Peter (host):
What would it take for an atheist to change his mind? How much evidence would be needed to prove to him that God existed? Here’s the atheist - Richard Dawkins - giving his answer to this question.
Richard Dawkins:
Well, I used to say, it would be very simple it would be the second coming of Jesus or a great big, deep booming bass Paul Robeson saying voice saying I am God and I created… but I was persuaded mostly by actually, Steve Zara who's a regular contributor to my website, but he told me he, he more or less persuaded me that if you even if there was this, this booming voice and the second coming in clouds of glory, the more probable explanation is that it's a hallucination or conjuring trick by David Copperfield or something. I mean, he made the point that its supernatural explanation for anything is incoherent, but it doesn't sort of it doesn't add up to an explanation.
Interviewer:
What would persuade you?
Richard Dawkins:
Well, I'm starting to think nothing would which is which in a way goes against the grain because I've always paid lip service to the view that a scientist should change his mind when evidence is forthcoming, probably is I can't think what that evidence will look like.
Peter (host):
Atheists like Richard Dawkins and Michael Shermer claim that Christianity is objectively false, but there are plenty of people who have studied the evidence and decided it was objectively true. And it’s important to appreciate that the core Christian truth claims are objective in nature, not personal or subjective.
Neil DeGrasse Tyson:
Then you have personal truths.
Peter (host):
Furthermore, it’s not just Christianity that makes objective claims. Religions all around the world do the same thing. We can see this from the fact that their founders, leaders, and adherents were willing to suffer for what they believed.
Video clip:
They were scared that if people started following Islam, then they will no longer be feared and respected. they started treating the Prophet and his followers very cruelly.
Peter (host):
Of course, the fact that people suffered shows that they were sincere, but not that they were right. You can be sincere and still be sincerely wrong. But this does raise an important issue and that is, which of the world’s religions is right? Or are any of them right? Perhaps they’re all wrong? Perhaps it’s the atheists and the non-religious people who’ve got it right? Everyone has to answer these questions because everyone has to live their lives a particular way. And based on how we live our lives, we show what we’ve decided.
Video clips:
I’m, I’m undecided.
I’m completely neutral.
I’m sorry but that’s not possible.
Not possible
You have to decide.
Peter (host):
Apologetics can help in making that choice. According to the Bible, in 1 Peter 3:15, Christians should always be ready to make a defense for their hope in Jesus but they should do so with gentleness and respect.
Video clips:
Gentleness.
And respect.
Peter (host):
Some Christians, when they first hear about apologetics, get excited. They’re excited because they’ve wanted to share their faith with their friends and family but they found it quite difficult. When they discover apologetics, it seems to provide the tool they’ve been looking for. Finally, these Christians think, I can now prove to everyone that Jesus is the truth!
Video clip:
Yipee.
Peter (host):
If that’s how you’re feeling then I’m happy for you but I also want to caution you. It’s easy to be naive when you first start to study and learn. It’s easy to think that you’re now going to prove to everyone, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Jesus is the way, the truth and the life. And when that happens, everyone will just fall on their knees, with tears of repentance rolling down their face, and they’ll all start a new relationship with God.
Peter (host):
But usually, it doesn’t work that way. I’m not saying God can’t do that, or that it absolutely never happens. But people usually change their minds slowly and gradually. And when this change happens, it’s often because there were many different voices that spoke into someone’s life. Furthermore, we should realize that it’s difficult to really prove anything to anyone.
Video clip:
What do you mean?
Peter (host):
Good question; allow me to explain. When someone uses the word prove, you should ask yourself, what do they mean by that word?
Video clip:
I mean prove it!
Peter (host):
Ah yeah, repeating yourself doesn’t help here. The thing is, people have different standards for what counts as proof. In a Canadian or American court of law, things need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. That’s a pretty high standard. But in other situations, proof can mean many different things to different people
Video clips:
I’m... the Sasquatch kid!
Do you have documented proof of this?
Look, Bob, proof that aliens do exist.
I need proof.
You want some proof?
That’s what I want.
You want the truth? You want the truth?
I want the truth!
You can’t handle the truth!
Peter (host):
We all want the truth and we all would love to have proof. But the proof is a slippery concept. What one person considers proof, is nothing close to proof for another person. Even if you do have clear, objective proof, a skeptic can simply raise the bar and deny that you have proven anything. Think about what the atheist, Richard Dawkins, said at the beginning of this episode.
Interviewer:
What would persuade you?
Richard Dawkins:
Well, I'm starting to think nothing would which, which goes against the grain because I've always paid lip service to the view that a scientist should change his mind when evidence is forthcoming, probably is I can't think what that evidence will look like.
Peter (host):
So, as Dawkins admitted, if he can’t even think of what would persuade him, how could anyone ever prove to him that God existed? Anything that anyone could ever present to him, could always be dismissed as not enough. He could always fold his arms, shake his head and say,
Video clips:
I’m not convinced.
Nope, nope, nope, nope.
That’s not enough.
That’s not enough. Not nearly enough.
Peter (host):
But you should also realize something else here. We should appreciate that this is an issue, not just in religion, but also in science. Scientists have a hard time proving anything so that it convinces everyone.
Video clips:
What?!
That’s crazy! You’re crazy!
Science is nothing like religion.
Nothing like it.
Peter (host):
No, hear me out. What I’m saying here is not just my view, it’s essentially the view of Dr. Sean Carroll. He’s an atheist and a physicist who teaches at the famous California Institute of Technology. Listen to what he says in his book, The Big Picture.
Dr. Sean Carroll:
let's say you want to take a scientist down a peg, and make her a bit flustered.
Here's an easy way to do it. Whenever she says that something is true, in her considered opinion as a scientist, just ask, can you really prove that? If your adversary is a good scientist, but not trained in public relations, chances are very high that she will hem and haw finding it difficult to give a straight answer. Science never proves anything.
A lot depends on our definition of proof.
Peter (host):
So according to this well-respected physicist and atheist, science never absolutely proves anything. (T1) And that’s why you can always find at least a few scientists who reject what the vast majority of other scientists accept, even though these few scientists know all the same facts.
Dr. Sean Carroll:
Science never proves anything.
Peter (host):
So if scientists can’t even prove anything beyond a shadow of a doubt. Then how is anyone supposed to absolutely prove that God exists and that Jesus rose from the dead? If someone is skeptical enough, they can always raise the bar of proof higher and higher; so that at one point the skeptic can’t even think of what it would take to convince him or her.
Interviewer:
What would persuade you?
Richard Dawkins:
Well, I'm starting to think nothing would.
Peter (host):
I hope you’re starting to appreciate how hard it is to prove something.
Video clips:
It’s harder than I thought.
It’s a lot harder.
Peter (host):
So when it comes to the case for Christianity, it’s best not to talk about proof. Instead, it’s better to talk about making a strong case, showing that Christianity is more probable than not, or showing that the evidence is in its favor. Becoming a follower of Jesus still requires faith, but it’s a reasonable faith. It’s faith because of the evidence, not in spite of the evidence.
Video clips:
..that’s a good way to put it.
Yeah, I like that.
Peter (host):
Apologetics should not be seen as an attempt to prove that Christianity is true. That’s because, if someone is skeptical enough, it will be impossible to prove anything to them. Even scientists have a hard time proving anything in the strict sense of the word. So instead of talking about proof, it’s better to talk about making a strong case, or making a compelling argument.
Richard Dawkins:
Well, I’m starting to think nothing would.
Peter (host):
However, for those with an open mind, the case is compelling enough to make the Christian faith a reasonable faith.
Video clip:
Yeah, I like that.
Peter (host):
In our next episode, we’re going to take a brief look at what many of you may have been waiting for. We’re going to look at what Christianity is all about and briefly examine some of the evidence for it. That is, we’re going to take a brief look at how Christian apologists make their case for faith in Jesus.
Female Narrator:
You’re listening to LIT by Worldview Summit with Peter Kupisz.