands unique and alone in the world. No other religion is based on the historical resurrection of its divine founder. When Jesus announced, "I am the resurrection and the life" (John 10:25), he meant it--and he demonstrated it. Let us, then, leave our dead ways and follow him today and into eternity.

• Douglas Groothuis, Ph.D., is Professor of Philosophy at Denver Seminary and the author of On Jesus. Web page: www.gospelcom.net/ivpress/groothuis.

Rather than taking up the legal reasoning and history of abortion in America (especially concerning Roe vs. Wade), this essay makes a simple, straightforward moral argument against abortion. Sadly, real arguments (reasoned defenses of a thesis or claim) are too rarely made on this issue. Instead, propaganda is exchanged. Given that the Obama administration is the most pro-abortion administration in the history of the United States, some clear moral reasoning is called for at this time.

The first premise of the argument is that human beings have unique and incomparable value in the world. Christians and Jews believe this is the case because we are made in God's image and likeness. But anyone who holds that humans are special and worthy of unique moral consideration can grant this thesis (even if their worldview does not ultimately support it). Of course, those like Peter Singer who do not grant humans any special status will not be moved by this. We cannot help that. Many true and justified beliefs (concerning human beings and other matters) are denied by otherwise intelligent people.

Second, the burden of proof should always be on the one taking a human life and the benefit of doubt should always be given to the human life. This is not to say that human life should never be taken. In a fallen, cruel, and unfair world, sometimes life-taking is necessary, as most people will grant. Cases include self-defense, the prosecution of a just war, and capital punishment. Yet all unnecessary and intentional life-taking is murder, a deeply evil and repugnant offense against human beings. (This would also be acknowledged by those who believe it is never justifiable to take a human life.)

Third, abortion nearly always takes a human life intentionally and gratuitously and is, therefore, morally unjustified, deeply evil, and repugnant-given what we have said about human beings. No real argument can be brought against the claim that what creates a human pregnancy (a fetus) is a human being. Biologically, an entity joins its parents' species at conception. Like produces like: apes procreate apes, rabbits procreate rabbits, and humans procreate humans. If the fetus is not human, what else could it possibly be? Could it be an ape or a rabbit? Of course not.

Some philosophers, such as Mary Anne Warren, have tried to drive a wedge between personhood and humanity. That is, all persons are not human (such as God, angels, ETs-if they exist), and not all humans are persons (fetuses or those who lose certain functions after having possessed them). While it is true that there may be persons who are not humans, it does not therefore follow that not all humans are persons. The fetus as a person in progress, not a potential person or nonperson.

When we separate personhood from humanity, we make personhood an achievement based on the possession of certain qualities. But what are these person-constituting qualities? Some say a basic level of consciousness; some assert viability outside the womb; some say a sense of self interest. All of these criteria would take away humanity from those in comas or other physically compromised situations. Humans can lose levels of consciousness through injuries, and even infants are not viable without intense human support. Moreover, who are we to say just what qualities make for membership in the moral community of persons? The stakes are very high in this question. If we are wrong in our identification of what qualities are sufficient for personhood and we allow a person to be killed, we have allowed the wrongful killing of nothing less than a person. Therefore, I argue that the best ontology is to regard personhood as a substance or essence that is given at conception. Even if one is not sure when personhood kicks in, one should err on the side of being conservative simply because so much is at stake.

Many argue that outside considerations experienced by the mother should overrule the value of the human embryo. But these considerations always involve issues of lesser moral weight than the conservation and protection of a human life. An unwanted pregnancy is difficult, but the answer is not to kill a human being. Moreover, a baby can be put up for adoption. There are many others who do want the child and would give him or her great love and support.

The only exemption to giving priority to the life of the fetus would be if there were a real threat to the life of the mother were the pregnancy to continue. In this case, the fetus functions as a kind of intruder that threatens the woman's life. To abort the pregnancy would be tragic but allowable in this fallen and disoriented world awaiting its final redemption. Some mothers will nonetheless choose to continue the pregnancy to their own risk, but this is not morally required. It should be noted that these life-threatening situations are extremely rare.

This argument does not rely on any uniquely religious assumptions, although some religious people will find it compelling. I take it to be an item of natural law (what can be known about morality by virtue of being a human being) that human life has unique value. A case can be made against abortion by using the Bible (only the Old Testament or both the Old and New Testament combined) as the main moral source, but I have not given that argument here. Rather, this essay has given an argument on the basis of generally agreed upon moral principles. If it is to be refuted, one or more of those principles, or the reasoning used, needs to be refuted.

Although at the beginning of this essay, I claimed I would not take up the legal reasoning related to abortion, one simple point follows from my argument. In nearly every case, abortion should be illegal simply because the Constitution requires that innocent human life be protected from killing. Anti-abortion laws are not an intrusion of the state into the family any more than laws against murdering one's parents are intrusions into the family.

This course will examine the foundations, coherence and contemporary application of a genuinely Christian Ethic. Biblical, theological and philosophical foundations for ethics will be individually examined with the aim of critically integrating these into an overall ethical theory. We will examine the ramifications of such a theory to "hot button" topics including abortion, sexual ethics, euthanasia, just war and capital punishment. Taught by Dr. Troy Nunley, Assistant Professor of Philosophy.

This course equips students with well-reasoned responses to criticisms of Christianity's philosophical presuppositions, the veracity of its essential historical claims and the coherence of its fundamental doctrines. It will address topics of general philosophical concern such as truth, knowledge, rational grounds for belief in God and the problem of evil. It will also enable the student to understand and defend Christian doctrines such as the Ressurection, Incarnation, Trinity and hope of eternal life. And lastly we will explore the merits of Christian faith in contrast with alternative religions and worldviews. Taught by Dr. Troy Nunley, Assistant Professor of Philosophy.

This course will critically examine contemporary ethical theories, arguments for and against each of these and the assumptions required for any moral discourse to be possible. Attention will be given several proposed bases for morality: pleasure, duty, virtue, divine commands, etc. We will examine the objective status moral truths and moral judgments in light of subjectivist, relativistic, critical and non-cognitive challenges. Taught by Dr. Troy Nunley, Assistant Professor of Philosophy.

For more information on these courses or the Philosophy of Religion programs at Denver Seminary, please follow these links:

• Academic information, including class schedules and degree program worksheets
• Course descriptions as found in the Academic Catalog
• MDiv with a concentration in Philosophy of Religion
• MA with a major in Philosophy of Religion

Dynamics of Faith and Doubt (PR 590-EV) will be offered in the fall term of 2009 on Tuesday evenings from 6:30-8:20 for two credit hours. This popular, two-hour elective explores the nature of the Christian's faith (assenting to gospel truth and trusting in and living for God) in relation to the struggles of doubting the truth of Christianity. Our aim is to strengthen each student's faith-giving him or her a deeply biblical understanding of the spiritual life, as well as offering creative coping strategies for dealing with doubt in oneself and in others. Our primary guides will be the writings Francis Schaeffer (True Spirituality), C.S. Lewis (The Screwtape Letters), and Os Guinness (God in the Dark).

Defending Christian Faith (PR 501-01) will be offered on Wednesdays and Fridays from 9:30-10:45 for three credit hours. We seek to learn how to defend the Christian worldview as true, rational, and pertinent in an increasingly pluralistic and globalized world. To accomplish this biblical task, we will investigate the biblical justification for apologetics, the nature of truth, arguments for God's existence, the reliability of the Bible, and the deity of Christ, as well as the relationship of Christianity to science and other religions.

Religious Pluralism (PR 601) will be offered Thursdays from 1:00-3:45 for three credit hours. This class will acquaint students with several world religions and develop a logically sound, factually legitimate, and biblically faithful approach to the challenge of modern religious pluralism. This involves developing an understanding of the present condition of religious pluralism, the nature of religious truth claims, the relationship between conflicting religious truth claims, the uniqueness and exclusivity of Jesus Christ, and the imperative of Christian mission in a religiously plural world.

For more information on these courses or the Philosophy of Religion programs at Denver Seminary, please follow these links:

• Academic information, including class schedules and degree program worksheets
• Course descriptions as found in the Academic Catalog
• MDiv with a concentration in Philosophy of Religion
• MA with a major in Philosophy of Religion

I read most of this in the summer of 1977, one year after converting to Christianity. Having been influenced by Eastern religions and the occult before becoming a Christian, I needed to know the essential teachings of various religions and cults in relation to biblical Christianity. (While the word "cult" is controversial, Martin used it in two basic and helpful senses: Any group that deviates from historic Christianity orthodoxy and any group that is dishonest and manipulative in its organizational.) Martin, a true pioneer in evangelicalism and apologetics geared to non-Christian religions that originated in America, provided an in-depth treatment of Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Science, and many other groups. His chapter, "Scaling the Language Barrier," remains a classic on how non-Christian groups will co-opt Christian language in order to disarm those influenced by Christianity while teaching something entirely against the Bible. I was honored when Walter Martin wrote the preface to my second book, Confronting the New Age (1988). The book is now out in two different revisions, one edited by Hank Hanegraaff and the other by Ravi Zacharias. Suffice to say that Martin's legacy has been contested.

Before Sire (then editor of InterVarsity Press), no one has really catalogued and compared worldviews according to set beliefs. In fact, in the mis, not that many evangelicals were speaking and thinking in terms of worldviews (or overall philosophies of life). Now, thanks to Sire, Francis Schaeffer, Charles Colson, Nancy Pearcey, and many others, it is much more commonplace (but far from well established, sadly). Sire compared Christianity with Deism, Naturalism, Pantheism, and New Age thought, writing in very literate, but readable style. (His doctorate is in literature). Sire went on to write many worthwhile books on worldviews and apologetics and delivered lectures around the world explaining and defending the Christian worldview. He was also the editor for three of my InterVarsity Press books: Unmasking the New Age (1986), Confronting the New Age (1988), and Revealing the New Age Jesus (1990). He is a gifted editor and good friend. The Universe Next Door is now out in a 4th edition (2004), and Sire is working on a 5th edition. I have taught from every edition of this book in one setting or another!

Considered one of Lewis's more difficult and less read works (at least in comparison to his fiction or Mere Christianity), Abolition has been indispensible to my intellectual development. I first read it in my sophomore or junior year in college as a philosophy major. It gave me very solid support for the existence of moral values beyond the contingencies of culture. Technically, it is a work of meta-ethics -- or the metaphysics of ethics. He argues for "the Tao," by which he means the objective basis for moral values that transcends culture and preference. Lewis warned that abandoning this objective standpoint would lead to a culture where people attempt to invent new values and then condition others to accept them through force and propaganda. It is no wonder that I liberally quoted this work in my book against postmodernism, Truth Decay (2000). While not an apologetic for the biblical God as the basis for eternal values, The Abolition of Man lays that foundation. Its argument for objective moral value should be combined with the moral argument for God found in Book One of Lewis's Mere Christianity. I have read this book at least six times and always benefit from it. In that sense, it is much like Francis Schaffer's work, The God Who is There, which I have read about the same number of times.

I first read The God Who Is There by Francis Schaeffer in the fall of 1976, my sophomore year in college-just a few months after my conversion to Christ. It is not an overstatement to say that it revolutionized my view of Christian faith and endeavor. I had spent the first few troubled months of the Christian life not knowing how to think about the great intellectual issues that I had been introduced to in my first year of college. This caused considerable distress of soul. But Schaeffer, the savvy evangelist and apologist, wasn't afraid of the great ideas. In fact, he argued that the Christian world view is objectively true, rational, and that it offers unique hope and meaning to a post-Christian culture awash in despair and confusion. Schaeffer did not answer all my questions, and I have come to question a few of his judgments (particularly his reading of a few philosophers), but The God Who is There helped spark a grand view of ministry that has never dimmed. We must love the lost, take culture seriously, and outthink the world for Christ.

I have been reading Pascal's profound reflections for thirty years, and I don't plan on stopping. I find myself quoting him in my writing and speaking frequently. I first picked this volume out of my mother's collection of The Great Books in the summer of 1977. The volume consists of over 900 fragments of a book Pascal never completed, which would have been an apologetic for the Christian faith. Nevertheless, many of the fragments--some more developed and refined than others-were so brilliant that Pascal's family published them after his death in 1662. He was only 39. Pascal, a celebrated scientist and mathematician, understood that the gospel was the only key that could unlock the meaning of the human condition. His reflections on the greatness and misery of humanity are unparalleled in their wisdom and apologetic power. We are great because made in God's image and likeness; but we are miserable because we are fallen. We are deposed royalty in need of the Mediator, Jesus Christ.

Although I cannot agree with much of Kierkegaard's religious philosophy (particularly his fideism), this devotional book was pivotal in my sense of divine calling. Kierkegaard aimed to reform the dry and dead Lutheran orthodoxy of his day by stimulating his readers to rediscover the Christianity of the New Testament and to stand naked as individuals before God himself. This book summons the reader to consider their lives before the "audit of eternity" and to order all their affairs so as to "will the good in the truth," without excuse and without wavering and against the crowd, if need be. Through reading it, I discovered that God was calling me to engage the life of the mind as a lifelong pursuit. At the time (1977 or 1978), I did not know what shape this commitment would take, but the Lord's will was made known to me through this remarkable and penetrating book.

Denver Seminary has a rich legacy of Christian philosophy. Our second president and current Chancellor, Dr. Vernon Grounds, received a doctorate in philosophy when many Evangelicals would have never considered it. Dr. Gordon Lewis, now a senior professor, did likewise a few years later and has left a deep mark on the discipline as a teacher and writer. Denver Seminary began the Philosophy of Religion program in 1981. I joined the faculty in 1993. In the fall of 2008, we gladly welcomed Dr. Troy Nunley as Assistant Professor of Philosophy. He holds a Ph.D. and M.A. from the University of Missouri, as well as a M.Div. from Nazarene Theological Seminary. He has published in Philosophia Christi and augments the department with his strengths to logic, philosophy of religion, epistemology, metaphysics, and the history of philosophy. For the first time, Denver Seminary now has two full-time philosophy professors, a development that deepens our resources considerably.

The Philosophy of Religion program at Denver Seminary is fully accredited. It is known for the personal interaction it offers between students and faculty, as well as its academic rigor and its emphasis on approaching philosophy from a Christian worldview. We take special care to get to know our students and to work with them closely to develop their thinking, writing, and philosophical prowess.

Our program offers a full year's worth of philosophy classes in addition to the required core classes for all seminary students (biblical studies, theology, and church history). We require a rigorous six-hour comprehensive examination, which covers major philosophical figures and significant philosophical problems. Our required curriculum includes a year on the history of philosophy, as well as courses on religious pluralism, Christian apologetics, and Christian ethics.  Students also take two of the following three seminars: Metaphysics, Epistemology, and Philosophical Ethics. Our electives include Philosophy of Religion, Logic, Blaise Pascal, C.S. Lewis, and other topics. A unique emphasis of Denver Seminary's Philosophy Program is a professional seminar I teach called Writing for Publication, in which students develop a Christian philosophy of scholarship and produce both a book review (which is published in Denver Journal) and a publishable philosophical paper.

Denver Seminary's Philosophy of Religion Masters program has graduated dozens of students who have gone on to pursue doctorates in philosophy or other avenues of service suited to the skills they developed with us. We have placed students in graduate programs such as the University of Colorado-Boulder, the University of Nebraska, the University of South Carolina, Cornell, Hebrew University, Oxford, the University of Pittsburg, and Marquette. Many of our graduates are teaching in colleges in the United States and around the world.

If you would like more information about our professors and our program, please follow the links below:

• Professors:
  • Dr. Douglas Groothuis
  • Dr. Troy Nunley
• Programs:
  • MA with a major in Philosophy of Religion
  • MDiv with a concentration in Philosophy of Religion