Tuesday, June 10, 2014

"Is Anything Worth Believing In" Professor John Lennox- The Veritas Forum

The following video, part of the world famous Veritas Forum series, is a brilliant lecture by Oxford Professor of Mathmatics John Lennox, who ardently defends the existence of God and rescues Science from the danger of being made the pawn of materialistic worldviews to fuel the already existing antagonism between popular culture and religion.


'Paul Davis, a brilliant physicist at ASU says "that the right scientific attitude" now listen to this, Paul Davis is not a theist- "the right scientific attitude is essentially theological, science can only proceed if the scientist adopts an essentially theological worldview, even the most atheistic scientist accepts as an act of faith the existence of a law-like order in nature that is, at least in part, comprehensible to us." Einstein said " I cannot imagine the scientist without that profound faith"- note the word" John Lennox




Readers may be interested that I included the above quote in an online discussion forum called "What about religion?" - part of the "mooc" course, "The Science of Everyday Thinking" here is   the dialogue which followed:




'Paul Davis, a brilliant physicist at ASU says "that the right scientific attitude" now listen to this, Paul Davis is not a theist- "the right scientific attitude is essentially theological, science can only proceed if the scientist adopts an essentially theological worldview, even the most atheistic scientist accepts as an act of faith the existence of a law-like order in nature that is, at least in part, comprehensible to us." Einstein said " I cannot imagine the scientist without that profound faith"- note the word" John Lennox

Kerry26 days ago
Follow this post

To hear the veritas address:
"Is Anything Worth Believing In" Professor John Lennox- The Veritas Forum
Report Misuse




  1. 0votes (click to vote)Healthy-skeptic
    4 days ago

    Busy still cherry picking quotes from scientists to support your fundamentalist religious beliefs? 422 comments on religion on a science of everyday thinking discussion forum, woohoo go Kerry2.
    Report Misuse
      1. Talk about, to use your turn of phrase: rolling on the floor laughing, do you really think that just by using the phrase "cherry picking" or "fundamentalist" that you thereby prove anything? Your influence will have no effect except on those who have no interest in openmindedness.
        If I am "cherry picking" is it then, because I can afford to? The whole tree will bear fruit according to its nature. Ultimately true science cannot speak a lie, if Christianity is true, then all of science will continue to prove it.
        Report Misuse
        Delete Comment
        Edit
        -posted 4 days ago by Kerry2




      2. 0votes (click to vote)Donstim
        4 days ago

        Ha ha, very funny Kerry2. Just what parts of Christianity has science proven to be true. Let's see: virgin birth - no; resurrection from the dead - no; the bible's origin of life story - no; Noah's flood - no.
        The Christian bible, the Koran, the book of Mormon, the sayings of Yahweh, etc. are all essentially the same. An attempt to "tribalize" (i.e., unify) a group by giving them a common purpose in life and an explanation (however wrong as it turns out) for things they did not understand.
        Report Misuse
          1. Science, while it has not proven the things you mention, neither has it disproven them either.
            To say that:
            The Christian bible, the Koran, the book of Mormon, the sayings of Yahweh, etc. are all essentially the same.
            Shows just who it is that- "did not understand". But even if it were true, that this was a way to "tribalize" people, that would turn back on yourself. I could just as easily say that atheism was how people were "unified". What does it prove? What is the point? Of course people who think the same way are unified by their beliefs, atheists just as much as theists. But it proves nothing. The real point being- which view is true ? And you have done nothing to further that understanding.
            You really need to brush up on logic and science.
            Science does not make philosophical claims. It just makes the assumption that "matter" is the starting point for doing science. Any claim from a scientist, or whoever, that claims science proves that nothing exists beyond matter, is making a philosophical claim, that in fact goes beyond what science actually proves. That's all it is- an assumption. Science has not disproved spiritual realities, like God, or the human soul. What others are beginning to see is that science doesn't even give a good account for why science works, why maths is applicable to the real world, why we have a conscious mind, why all these things exist.
            Science does well, just that it doesn't give a good account or reason for why it does so well. Honest, and objectively thinking people can see this.
            "The eternal mystery of the world is its comprehensibility." Albert Einstein.
            Now, don't panic guys, I'm not saying that Einstein was a Christian, or religious. (Although some things he said looked like he couldn't make up his own mind on this issue). But even he- as an eminent scientist, and by many accounts an atheist- even he saw it as a great mystery that the Universe was comprehensible to the human mind. That is a sign of cognitive dissonance, he was aware of the reality that the comprehensibility of the universe demanded a logical explanation, but he was unwilling to venture that it was the result of being logically and intelligently designed. I venture to say that is also why he inserted his famous "fudge" factor into his equations also. A Universe that did not fit the "steady state" paradigm that he would have preferred also had uncomfortable ramifications for his belief that no intelligence was behind it. If the Universe had always existed, that would have neatly done away with the need for a Creator. Thus he "bent" the figures to fit his philosophical worldview and he got caught out badly.
            So tell me guys- what is your version of the origin of the Universe?
            Now that science has continued to gather more evidence that the Universe had a beginning the question again has to be asked: How did it begin?
            Now you- even if you wanted to come up with an explanation to exclude God- will have a lot of difficulty.
            Why do I say this?
            Because I don't think you two would be so silly to pretend that you know more than Stephen Hawking. Hawking, one of the most brilliant theoretical physicists in history, has made a collossal error, like Einstein, and possibly for the same reason- because of his atheist philosophy.
            I suppose you have heard enough, but if you want to check it out, just have another look through my posts and you will find reference to it and one of the clever people who saw through his error and is helping to expose it. But by all means Professor John Lennox of Oxford University is not the only one, there are others, not necessarily religious either, go check it out.
            Report Misuse
            Delete Comment
            Edit
            -posted 3 days ago by Kerry2




          2. 0votes (click to vote)Kerry2
            a day ago

            There are some important considerations that I think the detractors are missing. First the accusation of cherry picking. What are they really saying? What the intention is, is to disparage the authenticity of this non-theistic voice. They are saying: "ok- here is a scientist prepared to speak up on behalf of faith, and that is a departure from the majority of scientists, so therefore he cannot be right."
            Historically of course this can be proven to be dangerous and nonsense. Dangerous because to make it some sort of law that a scientist cannot be saying something true- unless every other scientist agreed- is a criteria of acceptance that would in fact be a science stopper. Every scientist whoever made a significant discovery, and progressed the goal of science towards truth and reality had to speak at odds to the ruling scientific paradigm of the day. Again and again the history of science has proved that progress in understanding often only happens as those scientific views that had "ruled" were only replaced as those scientists who had invested in the "status quo" died off or were "converted" to the new understanding. If you listen to Donstim and Healthy-skeptic what you would get in science is exactly expressed in the utube video here: The Asch Experiment Hilarious! Or Is It? What it points out is that humanity is already prone to follow the general consensus. Therefore Dunstim and Healthy are guilty of the availability or representative heuristic.
            It takes courage and an ability to look at the same phenomena as every other scientist but see something different, and to go against the flow of the ruling view. That is the mark of a true scientist. So the accusation of cherry picking is both dangerous towards the scientific goal of objective truth, and historically speaking, science has already disproved the nonsense of their accusation.
            My next point is an obvious one. Here is a scientist that is not a "God-botherer" prepared to speak up on behalf of "God-botherers". What gives?
            If you are new to a town and want your troublesome auto fixed, but don't know a reputable repair shop- whose opinion are you going to listen to? Are you going to go to a repair shopowner and ask if they are a reputable dealer? Well you might if you have no other alternative, but how much credibility are you going to give to her opinion about her own shop? Clearly the sensible person is going to go to some one who is very knowledgeable about repair shops, or at least to someone personally experienced with the shop but is not likely to profit from their opinion. In fact the best person to ask is one whose objectivity and independence would be beyond question. Who better than a person who is speaking at risk to their own reputation?. And this is the exact case of the brilliant ASU physicist. No doubt in the current climate, that was a risky and courageous statement to make- because he doesn't, as a non-believer, have an axe to grind, in fact it is at the expense of ridicule and animosity that he makes this statement. Therefore- contrary to Donsimn and Healthy-skeptic's views- it enhances and adds weight to his view, and every unbiased and open minded person will acknowledge this.
            The next point I wish to make is related to the mark of a real scientist that I alluded to earlier.
            Discovery is seeing what everybody else has seen, and thinking what nobody else has thought.Albert Szent-Gyorgyi
            Now, having dispensed with the obfuscatory remarks that simply were a smokescreen to distract us, we look directly at the veracity of what Paul Davis has to say.
            Right now if you are reading this you are quite likely to be sitting down, with a computer screen in front of you. I want to ask you three simple questions that will relate to Paul Davis's statement about the faith that every scientist is disposed to.
            1. Before you sat down did you question whether you believed the place you were about to sit was indeed able to support your weight? Unless you are a really really big person, most would answer "no", therefore it was largely an unconscious or at least sub-conscious assumption.
            2. Was your belief in its ability to support you based on an immediate and conscious evaluation of the evidence? Again, I would expect that most would answer "no", previous experience would have given the confidence that it would support you, so no new evidence was looked for or expected, it was based on the past uniformity of experience.
            3. Did the seat in fact betray the unconscious expectation or trust and confidence that you placed in it before your butt took up residence? Did it let you down, did it collapse? Again I would say that most would say "no", your confidence or trust was rewarded with the reality of a safe place to sit. I venture to say all of this process took place with no conscious effort, or in the spirit of "The Science of Everyday Thinking" and Daniel Kahneman, it all took place in the instinctive "level one" area of the mind.
            All of this is precisely adding up to what Paul Davis has said about the practice of science.Every scientist simply assumes as a matter of course, that the Universe, or that particular part of it that is their peculiar field, will yield its secrets with due effort and diligience. The assumption, the trust and confidence, the evidence of past experience are all the hallmarks offaith.
            Thus that adds up to precisely what Einstein has already said many years ago, and what has been reitirated by Paul Davis.
            "even the most atheistic scientist accepts as an act of faith the existence of a law-like order in nature that is, at least in part, comprehensible to us."
            Report Misuse
            1. When cherry picking the words of scientists, Kerry2 could have chosen a different quote from Paul Davies. In his book "The Mind of God" (page 203) Davies says "Darwin's theory of evolution demonstrated decisively that complex organisation efficiently adapted to the environment could arise as a result of random mutations and natural selection."
              When Hawking, Davies and Hoyle write about god and theology, they don't use these words the same way religious fundamentalists use them. Hoyle ( in Davies p229) when discussing how he solved a difficult and novel maths question, describes it as a religious event, meaning he felt like super intelligence from the distant future acting at the quantum level implanted thoughts into his brain.
              There is a difference between what science says and what scientists say outside their speciality. There is evidence supporting the quantum mechanics Hoyle was writing about, but no evidence about a super intelligence implanting ideas from the future. How system 1 solves problems our system 2 has been working on is a mystery, but when scientists speculate about it, they have no more credibility than the authors of the bible had when discussing scientific issues.
              Report Misuse
              -posted about 23 hours ago by Healthy-skeptic
            2. Submit



          3. 0votes (click to vote)Kerry2
            23 minutes ago

            Healthy-skeptic: When cherry picking the words of scientists, Kerry2 could have chosen a different quote from Paul Davies.
            But just who now, is doing the cherry picking? It is one thing to say that Paul Davies may use the occasional word in a different sense than that which is commonly applied, but it is altogether another to take the comprehensive statement he made, that I quoted, and say that he didn't mean what he said. But about that quote of Paul Davis, aren't you putting words in his mouth when you attempt to say that by "theological" he didn't actually mean what he said? What is your evidence for saying that? What are we to think of people who decide that "authorial intent" is not to be taken seriously? That is a recipe for relativizing language that has already made serious and disastrous inroads into our understanding of reality. If you do that in science then it will undermine the credibility of science.
            Why do you equate the adaptation of species with the idea that therefore there cannot be a God?
            Healthy-skeptic: "There is a difference between what science says and what scientists say outside their speciality."
            Now wouldn't you describe that as "cherry picking?" So what you want to do is ascribe those sayings of these scientist as true, when it fits your worldview, but when they say things that are contrary to your view, they no longer count.
            Healthy-skeptic: When Hawking, Davies and Hoyle write about god and theology, they don't use these words the same way religious fundamentalists use them.
            Here is an excerpt from an article about Hawking, and the Big Bang, and what is important to notice, is it's a demonstration of what happens when people, and in this case eminent scientists, try to get away with changing the meanings of words, and relativizing language. In this instance the word "nothing" gains an extraordinary significance:
            Although no one would deny that spectacular advances in our understanding have been made by science and, importantly, that these do sometimes confound the philosophers, the main problem with this suggestion, argues [William Lane] Craig, is that the most important conclusions of The Grand Design [Stephen Hawking, Leonard Mlodinow] are themselves philosophical. He suggests that the reason behind this sleight of hand is that it allows the authors “to cloak their amateurish philosophizing with the mantle of scientific authority and so avoid the hard work of actually arguing for, rather than merely asserting, their philosophical viewpoints.”
            But, he continues, the problems go deeper than this, because the authors are claiming that ‘because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing.’ The first issue with this statement is that they are clearly not referring to “nothing” as we would understand the term, but are instead meaning a quantum vacuum. If it truly were nothing, says Craig, then it could not be constrained and there would be no more reason to expect a universe to pop out of it than, for example, a bicycle. Nor does the work, therefore, address why there is something instead of nothing. The second problem is that the statement is logically incoherent. [John] Lennox points out that it is all very well to state that X can bring Y into existence, but they are instead making the tautological argument that Y is in some way responsible for the creation of itself.
            Another issue with this is that they are offering a false set of alternatives, it is either God or the laws of physics. [John] Lennox points out that this is a category mistake akin to asking us to choose between Frank Whittle and the laws of physics, in order to explain the jet engine. This would be an error, because there are two levels of explanation that are both needed, agency and mechanism. The latter, such as the laws of nature, may be able tell you what will happen if you hit a snooker ball across a table, but, as Lennox explains, they won’t create the table or the cue in the first place. As Rowan Williams has stressed, “Physics on its own will not settle the question of why there is something rather than nothing.” Instead, as Lennox points out, “atheist scientists are forced to ascribe creative powers to less and less credible candidates like mass/energy and the laws of nature.”
            Nevertheless, even if you were to find a “natural” explanation for the process, this would not rule out God, as Alister McGrath pointed out on Channel 4 news. He stressed that if you emphasise the importance of the laws of nature then:
            "You are really inviting the obvious question of where did these come from, why are they so reassuringly fine-tuned to values that led to the existence of life? That itself requires explanation and therefore the debate is just shifted back one step." Alister McGrath (My emphasis)
            I hope you will notice here that it is philosophy that is criticising these widely acclaimed scientists. They have made philosophically inept statements that they are being pulled up for, and their worldview is more responsible for this ineptitude than their science, in other words a faulty worldview is causing some faulty thinking.
            Science is dependent on the ability to think according to the rules of logic, which means that Science is only possible on the assumption of philosophical rigour, such as the application of the "laws of non contradiction". Now if you use words such as "nothing", in an ambiguous way- you are denying the first principles of logic. You are denying the law of non contradiction.There is nothing "scientific" about that.
            President Clinton made the same appeal when he said:
            "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is", in regards to the truthfulness of his statement that "there is not a sexual relationship, an improper sexual relationship or any other kind of improper relationship." Wikipedia
            Well thank you for that interesting story about Hoyle. Of course, what he experienced as a "religious event" could of course, have been just that. It is only his interpretation, (or yours) that concluded it could not be believed to be a "super intelligence implanting ideas from the future". In other words, it is just as valid to say that the prior commitment to a strictly materialist view of reality, a worldview, that did not permit the event to be viewed as a truly religious event. I for instance would be happy to interpret it as such. And who is to say that one way is true and the other not? In the end it is a commitment to viewing things a certain way by which we interpret the evidence.
            The very fact that he even toyed with the idea of using religious sounding language, speaks to me of this very human and universal appreciation and hunger for religion. Are we to think that there is absolutely no basis for this in reality? People are happy to use religous terms so long as we don't go so far as to let the idea of a personal God in the door. We might then have to suffer the scary thought that our very existence entails some obligation on our part, and we can't have that can we?
            But you remind me of a conversation I had with a guy from Texas after church the other day. He was telling me how one of the first inventors of the mechanical sewing machine went to bed perplexed with the problem of the needle. That night he dreamt of a tribe of savage people chasing him with spears, all of which had a hole near the pointed end of the spear. He woke up and immediately recognized the significance of his nightmare, and promptly solved the problem he was perplexed by. Now you can call it what you will, it again depends on your worldview how you interpret that.
            Then I told him what I had learned about the discovery of the molecular shape of "the benzine ring" which I had come across a few days earlier. This was significant because the guy from Texas was in New Zealand as a chemical engineer involved in a substantial investment to upgrade our only oil refinery. Anyway, the man who was recognized widely by his scientific peers as discovering this, published scientific papers justifying his discovery on several occasions and slowly the scientific community evaluated them and accorded them the distinction of being accurate and true. Peer review at work. Several years after his theory became widely accepted and it had gone beyond the danger of being accused of quackery, he told the story of how he came to this knowledge via a dream. I think as part of the surveys in this course we were asked if dreams could tell the future. Well, yes they can, apparently. Now from a religious view, this makes perfect sense, but not from a strictly materialistic view. Of course, we could always fall back on a "faith" in science- and say "not yet"! Science of the gaps.
            It depends on your worldview.
            Oh and by the way, you have not yet addressed the issue of giving us a plausible, natural explanation for "the existence of a law-like order in nature". If you are content to leave it as simply "a matter of faith" then I too will do the same for your questions of Noah.
            1. As an anecdote to the above, after reading an interesting article on the impeachment of President Clinton, it appears he also adopted a relativist view of the word "alone". In his, no doubt quickly revised meaning of the word, he could not have been "alone" with Monica Lewinsky. To be "alone" in Clinton's revisionist view of history and language, is to be in a room solitarily. Therefore is was not true that he was alone with Lewinsky!
              Now wouldn't that be a wonderful way to conduct science?
              Also fascinating in the article was this comment:
              "the analysis of academics--people trained to look objectively at evidence--who threw themselves into the impeachment fray was, if anything, even more partisan than that of the politicians."
              Hardly the stuff of neutrality and objectivity or openmindedness.
              Report Misuse
              Delete Comment
              Edit
              -posted less than a minute ago by Kerry2
          Immanual Kant wrote: "Skepticism is a resting place for human reason, where it can reflect upon its dogmatic wanderings, but it is no dwelling place for permanent settlement. Simply to acquiesce in skepticism", Kant wrote " can never suffice to answer the restlessness of reason."


          So in Kant's view skepticism is the abdication of reason, all be it for a season. Isn't it high time the holiday was over?

          05/02/2016 0902hrs

          As an update to this piece, I recently came across a brilliant quote by Christian philosopher Dallas Willard who was renowned for his gentle, humble approach. As the following quote shows that doesn't mean he was a pussy:


          “The test of character posed by the gentleness of God's approach to us is especially dangerous for those formed by the ideas that dominate our modern world. We live in a culture that has, for centuries now, cultivated the idea that the skeptical person is always smarter than one who believes. You can be almost as stupid as a cabbage, as long as you doubt. The fashion of the age has identified mental sharpness with a pose, not with genuine intellectual method and character. Only a very hardy individualist or social rebel -- or one desperate for another life -- therefore stands any chance of discovering the substantiality of the spiritual life today. Today it is the skeptics who are the social conformists, though because of powerful intellectual propaganda they continue to enjoy thinking of themselves as wildly individualistic and unbearably bright.”

          Sunday, June 8, 2014

          Christian Conversion- An Endangered Species

          The following article appears in the website 4Truth.Net

          It is a rational defence of the idea of preserving the privilege and right of preaching the Gospel in order to convert people from other wordviews, which is under serious and sustained attack in American culture today. It does not attempt to Biblically justify to an unbelieving world why this should continue, but rather from a pragmatic, universal sense of the preservation of a set of ideas that has continuously been practised for thousands of years. It's defense is therefore based on the idea that banning this practise would be a form of cultural vandalism akin to the destruction and demise of a plant or animal from existence, that is- to extinction. Any accurate presentation of history, especially North American history will show the value and importance that these ideas have had in the formation of this culture. Therefore they should be accorded the same or greater anthropological value, as that of any strident environmentalist efforts for  the preservation of any plant or animal species would be contested for.


          Placing Christian Conversion on the Endangered Species List

          By Rudolph D Gonzalez


          There are powerful voices at work today, intent on suppressing the unique claims of Christ in North America. In the modern spirit of religious toleration, many people-among them some Christians-decry the historic appeals made by Christianity to turn to Jesus. For the record, biblical conversion is a rejection of life lived in sin and rebellion from God, and a turn to restored fellowship with Him through Jesus Christ. There is not the slightest hint of salvation as merely the conversion from one religion to another religion. Nevertheless, many misinterpret the call to conversion as an appeal to abandon one's culture, insofar as a native religion is couched in culture, in exchange for a westernized version of Christianity. Nothing could be further from the truth. Yet, perception is everything theses days, and many have vested interests in keeping the fabrication alive.


          Thus, they suggest that in a religiously diverse community, such as North America continues to become, there is no place for what they perceive as the continuation of American imperialism. Such people promote their brand of open mindedness and respect for all religions, which no honest Christian would deny. However, these cannot be practiced at the expense of a Christian's core beliefs and convictions. What often underlies these charges against evangelism is the desire for a newmacro-ecumenism that seeks to create common acts of worship among all religions-usually, at the expense of doctrinal tenets vital to the very nature of the gospel of Christ.


          Excising the evangelical mandate, however, is out of the question, if one wishes to keep any semblance of biblical Christianity. And in spite of those who see Christian evangelism as a radicalization of the faith, the call to conversion is integral to its nature. Biblical Christianity is nothing if it is not good news for all of humanity. The call to conversion and faith in Christ comes from the very lips of Jesus (see Matt. 11:28-30; John 10:9; 14:6).We should ask ourselves, in light of the growing chorus of voices that call for Christians to reject the active evangelization of all peoples-should historic, biblical Christianity be banished from North America today?


          Evangelism: A Candidate for the Endangered Species List?Recently I have done some reading on the subject of endangered species in North America, and I was impressed by the ardent efforts of people to save fragile species, many of which cling to existence by a thread. The zeal of these activists is remarkable. There is little compromise, especially when the veritable survival of a species may be at stake.


          The evangelical church in North America can learn something from those who seek the revitalization of endangered species. It struck me that those who desire to suppress evangelism would, in actuality, accomplish the extinction of the Christian faith in North America, were they to be successful. The extinction of animal and plant life on our planet is a serious issue, and one that we should all do something about.1 The possible extinction of a religious point of view from our culture-which, by the way, has been its fertile habitat since the mid 17th century-ought to be no less alarming.


          A basic presupposition for most of those who seek to preserve endangered species is the firm belief that all animal and plant life is valuable and the world is diminished whenever any species, no matter how scarce or insignificant it is, becomes lost by its extinction. The presupposition is not without value to the issue of the survival of evangelical conversion.


          Question: Should the call for conversion be made extinct? The number of forces working tirelessly to save the rose purple sandverbena, do not begin to match those that are working to see the exclusive appeal to faith in Christ go the way of thedodo bird.
          I ask more specifically: Is not an idea-in this case the gospel-as valuable a thing as the white-footed tree-rat? And is not such an idea worth preserving?
          Never mind that for me the gospel is more than a mere idea on par with human thought. I openly confess my belief that the gospel is the divine message of God for fallen humanity. The gospel is the story of God's unconditional love to save any and all who confess Jesus Christ as their Savior. However, I am not arguing that the gospel is worth salvaging because it is the Word of God. To the secular person, religious truths are the product of an elevated human consciousness. I am arguing here that even if we should concede that the gospel is mere human thought and reflection, it ought to be speech that is allowed without infringement. By their standards, those who see it as human speech should be honest enough to concede that it is a point of view, which should be allowed to thrive or perish in the free market place of ideas.


          If anything makes us unique as a human species, it's our ability to reason and think. And what is the product of thought if not ideas? Erase ideas from the world and you erase humanity's unique fingerprint. No endangered fern, reptile, or crustacean leaves such a legacy, and yet we value their continued existence.
          Why should an idea-and one as powerful as the gospel-be accorded any less of a guarantee for its survival?
          When preservationists argue for the protection of endangered species they usually appeal to some variation of three basic reasons. First, from a research perspective, all species have potential medical and medicinal properties that may benefit humanity. Plants often fall into this category. Second, environmentalists argue that endangered species are necessary to maintain biological systems in balance. The presence of insect populations, for example, can have tremendous ramifications for the world's ecology. The third reason is one of aesthetics. Proponents insist that all species ought to be protected if for no other reason than for the sake of human enjoyment. Thus, virtually all mammals, reptiles, birds, and fish fall into this category.2
          I would like to marshal the same three reasons to defend the gospel from those who would see its extinction from our daily conversation. First, we must ask if the gospel fits the criteria of it having potential medical value. Certainly, it does not in the same way as an endangered plant might have a quality that could lead to the cure for a disease. But, then again, it is ideas that ultimately advance the therapeutic potentialities of a species. Without an idea the potential remains dormant. In this sense, ideas are exponentially more powerful and valuable. And it is beyond doubt that the gospel has a 2,000-year track record of therapeutic value to the human race.


          Take prison recidivism, for example. Anthony Brooks, a correspondent for WBUR-the Boston-based National Public Radio (NPR) affiliate-investigated whether Christianity makes a measurable difference in the lives of prisoners. In his article entitled, "Leap of Faith," Brooks examines the Inner Change Freedom Initiative, a faith-based prison program founded by Chuck Colson.


          Recidivism is a national problem: about 40 percent of prison inmates end up back in jail within three years of being released. Compare that to Inner Change.
          National operations director Jack Cowley says, of the first hundred or so inmates who went through the first Inner Change program in Texas, only six have landed back in jail. That's an arrest rate of just 6 percent. Cowley says it's the religion that makes the difference.3


          Many people have been liberated from self destructive vises by the power of the gospel. Countless hospitals exist today because of the gospel. Multitudes of people have surrendered to the mission field to help in the most deplorable spots on the earth because of the call they receive whenever the gospel is unapologetically proclaimed. Christian relief agencies abound. While there are always exceptions, most people who undergo biblical conversion are made the better for it.


          This first reason is basically an appeal to the unique properties that are lost when a given species succumbs to extinction. We appropriately value endangered species for their uniqueness. We understand that if we lose a specific plant or animal species, all the others combined do not recover the loss of the one. This is why industries are often denied access to an area for the sake of an endangered plant or fish.
          We reason that if the spottedowl is lost to us, all the horned owls in the world do not a spotted owl make. Do we not see why it is equally important to champion the right, and the necessity to let the voice of the gospel be heard for what it is? It is a unique message, unlike that of other religions. And if it goes, all the other religious messages combined do not equal its singular message.


          What about the second reason? Does anyone truly believe that if the gospel were silenced it would not be a profound loss for the North American culture? Recently, we heard of the burning of the Iraqi National Library in the aftermath of the war. Nearly two-thirds of the books in the library were burned to ashes. The tragedy was reported as a loss to the world, and rightly so. Why? Is it not because we know that the history and knowledge of ancient civilizations contained in those books and manuscripts were truly priceless? And what was in those volumes if not the thoughts and reflections of past civilizations?


          It is legitimate to ask how some ideas can be deemed more costly than gold, while the gospel-which arguably has had a beneficial impact on our world-is treated with such disdain?
          For example, communism, as a political theory, is largely a failed experiment. Recent history has shown this in dramatic fashion. And yet, I doubt libraries across the globe have discarded all the writings of Marx, Engels, and others. Why not? Again, it is necessary to preserve even flawed ideas in order to provide context for understanding our history. Together they provide background to where we are as a thinking people. In fact, their absence would leave a void rendering some aspects of contemporary culture indecipherable. The presence of millions of evangelicals in North America and beyond is unintelligible apart from the born again conversion experience. If the gospel goes into extinction because of political correctness, what does that say about the millions who have found meaning and significance in the experience?


          We must admit that the gospel is intrinsically offensive to people. It tells us we are all sinners and in need of God's grace through Christ. However, since when has offensiveness been the criteria for extinction? The U.S. Fish and Wildlife agency does not use pleasantness or offensiveness as criterion when deciding which species to protect. Is the endangered razorback sucker fish not offensive to people throughout Arizona, California, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming, who have had to modify their water management for a fish that weighs no more than several ounces? What is often characterized as offensive, however, turns out, rather, to be unique. And because it is distinctive we go to great pains to salvage it from extinction, regardless of the offence to other interests.4


          Finally, some species are rescued from extinction primarily because of the enjoyment they offer humanity. The California condor is a prime example. Nearly extinct in the 1970s, today it flies over the Grand Canyon for all visitors to enjoy. Does the gospel have human enjoyment value? It does if, by enjoyment, we mean entertainment in the classical sense. Watching the California condor soar is certainly enjoyable, but it is more than that. It is entertaining. Let me explain. Seeing this great vulture spread its 10-foot wingspan won't make you laugh. Its majestic presence as it soars in the sky will capture your undivided attention. Similarly, the Bible message is sheer entertainment in the most profound sense.5


          With its open invitation to one and all, its message of unconditional love will hold the reader. Its message of grace grips the mind and will not let go. Arguably, no other book has entertained the mind of man more than has the Bible. Is the gospel entertaining to humanity? You bet!


          Conclusion
          Not long ago I was confronted by an Orthodox Jew who berated the efforts of a group of evangelical Christians to evangelize a community where there was a sizable Jewish presence. The man stood no more than a foot away and virtually screamed directly into my face. He went on for about five minutes, accusing Christians for the Holocaust, and of attempting to adulterate Jewish culture. There were three other evangelicals who fully believed that I would be allowed to respond to his charges, but the man was not interested in an honest and civil discussion. No sooner did he finish his tirade, but he stormed out, giving me no time to respond.


          I have reflected much on that event and have concluded the man believed his message was all important, while mine was of little significance. He accused evangelicals of cultural genocide-and worse-and ultimately did not consider the Christian message to be worth a hearing. In the end, his actions reflected what many would like to see happen to Christianity. Enough with the evangelistic appeals for conversion-no one wants to hear it. But, is this right? On all counts, even the most ardent detractors of evangelism ought to concede that because there are so many in the culture who would see the demise of biblical calls to conversion, evangelism should be placed on the endangered list of ideas. For, if they had their way, it would disappear from public discourse, and the world would be diminished by its absence. This must never happen.


          The American society prides itself in being a culture where the marketplace dictates if an idea will have continuing relevancy. So, what of the gospel? In spite of those who would silence the message, the call to repentance and faith in Jesus Christ is as relevant today as it has ever been. Countless people who turn to Christ daily testify by their lives of the power of the gospel to give life and to give it abundantly.


          1 According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service at the time of this report, there are 746 species of plants and 516 species of animals on the endangered species list in North America alone (seehttp://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/TessStatReport and http://species.fws.gov). Earth Witness, an environmental organization has compiled a list of species of animals that have become extinct in North America over the past two centuries (see http://www.earthwitness.com).
          2 The foregoing reasons are clearly articulated in the Endangered Species Act signed by President Nixon in 1973.The law has the expressed aim of protecting species of esthetic, ecological, educational, historical, recreational, and scientific value.
          3 Seewww.publicbroadcasting.net/national/newsroom/features/2001/faith/innerchange.htmlfor the full article.
          4 The charge that Christianity is offensive to people from other cultures is baseless when we realize it isn't only in North America that people are confronted with the claims of Christ.This happens regularly through native and indigenous expressions of Christianity all around the world. North American evangelicals are not advancing some unique American custom. They are engaged in the gobal mandate of the church. Only in North America and the West do people make such a charge. The fact is, not only do Christians evangelize around the world, but also Islam, in particular, is actively involved in proselytizing efforts of its own. Chris Wright, The Uniqueness of Jesus, (Grand Rapids: Monarch Books, 1997), 28.
          5 From the Latin entretenir, meaning to hold between, to maintain in the mind.Webster's New International Dictionary, Second ed., s.v., "entertain." ©Copyright 2014 North American Mission Board, SBC