God's Not Dead
The goal of GOD'S NOT DEAD: Evidence for God in an Age of Uncertainty is straightforward: to help readers develop “a faith that is real, credible, and strong enough to help others find faith in God.” To that end, Rice Broocks outlines a roadmap that guides seekers to acknowledge the most basic truths of Christianity:
- There is overwhelming and exciting evidence for God’s existence
- The God who exists is indeed the God of the Bible
- God has revealed his nature through his Son, Jesus Christ
As shown during the movie, this is the original book on which the main character bases much of his debate points with the atheistic professor. Persuasive arguments crafted with tools borrowed from logic, science, and philosophy, as well as scripture, solidify the faith of the Christian reader and provide starting points for discussions with skeptics.
With clear, easy-to-follow explanations of key concepts and controversies, GOD'S NOT DEAD is apologetics for the twenty-first century, presented in layman’s terms. Readers will be empowered not only to talk about their own faith with confidence but to lead others to a relationship with Jesus.
Free small group materials and sermon series available by clicking on the graphic and submitting the form HERE.
Excerpts…
DNA Reveals Creator
There is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind was the title of a book published in 2004. The writer was Anthony Flew, the most outspoken atheist of his generation. While at Oxford in the 1940s, he presented a paper on atheism to the Socratic Club, chaired by C. S. Lewis. Flew was a prolific writer, publishing over thirty books. His conversion from atheism to theism at age eighty was a source of tremendous controversy. Regardless of the debate over the extent of his “conversion” from atheism, the fact is that he did convert.
In a symposium in New York in May 2004, Flew was asked if his recent work on the origins of life pointed to intelligence behind creation. He declared that it did and retold the story in his book.
Yes, I now think it does . . . almost entirely because of the DNA investigations. What I think the DNA material has done is that it has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements to work together . . . It is all a matter of the enormous complexity by which the results were achieved, which looked to me like the work of intelligence.
Flew goes on to reveal that his conversion was a result of the commitment he had made to follow the evidence wherever it leads. “This statement represented a major change of course for me, but it was nevertheless consistent with the principle I have embraced since the beginning of my philosophical life— of following the argument no matter where it leads.” Flew is not alone in recognizing the window into the world of the cell that has given us a glimpse of the fantastic complexity of life. Specifically, the developments over the last forty years in biochemistry and biology have shown us the micro universe of the cell and have led to the logical conclusion that life is no accident.
Delusion of Disbelief
In his book The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins asserts that God must be a delusion because God couldn’t exist. Dawkins, who is perhaps the world’s most famous atheist, makes the claim that though the universe appears to be designed, it couldn’t have been because we are still left with the question “Who designed the Designer?” This is itself an example of the irrational, unyielding position of the atheistic mind. The truth is you don’t have to have an explanation for every explanation. Such a demand sets up an infinite regress where nothing would be knowable and science and reason would all break down (granted, that is a worse-case scenario).
If you were walking through the woods and found a turtle on top of a fence post, you could rationally conclude that it didn’t get there by itself. Someone put it there. Even if you didn’t have an explanation for who did it, you would be reasonable in assuming that time and chance wouldn’t eventually place a turtle on a fence post.
Sigmund Freud spoke of religious belief as a wish-fulfillment, the desire to have some “father-figure in the sky” who can straighten things out for us and talk to us when we are lonely. David Aikman, a former senior correspondent for Time and author of The Delusion of Disbelief, put atheism in the same category as religion, saying, “Atheism is itself a delusion,” the ultimate wish-fulfillment. There are real reasons why unbelievers don’t want God to exist or at least seek to reduce Him to a blind impersonal force. No God— no accountability. No God— no real morals. “If God is dead,” said Malcolm Muggeridge, “somebody is going to have to take his place,” and that somebody else is usually man himself.
Rice Broocks - God's Not Dead; pp. 7-8
Different Than Animals
We are different from other animals, and we know it. The problem is evolution and atheism have no explanation for these differences:
First distinction that we are different from other animals:
METACOGNITION: We as humans are able to think about thinking. We can ponder our condition from an almost-objective position, to think about ourselves in comparison to others, to be self-conscious of our weaknesses and our strengths.
It also allows us to think generationally, to demonstrate concern for our family lineage. This ability is beyond the animal instinct to care for their offspring.
Second distinction that we are different from other animals:
We appreciate the aesthetic values of beauty, art, and other concepts such as nobility and honor.
Today we don't find even crude drawings on the dwellings of animal caves that are made by the animals themselves.
Though they can be trained to imitate human behavior in some respects, it is a far cry from the human ability we see in art museums and libraries.
Third distinction that we are different from other animals:
Parrots may be able to mimic human sounds, but they aren’t communicating their own thoughts and ideas about their own existence. If that were the case, you might hear them complaining about the food or debating the justice of cages for their fellow parrots. Animals can respond to human voice commands, but these are simply adaptive traits that are conditioned through the reward of food for the performance of an act orresponse to a command.
Celebrated linguist Noam Chomsky points out that humans have a language acquisition device (LAD) that animals lack. Not only do we have the mental capacity for advanced thought, but we also have unique centers in the brain designed specifically for both language production and language processing. Moreover, our larynx is uniquely designed to create complex sound patterns required for advanced speech. This ability is not found in the animal world, only in humans. (Page 132 - God's Not Dead)
4th Distinction we are different than other animals:
CREATIVITY AND SCIENTIFIC EXPLORATION:
Humans have not only the mental capacity for creating tools but also an advanced visual system to learn about the outside world. We have hands uniquely designed for complex, intricate motor tasks. We have the ability to take the world around us and make new things, such as iPhones. As Michael Denton wrote in Nature’s Destiny, “In addition to our brain, our linguistic ability, and our highly developed visual ability, we possess another wonderful adaptation, the ideal manipulative tool—the human hand. No other animal possesses an organ so superbly adapted for intelligent exploration and manipulation of its physical surroundings and environment.”
An additional advantage is our bipedal (using only two limbs)
posture and the ability to walk upright. These features allow us to manipulate tools while moving. This unique combination of multiple features allows us to explore the world and to develop technologically. “It is only because our brain can sense and experience the world and translate our thoughts into actions that we are able to explore, manipulate, and ultimately understand the world.”
(Page 133 - GOD'S NOT DEAD)
Faith and Reason
Reason serves as a type of immune system helping us sort out helpful beliefs from harmful ones. When humans look at any set of events, we use our reason to draw conclusions about what has happened. Whether it is an incident that just took place before our eyes or one that happened thousands of years ago, reason processes the events and decides whether the explanation being offered is plausible. Irrationality is not a religious thing; it’s a human thing. Ever heard of a mad scientist? Making the point that real faith isn’t blind includes not blindly believing everything said in the name of “science.” The evidence that God exists is all around us and inside of us. You have been given the ability to observe the phenomena around you and reason whether it is the product of blind forces or an intelligent Creator.
The twenty-first century is the most astounding time in history to be alive; every day we learn more about the stellar universe and subatomic particles. Consider the discovery of the Higgs boson particle at the Large Hadron Collider near Geneva, Switzerland, in July 2012. This particle, nicknamed by nonscientists the “God Particle,” is unlocking physicists’ understanding of the mysterious subatomic world and producing the belief that humanity may soon understand the smallest detail of how the universe works. However, just because we know how a mechanism works doesn’t eliminate the existence of the architect and builder of the mechanism. The way these facts are interpreted comes down to the beliefs you hold or the lens through which you look.
Atheists believe a fantastic story that the universe just happened, by chance, and that all of this life and complexity came from nothing. “The universe just is,” asserts the naturalist. Yet is that really true? Is that the only option a rational person has to consider? The late Christopher Hitchens, one of the most outspoken atheists of this generation and considered their most eloquent voice, seemed quite taken aback when he encountered Christians in his debates who actually had reasons for their faith. He thought that all we had was our appeal to our subjective experience.
Reason demands that we examine claims made in the name of faith or science in the same way we would examine the ingredients on a pill bottle or food item on a store shelf. Not all claims are equal. Many skeptics assert that the only reliable tests for truth reside in the realm of science. As will be shown, science points to God. Inductive methods exist to test the reasonableness of and credibility not just for belief in God, generally, but Christianity, specifically.
I hope to demonstrate that faith and reason are vital partners and complementary components for the discovery of truth. Tim Keller, a best-selling author and pastor in New York City, made this challenge to skeptics: “I urge skeptics to wrestle with the unexamined ‘blind faith’ on which skepticism is based, and to see how hard it is to justify those beliefs to those who do not share them. I also urge believers to wrestle with their personal and culture’s objections to the faith.”
Rice Broocks - God's Not Dead; pp. 21-23
Humans vs Animals
"When (atheists) tell people there is no God, that they are just animals that have evolved from lower life forms and are the product of random chance, you offer them little hope for deriving any sort of ultimate meaning…"
"Regardless of the culture or nation, humans long for a solid sense of purpose and meaning in their lives.
There is something deep in the human psyche, a yearning for significance, a desire to believe that there is more to life than simply physical survival."
- Dr. Rice Broocks, page 116, GOD'S NOT DEAD.
Implications of Big Bang
Astronomer, agnostic, and former head of the Goddard Institute at NASA, Robert Jastrow, captured the tension of the big bang theory in his book God and the Astronomers.
When a scientist writes about God, his colleagues assume he is either over the hill or going bonkers. In my case it should be understood from the start that I am agnostic in religious matters. . . . However, I am fascinated by the implications in some of the scientific developments of recent years. The essence of these developments is that the Universe had, in some sense, a beginning— that it began at a certain moment in time.
Many in the skeptical community would try to downplay the notion of a definite beginning because of the religious implications. Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington would echo this same reluctance: “Philosophically, the notion of a beginning of the present order of Nature is repugnant to me . . . I should like to find a genuine loophole.” 8 The idea of a beginning was uncomfortable for the naturalist who was committed to a worldview that excluded the existence of a supernatural realm. Stephen Hawking noted this discomfort in his bestseller A Brief History of Time: “Many people do not like the idea that time has a beginning, probably because it smacks of divine intervention.”
Astronomer Fred Hoyle came up with the term big bang out of ridicule. The thought of a beginning to him was tantamount to slipping in the concept of a Creator:
At first sight one might think the strong anticlerical bias of modern science would be totally at odds with western religion. This is far from being so, however. The big bang theory requires a recent origin of the universe that openly invites the concept of creation, which so-called thermodynamic theories of the origin of life in the organic soup of biology are the contemporary equivalent of the voice in the burning bush and the tablets of Moses.
Regardless of the implications, the entire universe along with all matter, energy, space, and time had a beginning. Trying to conceive of what could have existed before the beginning or caused the beginning is mind-bending. However, the logic of connecting the evidence for a beginning of the universe to a Creator is too challenging to ignore.
Rice Broocks - God's Not Dead; pp. 68-70
Problem of Evil
Once I sat next to a distinguished gentleman on a flight and struck up a pleasant conversation. He taught philosophy at a major university in England, so I had many questions about his favorite writers, although I was a little nervous about not confusing the philosophers and their philosophies. Finally I asked him if he had any religious faith, to which he replied with a smile, “I’m a militant atheist.” I also smiled and shook his hand and thanked him for being so straightforward about it.
My next question was easy: “So why are you a militant atheist?”
He replied, “Two reasons. First, I believe in evolution.” We talked about fossils and genetics and Darwin for several minutes, and I even pulled out the motion sickness bag and drew pictures on it to illustrate the geological layers of the earth. It wasn’t long until I realized that he wasn’t really comfortable with the details of evolution. Just because someone has a PhD doesn’t mean he is an expert in every area of life; he may be a microspecialist in only one or two subjects. The reality was, this professor of philosophy had not done his homework on the one thing on which he was basing his entire worldview and belief system. The professor changed his course, announcing that evolution was not his main reason for rejecting God.
I paused for just a moment in anticipation of what his real reason for rejecting God might be. I actually braced myself for some incredible philosophical challenge I had never heard before, as if I were about to take a punch from Mike Tyson himself. When he finally told me his real reason for not believing, I was completely surprised.
“If there is a God,” he said, “why is there so much evil in the world?”
I didn’t say it, but I sure thought very loudly in my mind, “That’s it? Is this the real reason for you being a militant atheist?” I was ready for this one. I turned over the motion sickness bag and wrote the words “No God— No Evil.” Borrowing the logic of theologian Cornelius van Til, I explained to him, “If there is no God, there is no such thing as evil.” You see, without God evil doesn’t really exist. The unbeliever can’t describe the world we live in without borrowing the biblical concepts of good and evil.
Rice Broocks - God's Not Dead; pp. 42-44