Apologetics 2: Making Sense of Things: Christianity as a “Big Picture”

hello again it's Alistair McGrath here in the second lecture for Regent College Vancouver on Christian apologetics what I want to do in this lecture is talk to you about approaches to apologetics based on the idea of a big picture now some approaches to apologetics and to show the rationality or the reasonableness of individual aspects of Christianity but the approach I want to explore with you in this lecture is based on a way of thinking about Christianity as a way of seeing the world so if you like apologetics is about inviting people to step into this Christian way of seeing things and experiencing her feeling how it makes sense of life and of the world so again then by thinking about the nature of the Christian faith itself most people tend to think of it as a collection of ideas like creation Redemption Incarnation and so on if you like this amounts to identifying the key themes of Christian faith and then placing them in isolated and disconnected boxes I'm going to suggest to you that this is not the best way of thinking about Christianity for any purpose and certainly not for apologetics but I want to make it very clear that I can see how people come to think in this way if you think about how Christian theology is taught it very often tends to consist of teaching blocks dealing with individual theological themes like for example the doctrine of creation or the doctrine of redemption and once you've finished one particular Doctrine you move on to the next one so you can see how a tendency naturally arises to think of these as individual and disconnected ideas but what I want to do is to suggest that instead of thinking about each individual theme of the Christian faith as if it were some kind of hermetically sealed box I want you to think of it as being a thread okay a thread now here's where we're going with this each thread can be woven together to produce a tapestry to show a pattern that is made up of those interconnected threads sure each thread has its own distinct identity and significance yet this is the important point it is also part of a greater whole and the greater whole is more significant than any of its individual components so if you like Christianity is like a web of interconnected themes they're all ready at artworks from the person of Christ and the problems I've been suggesting is that we sometimes focus on individual threads and that means that politics sometimes becomes a defense of those individual threads yeah I want to suggest that what we really need to focus on is the big picture which lies at the heart of the Christian faith and realize why this is so helpful apologetically in other words I'm saying we need to see the forest not just the individual trees so let's turn to thinking about this approach to apologetics and I want to emphasize that the idea of making sense of our world really is important you might think for example of a natural sciences I mean their aim was to take a set of observations and ask how we can make sense of these how can we explain what we observe and the key question here really is is there a bigger picture a way of looking at things which means that these individual observations are actually seeing as connected as part of a bigger whole and as you may know the term Theory comes from the Greek word theoria which really means a beholding or a contemplation theory if you like as an intellectual framework it helps us to make sense of our observations it's a way of seeing these observations that shows us how they are connected with each other if you like it's about Discerning a big picture that makes sense of these individual observations now you may come across the American reform Theologian Michael Horton who's the Western pathological seminary in California and he uses the term Mega narrative again Mega narrative to refer to the Christian big picture or grand narrative now here's what he says now you'll find this really interesting the prophets and apostles were fully conscious of the fact that they were interpreting reality within the framework of a particular Narrative of creation for Redemption and consummation As Told for particular People Israel for the benefit of the world the biblical Faith claims that its story is the one that God is telling which relativizes and judges the other stories about God us and the world no I think that's really quite helpful but the Theologian I'm going to focus on now is actually GK chest and the manager will know his writings he remains one of the most widely read Christian apologists so let's look at the way in which Chesterton returned to the Christian faith after a period of really agnosticism and the critical Factor here was his realization of the ability of the Christian faith considered as a coherent whole to make sense of things in other words not any individual aspect of Christianity but rather the big picture as a whole some explain this in more detail GK Chesterton was a British journalist and he had what I personally think is a rather rare ability to express himself memorably and clearly and his leading works of apologetics I think uh Orthodox is one of the best of these they're still widely read in referenced so I could be touching on some of his ideas at several points in this course of lectures but here's the point I want to make Chesterton rediscovered Christianity in 1901 and in an important article of 1903 entitled The Return of the Angels again the return of the Angels Justin described his return to Orthodox Christian belief and the reasons for this I'm going to focus on this article because I think it's really interesting and of course that also helps to think about just them I think most important of all it opens up a way of thinking about apologetics which I think has a lot of potential now if you want to find this text just search on the web for Chesterton Return of the angels and you will find it so what does Chesterton say in this article and why is it so interesting well let me tell you chaston declares that many people including himself have returned to the Christian faith I quote not because of this argument or that argument but because the theory when it is adopted works out everywhere I want you to notices what uses the word theory because for Chester know a theory is a way of seeing things a way of understanding our world and he then goes on to make the point that it's the theory as a whole which is compelling not its individual components and his argument is that Christianity offers a view of the world which actually works now to make this point he uses an analogy so let's listen to the analogy he uses and you can think about how useful you think this might be the best way to see if a coat fits a man is not to measure both of them but to try it on now I think you can see what he's saying you step into a world view a way of understanding our world and you'll see how well it fits what you actually observe around you and what you experience within you so for chests and apologize actually is an invitation to see ourselves and the world in a new way So Justin's saying look be like a scientist see Christianity as a hypothesis and check out whether it actually makes sense of things all right I'm gonna tell you it's very helpful apologetically so let's look at the reasons why Chesterton returned to Christianity let me quote him again numbers of us have returned to this belief and we've returned to it not because of this argument or that argument but because the theory once adopted works out everywhere because the coat when it's tried on fits in every crease that's a very important line of argument and I should be telling you more about C.S Lewis during these lectures but one of the reasons that Lewis was drawn to Christianity is because of GK Chesterton in particular GK Justin's analysis of history in this book the Everlasting man and Lewis found that cheston's view of History made sense let me tell you what Lewis says in response to reading chest and he sets aside in surprised by Joy here we go I quote in Reading Chesterton I did not know what I was letting myself in for a young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading but perhaps I think the the greatest compliment to do is pay to chest and was actually to develop his approach further and we'll come to that shortly but let me now look at another quote from Justin's article The Return of the angels He wants to think it through here is what he says the phenomenon does not prove religion but religion explains the phenomenon again the phenomenon does not prove religion but religion explains the phenomenon so what's that all about what Chestnut is arguing is that Christianity is able to make sense of lots of aspects of human existence and we'll look at some of these when we look at Lewis in the next section of this lecture so here's the question does that prove anything why the answer is no no and Justin's quite clear about this for Chesterton the capacity of Christianity to make sense of so many things actually doesn't prove it's right but it's an indication of its truth now as I hinted a moment ago Justin's way of doing apologetics was refined and developed by C.S Lewis and you may find that Lewis's overall approach actually is more satisfying than Justin so let's turn to look at Lewis and see what you make of what he has to say now I'm sure I don't need to introduce C.S Lewis too and many of you will know him very well I'm sure that many of you like me would have read him and found him very very interesting and very very helpful and as I'm sure you will know by the end of the second world war Lewis was firmly establishes Britain's best known and most Winsome Christian apologist and while his problem of pain published in 1940 was widely praised for both its style and the substance actually Lewis's reputation within Great Britain as an apologist rested largely on what are called his wartime broadcast for the British Broadcasting Corporation and these talks form the basis of what I think is his most important apologetic work which is of course Mere Christianity published in 1952. this book incident is often cited as one of the most influential religious books of the 20th century now let me tell you actually Lewis is very important to me personally in my journey of faith that I discovered Christianity when I was assistant University in late 1971 and I have to say I found myself confronted with lots of rather challenging questions about my new faith as I think I mentioned earlier I was a scientist at that time and so wanted to know how I could locate my love for the Sciences within my new Christian faith and my Christian Student friends will obviously wanted to be helpful but they it didn't really help me all that much so in the end they suggested I ought really to start reading C.S Lewis who I hadn't read up to this point so in February 1974 I read my first essay by C.S Lewis it was called is theology poetry and I found it transformative here is its final sentence and the sentence has remained with me ever since I have to say I quoted endlessly in my books and my lectures when I first read it I double underscored this sentence here it is I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen not only because I see it but because by it I see everything else now why is that statement so important well let me try and explain it it's one of those sentences that people keep coming back to for me well that sentence is all about is Lewis offering me a big picture account of the Christian faith which helped me to locate the Natural Sciences meaningfully and plausibly within the coherent Christian mental map of the world and for me having read Lewis the intellectual capaciousness of Christianity was such a good fit in science art morality and other religious systems and I have to say was a game changer for me and that single essay is theology poetry transform my understanding Christianity from well from a loose collection of essentially disconnected ideas into something very different into a coherent vision of reality weaving together its threads to reveal a pattern again individual threads matter but what matters even more is what happens when you weave them together and Lewis's point is that no matter how fragmented our experience of the world may seem to us at times there's a big picture that allows things to be seen as interconnected and the steam of course is clearly there in the New Testament you might think of Colossians 1 17 which talks about everything holding together or being knit together in Christ now obviously that was very exciting for me very important for me personally but how does this work out apologetically well let's look at how Lewis himself develops this point with particular reference to his highly influential work which I've talked about already Mere Christianity now interestingly in this book Lewis assumes no biblical knowledge at all on the path of his audience and his concern is not really to enable church people to reconnect the faith but actually to reach out to the unchurched so you need to have their eyes opened to the rational and imaginative potential of faith and Lewis's approach here is to show how intelligent reflection on the experiences of Life strongness suggests but doesn't actually prove that there is a God now you can see the connection of Chesterton immediately so how does Lewis develop this approach he's using Chesterton but need to say actually he takes Justin further and in my view Lewis's version of this approach is better than chestnuts so here's what Lewis does Lewis looks at two experiences that are known to many if not most people not I felt them myself both myself so maybe you will as well first of all sense of moral obligation and then a feeling that we've never really found something that really does satisfy us let's begin by looking at Lewis's argument from morality as it's called in the opening pages of Mere Christianity and Lewis Here invites us to reflect on two people having an argument so how do we work out who's right and who's wrong well this depends on a recognition of some Norm or standard which stands over and above both of them and which both of them recognize as being binding and authoritative otherwise they can't sort out their argument and Lewis Here suggests that everyone has some sense of there being something something higher than us an objective Norm to which people appeal and which they expect others to observe those himself refers to I quote a real law which we did not invent and which we know we ought to obey and the point here is that although everyone knows about this law everyone still fails to live up to it so it's a real dilemma here and Lewis suggests that and I quote the foundation of all clear thinking about ourselves and the universe we live in basically consists in our knowledge of our moral law on the one hand and an awareness of our Failure to observe it on the other so were does that take us well Lewis says this awareness ought to his phrase of Rise our suspicions that there is something which is directing the universe and which appears in me as a law urging me to do right and making me feel responsible and uncomfortable when I do wrong and Lewis very interesting I think suggests that this points to an ordering mind which governs the universe and of course this resonates very strongly with the Christian idea of God it's very clear that Lewis is not arguing that our Reflections on the foundations of a viable morality prove there is a God it doesn't do that no he's rather pointing out something I think more interesting and that is that such Reflections in effect subvert non-theistic accounts of morality while at the same time showing how Christianity is able to accommodate these in an intellectual and aesthetically satisfying manner motion to this this is what Lewis is saying he treats right and wrong as NyQuil Clues to the meaning of the universe let's focus on that word Clues what does he mean by that when you see Clues taken by themselves prove nothing because their importance lies rather in their cumulative and contextual force in other words the greater the number of clues that can be kind of a brought together and accommodated by a view of reality then the more reliable that view of reality is going to be that's why Lewis is saying Christianity fits in these Clues persuasively let's turn to a second major argument or maybe we should say his second clue to the meaning of the universe which he discusses in Mere Christianity and this is of course the argument from desire all of us do a suggest long for something that is of ultimate significance and we regularly find our hopes dashed and frustrated when we actually achieve or attain it and he writes these words there was something we grasped at in that first moment of longing which just Fades away in the reality so how Lewis asks is this common human experience to be interpreted what's the best way of making sense of this sense of Yearning or longing we'll do suggest there are three possible ways of dealing with this and he argues that only one of these really makes sense so let's um let's look at the first option the officers first of all that um we get frustrated because we can't identify the ultimate goal of our longings and that's really because we're looking in the wrong places so we keep on looking or secondly we might conclude that this is just going to end up in completely repeated disappointments there's no point in bothering to try and find out something at all but Lewis says there's a third approach and that's why I want to focus on his third approach is to recognize that these Earthly longings are and I quote only a kind of copy or echo or Mirage of our true Homeland here's what Lewis has to say it's a really interesting sentence see what you think of it if I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world right interesting but how does this argument fit into his overall apologetic approach let's look at this the point to make is that Lewis does not argue this deep sense of Yearning or longing proves anything again to his own language it's a clue it's something that needs to be explained by being set within an explanatory context and Lewis argues that the explanatory framework which the Christian faith offers makes sense of this and other experiences it's able to fit it in persuasively so do you see the way Lewis is going with this Lewis suggests that Christianity helps us to make sense of some important or otherwise puzzling human EX experiences he allows us to see what they mean what they are pointing to and his argument is that these experiences when seen through a Christian lens are scientists they're pointing towards God who is the ultimate ground of goodness and Justice and the ultimate goal of the human heart and its longings okay so what sort of experiences does Lewis actually have in mind well my guess is that as you've been listening to many of you will will provide examples from your own experience or that your friends but here's one which I've taken from the writings of the British philosopher Bertrand Russell now Russell knew this kind of experience and he he thought it had deep existential significance but he wasn't quite sure whether this would take him listen to what he has to say and see if you could work out ways of using this sort of stuff apologetically he writes the center of me is always and eternally a terrible pain are searching for something beyond what the world contains something transfigured and infinite the beatific Vision God I don't find it I don't think it is to be found but the love of it is my life it's the actual spring of life Within Me in other words really important now this kind of longing actually can't really be defined it can just be described and Lewis's argument from desire takes as a starting point this I quote searching for something beyond what the world contains houses to be accounted for him perhaps more interestingly what does it mean what does it take us what does it Point towards not tonight I've really been describing Lewis's approach it's very interesting and I want you to look into it but here's the question how can we use it now I think visual images are always helpful in dealing with apologetic questions and this is especially the case when thinking about the big picture the Christianity offers so what I'm going to do now is open up an image which goes right back to the Golden Age of Greek philosophy and it's found in Plato's dialogue called The Republic I'm going to tell you about the image of Plato's Cave and this is widely used to explore some deep questions like for example whether this world is the only reality it's using films for example The Matrix and fiction like Lucius Lewis's Silver Chair or Andre genes something they passed around so let me walk you through this image and then once you got used to it make some suggestions about how you might use it so the image is Plato's Cave let me Begin by setting some context a deep sense that the present world is only a shadow of something greater it echoed in Western literature really since the list of times and actually GK Chestnut we talked about earlier hinted at this when he wrote these words isn't this every true artist does feel consciously or unconsciously that he is touching transcendental truths that is images are shadows of things seen through the Veil now many see this ideas expressed as best in Plato's haunting analogy of the cave and this is really intended to nourish our suspicion that this is a very limited world and maybe there's a better one lying Beyond it so let's enter into the analogy imagine a dark underground cave and the group people are in there and they've been imprisoned there since birth so they know no other world in the cave there's a fire burning which gives them some warmth and light and as the Flames rise they cast Shadows on the walls of the cave now here's the point for those living in the cave this world of flickering Shadows is all that they know their grasp of reality is limited to those shadowy shimmerings of this underground world if there is a world Beyond The Cave it's something they don't know and can't imagine that Horizons are limited and determined by the shadows and the half-life of the underground cave it's the only World they know now imagine that few of the group of people huddling around that far in the cave discover a secret way out of the cave so they slip away and as they explore the recesses they find the passage and as they explore it they find a way out of the cave they go into the real world Beyond The Cave they emerge into glorious sunlight entering into a world of fresh air green trees blue skies and radiant brightness so they leave behind them the world of flickering Shadows and they pass into a new brilliant different world now let's be clear the flickering and gloomy world of the cave was real it wasn't imaginary but the reality of that world of Shadows does not call into question that there might be another world a world which has somehow hinted at or sign-posted by the world we do know our desire for something that seems never to be satisfied is one of those hints a hint that this might not be their only world and that true fulfillment is not to be found within the cave within the world that lies Beyond it that's a very interesting visual image that I want to encourage you to think about it and use it but I want you to be clear that Plato's analogy of the cave proves nothing it's an imaginative construction it helps us to think about the question of whether this world is determines what is real or whether actually there's something bigger and better Beyond it is there a real world beyond the cave and if so how might we discover it and how might we enter it that's a very prominent question actually in a lot of contemporary films you might think for example of the 1990 movie The Matrix well this whole framework is actually used to open up the question of whether this world is the real world or whether actually it's just a an illusion so Neo played by Kino Reeves is trapped in a false reality which actually is created by a computer program and Neo gradually comes to realize his senses are being deceived he lives within an illusion and there's a pivotal moment in the film when um Morpheus asks Neo what is real and Neo comes to realize he only sees what he is allowed to see and is actually blinded to the existence of a greater reality so the question then is how can he break free from this visual prison Plato's answer is this someone who breaks free from the cave and discovers the brilliant World Beyond can go back into the cave and tell others about what they've seen now I use that analogy a lot if you look at my recent book through a glass Darkly you'll see how I use it and you can use it too you are someone who used to live in a cave and discovered the world Beyond but you can go back to the cave and talk about this new world it makes a very powerful appeal to the imagination so let's work the angles of this image and see how you might be able to make the most use of it so here's the first angle we're going to work the people in the cave only know a world of flickering shadows and understandably but wrongly believe this is the only world and C.S Lewis suggests that one way in which we're awakened to the existence of a greater reality is through intuition through some deep feeling that there has to be something better than this there has to be something more than this perhaps planted within us as some kind of homing Instinct for God people in the cave don't know there's another world but very often they have a feeling there has to be something more than this they might experience a sense of longing for something with nothing in the cave is able to satisfy and they might Intuit this points to something Beyond The Cave now try and imagine that scenario and ask yourself how you could use that intuition to move that discussion ahead C.S Lewis uses the same kind of approach actually since argument from the Tsar which we talked about earlier in this lecture so that's the first angle here's the second angle we can work as Plato points aren't someone who has discovered this greater World beyond the dark shadowy cave could re-enter the cave and tell others of what they have discovered and more than that they could lead them from its gloomy Darkness to the Sun that world Beyond it now that's you that's your role your experience qualifies you to do that you need to think about how you might help alert people to the existence of this wider or deeper vision of reality so here are my questions to you how would you describe it to them how would you explain the difference that this makes to you and how would you lead them into this world so there's lots of food for thought for you there which I hope you'll develop in your own distinctive way but now I want to change direction completely and look at an approach to apologetics developed by Francis Schaefer's Francis Schaefer was one of the most interesting colleges of the 20th century and for Schaefer one of the most interesting tasks of apologetics is to challenge the plausibility of rival World Views so let's look at Schaefer's approach to world view apologetics Francis Schaefer is one of the best known Advocates of what is sometimes called worldview apologetics and Schaefer was based for many years at La Bree which was a Swiss Chalet in which he and his wife hosted student visitors to Europe who wanted to talk through questions about the meaning of life very often through literature and films now Schaefer listened to their Reflections on contemporary films and novels or their take on the new philosophies of the age and as he listened Schaefer realized he could engage them on their own level and in their own language using illustrations drawn from the world they had described to help them appreciate the plausibility of the Christian faith here's an important point I want you to notice this Schaefer reminds us of the importance of listening to people before we talk to them listen and then engage but what I personally think is the most important aspect of Schaefer's approach to apologetics it is insistence that all belief systems rest upon presuppositions and these presuppositions need to be identified challenged now Schaefer develops this point in his very influential book The God Who is there I want you to listen to this and see what you make of it and by the way I need to apologize because Schaefer uses non-inclusive language in this passage but that was typical of his age let's just forgive him and listen to what he has to say here we go this is Francis Schaefer speaking to you let us remember that every person we speak to has a set of presuppositions whether he or she has analyzed them or not it's impossible for any non-Christian individual or group to be consistent to their system in logic or in practice a man may try to bury the tension and you may have to help him find it but somewhere there's a point of inconsistency he stands in a position which he cannot pursue to the end and this is not just an intellectual concept or tension it is what is wrapped up in what he is as a man now the point that Schaefer makes here is really important and it's this you need to help people to identify the presuppositions on which they base their lives that's what Schaefer has to say on this point and I want to listen carefully because this is helpful the more logical a man who holds a non-Christian position is to his own presuppositions the further he is from The Real World and the narrow he is to the real world the more illogical he is to his own presuppositions now the point of Schaefer is making is that people can ground their lives on a set of Reason positions which they began by thinking you know we're great but then turn out to be deeply problematic and you and I can help them to see this and very often the chef says it leads to some kind of Crisis which people realize they need to find a better way of thinking than the one they presently adopt now Sheffer himself provides a number of examples of cases in which exposure of contradictions and tensions than World Views has very important negative consequences for their credibility I'm going to look at two of these now as I describe them to you I want to work out what your examples would be here's what Schaefer says what would you say what would your analogy be first of Schaefer's examples related to a discussion a group he was leading at Cambridge University and a young Sikh was a Hindu in terms of religious belief turned up and here's what Schaefer says he started to speak strong against Christianity but he didn't really understand the problems of his own beliefs so I said am I not correct and saying it on the basis of your system cruelty and non-cruelty are ultimately equal that there is no intrinsic difference between them he agreed the student in whose room we met who clearly understood the implications of what the sneaker admitted picked up his cattle of boiling water with which he was about to make tea and stood with its steaming over the Indian's head the man looked up and asked him what he was doing he said with a cold yet gentle finality there is no difference between cruelty and non-cruelty thereupon the Hindu walked out into the night now do you see the point Schaefer is making once the sequel the hindua realized the problem with his own way of thinking he couldn't cope with the contradictions they've been exposed within his own worldview he was destabilized he needed to find a better way of thinking that's Schaefer's first example here's the second again see what you make of this is Schaefer's discussion of the ethical nihilism of the French atheist philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre and satra's World which is very influential during the 1960s held at ethics actually was something of an irrelevance if there was any ethical component to Human Action it lay in the exercise of human freedom of choice not in the actual moral decision you reached and this this attitude attracted actual law of attention but Schaefer's question is whether software himself could live with the implications of his own worldview so here's the way he began to explore this question around this time French France became involved in a war in Algeria which had been a French colony and this War lasted for seven years it led to violence on the streets of Paris and it was very clear I think this was a dirty war all kinds of underhand methods were being used allegations of brutality and torture made against the French army and satra protested against us he signed what is known as the Algerian Manifesto a protest by 121 leading French thinkers about the continuing French occupation of Algeria for these thinkers the occupation was wrong and immoral but here's the point with Schaefer pointed out very very quickly how on Earth could sought to declare this war to be evil and immoral when his own worldview actually subverted these very ideas and A Schaefer pointed out sortra found that events in the real world called into question as ethical views so I'm going to read to you what Shafer says about this I want you to listen and think again is there any way you could use this in showing somebody else's difficulties with their worldview it's what Schaefer says on Santa's worldview software took up a deliberately moral attitude and said it was an unjust and dirty war his left-wing political position which he took up as another illustration of the same inconsistency as far as many secular essential existentials have been concerned from that moment Sartre signed the Algerian Manifesto he was regarded as an apostate from his own position and toppled from his place of leadership of the avant-garde now this illustrating rather nice the shepherd's point of satra and others could not live conclusions of their system now Schiffer of course develops this point further he analyzes the way in which World Views construct Shields to protect themselves against the real world the real world contradicts you try not to engage that you in fact Shield yourself from The Real World and Schaefer's argument is that apologists like you and me need to remove that shield and allow the harsh realities of the real world to raise questions about the credibility of the system here's what Schaefer has to say and again it's a very interesting point he's using an analogy of Swiss mountain passes which very often became snow barns they had shelters to stop the snow falling down he writes it's like the great shelters built upon some mountain passes to protect vehicles from The Avalanches of rock and stone which periodically tumbled down the mountain the Avalanche in the case of the non-Christian is the real and the abnormal Fallen World which surrounds him the Christian lovingly must remove the shelter and allow the truth of the external world to beat upon him that's an interesting idea just as satra's views proved untenable when they were confronted with the crisis and situations of the real world then going to Schaefer so other World Views will be discredited in similar ways now I need to say to you that actually Sheffer tends to engage with questions that are important back in the 1960s and that was a long time ago and those questions are faded and others have taken their place and this does I'm afraid make him a little difficult to apply to the present day so my suggestion is you take his method and apply it to some questions of today so let me give an example and see how useful this approach can be I'm going to give you an example an example is what is sometimes called scientism scientism scientism is the view associated with writers Like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris which holds at the Natural Sciences are the only valid research tools at our disposal and so for new atheists like Dawkins and Harris science alone is able to answer life's biggest questions now I'm sure you've come across that Viewpoint in talking to people it often takes the form of declaring that philosophy is redundant because science is able to answer philosophical questions more reliably and fully and incidentally we've been looking at these whole debates in much more detail in lecture eight so how do we deal with this scientistic worldview well Shaffer would ask us to probe the presuppositions of this belief and explore their implications now the presuppositions of scienceism are very simple science alone provides us with answers to all of life's questions so here's what you might say so how would you prove that belief if you believe that science is the only source of reliable knowledge then the only way you can prove this is through science and there are two very obvious problems here first of all science actually is not in a position to do this but more formally the claim that scientism is true is not actually a scientific claim granted on scientific methods but the second point I think is much more interesting and actually much more important the argument is completely circular science is the only reliable source of knowledge and science tells us so so the unique authority of science is both the conclusion and the presupposition of the argument as I said a moment ago are we talking much more about scientism in the eighth of these lectures by to wrap up this lecture which is focused on big picture or worldview approaches to apologetics all I've tried to do in this lecture is to give you a sketch only a sketch of this approach which will hopefully allow you to work out how you can use this for yourself I'm sure that you'll find there are lots of connections that you can make and indeed I'll be making more in later lectures so if I end up repeating myself a little bit it's simply because I want you to make sure you've understood some things and can take them away and use them best time to move on in the next lecture I want to look at the nature of faith and explore with you the question of the rationality of faith so I look forward to speaking to you again very soon

Channel: Alister McGrath Christian Theology Introduction

Views: 7,418

Keywords: Alister McGrath, Christian apologetics, apologetics introduction, Christian apologetics introduction, big picture

Id: IEL3fYKsZYM

Length: 48min 37sec (2917 seconds)

Published: Mon Nov 14 2022