Encounter (Point/Counterpoint, Vol.1, No. 5, 1997)

The web journal of Godsearch, Inc. (journal formerly entitled Point/Counterpoint).

The skeptic and seeker's guide for investigating religions and world-views through debate, interview, analysis, and discussion.

 

Call us: 303-363-REASON (303-363-7327)

(6-8 pm, weekdays, MST)

 

Godsearch call-in phone line. Call in response to anything we have said on this web page or call to share your point of view. Call with your thoughts, arguments, questions, reflection, concerns, and intellectual contributions. (Note: if the lines get too busy and you just want to vent, you will have to call us back or we may be able to call you back.) You can even call if you just want to hear what we have to say. We think biblical Christianity is true and we'll tell you why.

Or email us at enc11@earthlink.net

 

What is Encounter? (Home Page)

---

 

Between the Earth and Moon

A Mexican-Indian Shaman Returns from the Dead. . .

to Tell What He Saw

 

God and Evil

Letter to an Old College Prof

 

Einstein and the Church

 

Great Moments in Science

or, The Devolution of an Idea

 

"Why I Am Not a Christian"

 

Antony Flew

Debate with Famed Atheist and Philosopher:

"Would we have an obligation to commit our lives to God if we believe God does exist?"

Encounter

Carlos Castaneda gave us the mystical tales of Don Juan in the late 60s. Though his accounts are now largely discounted, it is interesting that now similar stories are again coming out of Mexico. Other sources are giving new accounts concerning the powers (and limitation of powers) of the shamans of the original native population. Whether these stories are sufficiently verified, the reader will need to decide for oneself.

David Hogan was a Christian missionary to Mexico when he first encountered the power of the high mountain warlocks (as he calls them). Traveling in a remote region of Mexico he came across an altar on the mountain side. He took a rock and broke it into pieces when he was told it was a warlock altar. It wasn't long before he discovered the suffering his act and his work would bring about to himself and his family. For a whole year the shamans united and fasted and worked their incantations to kill the missionary. He and his family endured heavy depression and spiritual attack. He records phenomena you would think to see only in a Castaneda novel. He even swears that he witnessed a shaman change into a bat.

Such was the power of the Indian warlock.

With such power, what happened to the hapless missionary? Was he driven mad? Did he commit suicide. Did he kill his family? Did he simply leave once he discovered he had no power against such spiritual warfare? Actually it was none of the above. The spiritual attack ended after much prayer and fasting and after he felt God had told him to perform a certain act, a strange almost ceremonial act reminiscent of the symbolic acts of the ancient Hebrew prophets. At this point our story begins to sound very different than those of the Castaneda novels. We now encounter a spiritual force before which the Indian warlocks are powerless.

Hogan tells of another earlier encounter with a native shaman. As his work began to draw people to Christianity, people came to commit themselves to Jesus as their Lord and savior and the warlock began to lose his influence over them. He would come to Hogan's church services to chant curses against him outside of the building. He had two adult sons, one of whom was studying to become a shaman like his father. Then the sons became deathly ill. For several weeks the father tried to heal his sons by his spiritual powers, but without effect. Finally the boys' mother had them brought on a stretcher to the missionary to be prayed for. One son was healed instantly and the second was healed by the next day. Both became followers of Jesus. The father was enraged and began fasting and praying to his spirits to curse and kill the missionary. For several days this went on until he contracted the same diseases his sons had nearly died of. He died at nine in the evening, his last words to his sons, "I hate your God and I'll never repent."

One of the sons began praying for his father to bring him back to life and to give him a second chance. After six hours of prayer the warlock's heart began to beat again. Once fully alive and conscious he asked to have the missionary come to him so that he could become "born again" like his sons. Something very dramatic had happened to him during this time.

The old shaman told the missionary that at death he found himself suspended in space between the earth and the moon. Then he noticed an overpowering bright light approaching him. He turned to look at it and could see a man in the center of the light. Describing the man in the light, he said his hair was like wool, he had on a robe that reached to his feet and his feet looked like glowing hot bronze. The old man, who knew nothing of the Bible, said his eyes were like fire, and when he spoke, his voice was like a rushing river. This is the same description found in Revelation 1:13-16 and it's a description of Jesus. "But what were the holes in his hands and feet?" the old man asked the missionary. Hogan explained that this was Jesus and that the holes resulted from his death by crucifixion. The last thing the old man experienced before coming back to life was Jesus holding his arms open to him and telling him "I love you."

How should we assess these claims? These are phenomena that must primarily be tested by the testimonies of those who claim to have experienced them. Unless we have reason to believe that such things simply cannot happen, on the basis of the testimonial evidence we should believe that they have occurred. (Whether the metamorphosis physically occurred or whether this phenomenon occurred as a forced hallucination, it is still a demonstration of powers far greater than humans normally posses.) Hogan has stated that the current persecution of Christians in the remote areas of Mexico prevents our disclosing the name of the old man. However, one of Hogan's coworkers in a telephone interview has testified that the old man has publicly testified that these things actually took place as he claimed.

Note: Hogan's original account is available from Messianic Vision, Box 1918, Brunswick, Ga. 31521-1918, for $10 on audiotapes C862 and C863. David Hogan can be contacted through Freedom Ministries, P.O. Box 838, Raymondville, Tx. 78580. Phone: 210-347-3802.

Encounter

Letter to an Old College Prof

I sent you a copy of our paper, Point/Counterpoint, with the article "The Holocaust: Could God have Allowed this?" Thank you for writing back. Concerning the problem of evil for belief in God you said you are "familiar with this line of argument and do not find it persuasive."

But B.R., do you really have any good arguments against this view or is this just your gut response? Alvin Plantinga once noted that atheists seem to be pressed ultimately to claim that it is inconceivable that any good state of affairs--God's purported reason for allowing the greatest evils that have occurred--could outweigh those evils (God and Other Minds, p. 130). And at that point the atheist cannot really give any argument for their claim; he or she simply affirms that any normal rational person must see this to be true. But if that is so, then surely the argument from evil reduces to nothing more than an emotional argument. An emotional argument might be useful if you have a rational argument to supplement it, but it can't make it alone. And as an emotional argument, it is vulnerable to the emotional facet of the arguments given in response--such as the argument given in the article on the holocaust.

The essence of this claim--the claim you say you don't find persuasive--is that this evil is allowed because God seeks to know our choice, our response or reaction to our Creator, in the face of pain. [There is no more important question that one could face than that of how we will respond to God. And with the emotional (not rational) enticement suffering provides to turn against God, our decision becomes especially significant.] Because it is so important that this purpose be fulfilled and because God does compensate or redeem any undeserved pain received, God cannot be accused of evil.

Now the emotional factor in this defense of God finds its force in the sense of nobility, the rightness, the courage of standing unswervingly (or if not unswervingly, at least standing ultimately) for the One who deserves our commitment and adoration. It's the valor of the Norse warrior who knows the gods will be destroyed and the evil giants will win. As he goes to battle he cries out, "I go to die with the gods."

But what can you offer, B.R.? What rational argument can you give? Does the argument from evil reduce to an empty cry, "I know God cannot have good reason for allowing this!"? Or when an answer is given--like the one in this article--does your response reduce to, "I just know this isn't a good enough reason."?

I'm sure that there are good answers to many attempted theistic defenses. I remember you giving some in class. But the arguments you attacked were so poor that it was difficult to see them as anything but strawmen. Indeed, the whole joke was the absurdity of those theistic arguments.

But back to my question: Can you give good reason to reject the holocaust argument or is it just that you know that you know that it can't be right and that's the end of it? I remember you saying that for anyone who would see one particularly graphic film you had mentioned which documented the holocaust, that this would constitute an absolute disproof of God's existence. Do you think it's just self-evident for anyone who is aware of what happened in the holocaust? If you do and you can't rationally answer the response I've given, then shouldn't I believe that you have no rational argument?

Forgive me B.R., I've been egging you on I know. I thought I might be more likely to get a response from you if I hit you hard. But I'm not being dishonest in anything I've said. I honestly don't think you can answer this argument.

Note: We have received no response to this letter.

Lee Strobel interviewed Peter Kreeft for his response to the problem of evil in Strobel's book, The Case for Faith. Paul Doland critiqued Kreeft's argument in a web article entitled, "The Case against Faith." A response to Doland's article, and specifically the problem of pain, is found in issue 9 of Encounter.

See also Doland's critique of Norman Geisler's discussion of animal pain.

Encounter

Albert Einstein, possibly the greatest scientist of this century, came to believe in God because of his discoveries in physics. He rejected the Christian and Jewish God, however, because of problems in those systems, problems which we think are not that difficult to answer. (In a coming issue of Point/Counterpoint, one of the central problems he mentioned will be covered in the continuation of the Flew debate.) Nevertheless, it is significant that Einstein reluctantly acknowledged the existence of a superintelligence and power revealed in nature.

Problems involving evil in the world had always been very important in his thinking. Whether he was considering the horror of Hiroshima (a matter he felt personally responsible for because of his scientific contribution to the development of the Bomb), questions concerning how God could allow evil, or questions concerning the effect of good or evil of various secular and religious institutions, he will always be remembered as a man with a deep moral consciousness.

The following comments he made reveal a little known or often ignored feature of a portion of the church in Nazi Germany. Many people today are angry because at least large portions of the church will not compromise what they consider to be unalterable moral absolutes. These critics should remember that this same innate obstinacy of a significant portion of the church made it the only institution that Hitler could not conquer. For the church to say, "I will not obey any person if it means disobeying God," makes it the most frightening of enemies to any totalitarian regime. It is little wonder, after seeing how much the church has had to do with the fall of the Eastern European Communist block, that Communist leaders are now so adamant in persecuting, controlling, and suppressing the church in China and Southeast Asia.

Having always been an ardent partisan of freedom, I turned to the universities, as soon as the revolution broke out in Germany, to find there the defenders of freedom. I did not find them. Very soon the universities took refuge in silence.

I then turned to the editors of the powerful newspapers who, but lately in flowing articles, had claimed to be the faithful champions of liberty. These men, as well as the universities, were reduced to silence within a few weeks.

I then addressed myself to authors individually, to those who passed themselves off as the intellectual guides of Germany, and among whom many had frequently discussed the question of freedom and its place in modern life. They were in their turn silent.

Only the Church opposed the fight which Hitler was waging against liberty. Till then I had no interest in the Church, but now I feel great admiration and am truly attracted to the Church which had the persistent courage to fight for spiritual truth and moral freedom.

I feel obligated to confess that I now admire what I used to consider of little value.

Taken with permission from The Silent Church: The Problem of the German Confessional Witness by Julius Rieger (SCM Press Ltd., London, England, 1944) 90, fn 65 from statement on p.59.

(An example of a life expressing the values Einstein admired.)

Encounter

or, The Devolution of an Idea

Before Pasteur

"Life very easily arises from the nonliving. Everyone knows that under the right conditions maggots will spontaneously form from meat. There is nothing unique about life. It is essentially a very simple substance. There is no need for a creator God to give the world life."

After Pasteur

"Of course we can no longer claim proof of spontaneous generation as we once did. But protoplasm, the substance of life, is still known to be a very simple substance. The deep ocean floors are probably covered with it. Haeckel has shown us that a cell is simply an 'homogeneous globule of protoplasm.' When we develop just a little better microscope we will be able to determine its makeup. We have no need for a creator to account for life."

Stanley Miller--1950s

We know that the basic life molecules are very complicated. But I've shown that the basic building blocks, the amino acids, can be formed in an early earth environment with its reducing atmosphere. Surely we will soon be able to see how more complicated life molecules and structures would develop on earth spontaneously and naturally given the vast amount of time the earth has existed. (Miller)

Richard Dawkins--1980s

Suppose for the sake of argument that it is very unlikely that life could naturally form on this earth (imagine the chance is one in a billion). If we have a billion planets somewhere in the universe that are just like ours, then the chance is 1 in 1 that life would occur sooner or later. That means it virtually has to occur. This planet happens to be the one it occurred on. (If it had happened elsewhere, then some other intelligent creatures would be on that planet asking these same questions.) In fact, we know that there are probably 100 billion billion planets that are sufficiently like earth to allow for life. (Dawkins)

Late 1990s

"It is now accepted that when life began the earth didn't have a reducing atmosphere that would allow for the amino acids to form (Levine). And formation of more complicated proteins or RNA/DNA type molecules from amino acids or nucleotide precursors are even more difficult given the best possible conditions. Concerning the origin of RNA/DNA molecules, K. Doss says, "The difficulties that must be overcome are at present beyond our imagination" (Doss, 348). Researcher Robert Shapiro argues strongly that all current theories are bankrupt (Shapiro). We also have good reason to believe that life had the equivalent of only an instant in geological time in which to begin, less than 10 million years (Ross, 147-8). If life could occur naturally that quickly and easily, it should have been produced in the laboratories years ago.

Even so, if any of a number of features of the earth or the entire universe were lacking or (in many cases) even slightly different, no life, much less intelligent life, could even possibly have originated. We now know that there are not 100 billion billion planets like earth. One scientist calculated the likelihood as one in a million trillion that there could be any planet in the universe that meets the conditions that allow for intelligent life that earth has (Ross, 144) .(In other words, even earth shouldn't be like it is.)

It is very unlikely that life could ever occur in the universe. But if there are an infinite (or near infinite) number of universes, then life must occur somewhere sooner or later. So you see, we haven't lost the case. It's still at least possible that there isn't a God."

Late 1990s--College Intro Science and Philosophy Courses

"After all that modern science has discovered, what amazes me is that there are still scientists who believe in God."

References

Stanley Miller. This is a summary of his earlier argument.

Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (W.W. Norton and Co., 1986), chapter 6. The above summarized statement is the gist of one of his arguments in this chapter.

K. Doss, "The Origin of Life: More Questions Than Answers," Interdisciplinary Science Reviews 13 (1988).

J.S. Levine, ed., The Photochemistry of Atmospheres (Orlando, Fl.: Academic, 1985).

Hugh Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos (Colorado Springs, Co.: Navpress, 1993. (Note a 2001 edition has been published since this article has been published.)

Robert Shipiro, Origins (New York: Summit Books, 1986).

For Further Investigation

For the basic arguments that life could not have originated without intelligent intervention given the earth's past conditions see Walter Bradley and Charles Thaxton, "Information and the Origins of Life" in The Creation Hypothesis, J.P. Moreland, ed. (Downers Grove, Il.: InterVarsity Press, 1994.) Their more comprehensive case is presented with Roger Olsen in The Mystery of Life's Origin (Dallas, Tx.: Lewis and Stanley, 1992).

For the arguments that it is extremely unlikely that there could be any planet in the universe that would posses conditions that would allow for life see Ross, Creator and the Cosmos, chapters 14 and 15.

Note: Materials in quotation marks are not literal quotations but representative statements of the thought at these times and, in the case of the last two quotations respectively, of our current scientific knowledge and of current popular thought.

For more discussion on the origins of life, see our discussion with Paul Doland concerning his critique of Walter Bradley's argument in Lee Strobel's book, The Case for Faith.

Encounter

Tony Campolo tells the story of a young man who visited him with questions and concerns that were shaking his Christian beliefs. Science classes, among other classes he had been taking, seemed to allow no place for God. "Cut the ____," Campolo interrupted, "What's your sex life been like?" The student was at first shocked by Tony's response but eventually he confessed that he was sleeping with at least two women a week.

Campolo had worked with enough people to believe that usually the basic reason one rejects one's beliefs is because of moral reasons like this. If we want to live a certain way and our beliefs say that living this way is wrong or harmful or that God is displeased or hurt by our doing so, or that we face judgment for doing so, then very often we will try to get rid of the belief that makes us feel guilty.

Sometimes we put up a semblance of intellectual honesty. We might find arguments against our beliefs to be surprisingly persuasive though we had never thought them to be persuasive before. On the other hand sometimes people will knowingly refuse to believe or give their commitment to God because of the sacrifice they would have to make. Hugh Ross, in speaking with other professional scientists, often shares some of the very strong current scientific evidence for God's existence. He says that very often those he speaks with will admit that they are persuaded by his arguments but they are unwilling to make a commitment to Jesus because of moral reasons, because they are not willing to change the way they live.

Some years ago the leaders of a gay atheist organization in the Denver area told of how before becoming atheists they had tried to work with and in the churches but had always been frustrated. Because the churches they had been involved with didn't accept them, they became atheists. Thus they admitted that they didn't disbelieve because of evidence or arguments but because of social reasons. Likewise, some religious feminists who reject biblical Christianity will occasionally talk about how they do not want to believe in a certain kind of God or doctrine.

Very often people reject a religious belief because of bad experiences they have had with people who follow that religion. Sometimes they aren't even aware of why they feel such antagonism toward the religion, its followers, or its God. We need the honesty to recognize that what people do or believe does not determine the truth or goodness (or evil) of their beliefs. If Hitler said "2+2=4," that is no reason to disbelieve it. And you will always be able to find evil people who profess to believe even the most humanly beneficial religion or world view.

Many intellectually oriented people reject Christianity because of similar social factors. Paul Vitz tells of how he grew up in a Christian home only to give up his beliefs when he entered graduate studies in psychology. He did so not because he discovered new evidence against God or his old beliefs but because so many of the professors and colleagues he worked with and looked up to disbelieved.

As a Christian, I think I have good reasons for my beliefs and certainly many non-Christians feel the same about theirs. From his experience, it seems that Campolo felt sure that people almost inevitably disbelieved because of moral reasons. Whether inevitably or just usually, or even if it's just sometimes the case, we need to ask ourselves whether we are being honest in our assessment of the evidence or whether our desires are influencing our evaluation.

Of course seeking spiritual truth involves more than just evaluating evidence. It involves telling God that we would give our complete commitment if we are shown that God is there. (This commitment is our obligation. If we do not do this and if there is such a God, this God would have no reason to keep us from deceiving forces—if there are any—or to allow our mental capacities the power to actually lead us to truth.)

Also, there are other than purely intellectual reasons for believing. On the possibility that our Creator paid an enormous price of suffering to reconcile us to God (as Christians believe), we might certainly find ourselves drawn to this belief. Here we should admit our desire that it be true if in fact we do so, but we should also admit a willingness to honestly evaluate the evidence no matter what conclusion we might reach. But is the non-Christian or non-theist willing to make the same commitment? The point of this article is to encourage you to do so--whatever your position might be--for the sake of your intellectual honesty.

If you do find yourself desiring the basic Christian message to be true, though you shouldn't let that influence your determination of it's truth, it might help you to keep your resolve to give your commitment to this God on the possibility that it is true. What once might have been a purely intellectual and emotionless admission now becomes a commitment one joyfully affirms. Will you say, "God, if you're there, and if you really did this, I would give you all that you ask of me, all that you deserve."?

(For Paul Vitz' account see his Faith of the Fatherless, Spence Pub., 2000. For further discussion of the possibility of an innate knowledge of God, see Einstein's God.)

Encounter

Debate with Famed Atheist and Philosopher, part 2

"Would we have an obligation to commit our lives to God if we believe God does exist?"

 

The following is the second segment of a debate we are printing between Dennis Jensen of Point/Counterpoint and Antony Flew. The full discussion originally focused on the problem of the Christian belief in an eternal hell. In discussing this the debate spread to several other topics. One was Professor Flew's argument that divine omnipotence precludes human responsibility. In the last issue the participants talked about moral nihilism and the possibility of finding meaning in existence. They will also talk about freewill, responsibility, and the problem of evil; and finally, the subject of this installment, whether we have a responsibility to value or worship God if God does exist. The entirety of this debate will be found in the coming issue of Point/Counterpoint.

Antony Flew is likely the one philosopher most often considered the top atheistic critic of theism, and Christianity in particular, alive today. He holds an M.A. from St. John's College, University of Oxford, and a D.Lit. from the University of Keele. He has taught for many years, written and edited numerous books, and written dozens of articles. Dennis Jensen holds an M.A. in Philosophy of Religion from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and has written for journals such as Point/Counterpoint.

Jensen: "If there is a God who deserves to be most highly valued, to receive our worship and highest adoration, would you give it?" If you admit for the sake of the argument that your accusations concerning the problem of evil, the problem of God sustaining all of creation, and whatever other problems you would bring up could be mistaken, then the existence of such a God is not inconceivable. Of course we aren't talking about whether you or I feel attracted to such a God, whether we want to love God; we're just talking about whether or not we would give to God all that this God deserves from us. And whether we can determine what it is about such a God that provides this unique characteristic, being deserving of our highest adoration, is not really in question either. I have some ideas but they are very speculative and might be completely mistaken. I simply begin with the question, "If there is such a God, would we do it?" (J3 pp 12-13)

Flew: Here we enter what is for me less familiar territory. For even all those years ago when I still regularly went to chapel as a believer I never saw much point in worship. It did not help that I was as I remain too unmusical to participate more than reluctantly and spasmodically in the singing of even Wesley's hymns. For me the only interest of services was in the sermons, the Bible readings, and the petitionary prayers rather than in the worshipful singing of hymns of praise. So if tomorrow I were to discover that there is an omnipotent Being requiring that everybody should worship Him, then so be it. It would be madly imprudent to disobey. Yet at least in the first instance I myself should be inclined to be--to employ one of my favorite eighteenth century phrases--religious but without enthusiasm. If that was not acceptable, then I should of course strive to generate the required excitement.

None of this, however, answers Jensen's question. That requested my reaction to the hypothesized discovery that there is a God who deserves to be most highly valued, to receive our worship and our adoration" (emphasis added). Since all our standards of appropriateness for praise and blame, desert and entitlement, have been evolved to apply to the activities and inactivates of finite creatures having needs and being capable of failure in their chosen enterprises, it seems incongruous either to speak of what Omnipotence does or does not deserve from us or to, as it were, congratulate Him upon putting up magnificent performances. And how can what is by the hypothesis both indestructible and inescapable provide purchase for either valuing most highly or for not valuing at all? For surely, we can value highly or not at all only things of which we might possibly be deprived?

So I think that the nearest which I can get to agreeing with Jensen here is to allow the appropriateness both of abject abasement before irresistible power and of striving to obey whatever orders that power may choose to issue. I am encouraged to hope that Jensen may have some sympathy with this reaction since he himself seems to see some difficulty in determining "what it is about . . . God that provides this unique characteristic, being deserving of our highest adoration" (emphasis added). (F4 pp19-20)

Jensen: One might certainly be "religious without enthusiasm." Whether one ever feels a sense of closeness to God or senses adoration toward God is entirely up to God. Our only obligation is to admit on an intellectual level that if there is such a God, we would give or at least will to give our obedience and highest adoration and worship and that we would act to do so insofar as God enables us.

You claim that praise only rightly applies to those who can fail. But don't we sometimes think that something of exceptional beauty, say an unusually sublime sunset or perhaps the enchanting dance of the northern lights--don't we sometimes believe such beauty deserves to be admired? There is simply something in the nature of the entity which is such that we feel that we ought to respond to it in a certain way--indeed, that it deserves this response.

Following Rudolph Otto's discussion of Numinous Awe, C.S. Lewis illustrates this phenomenon with a quote from The Wind in the Willows where Mole and Rat are drawn to Pan's call and approach him on the island.

" 'Rat,' he found breath to whisper, shaking, 'Are you afraid?' 'Afraid?' murmured the Rat, his eyes shining with unutterable love. 'Afraid? of Him? O, never, never. And yet--and yet--O Mole, I am afraid.' "35

Just because we usually only apply the notion of praise to those who could fail does not mean that no one else might be so deserving. Might it not be that God deserves to be most highly valued simply because God has infinite value? As countless saints and sages claim, and as Mole and Rat illustrate, perhaps there is an intrinsic characteristic of being deserving of our adoration, to be made obvious only once the Numinous Object is perceived.

Furthermore, I see no good reason to think we should only value something we can lose. And even if this were true, can we not be deprived of God? Isn't that what hell is, a place where we are allowed our choice of freedom from God?

Don't we, or at least shouldn't we, value people simply because they are human and not because of something they might or might not be able to do? If we value people because we recognize within them a worth just because of what they are, it shouldn't be difficult to conceive of a Being who deserves our highest adoration because of an intrinsic but far greater worth. (Might we say an 'infinite' worth?)

The fact that we might not be able to understand completely what it is about God's nature that makes God deserving of our adoration and commitment does not mean that we have no reason to believe that there is such a Being or that we cannot consider how we might respond to such a Being if this God does exist. I'm sorry that I cannot be sympathetic to your reaction after all, your claim that an admission of adoration to this hypothetical Being would not be appropriate. We can certainly understand the concept of a Being who deserves our ultimate commitment whether or not we think there is or can be such a Being, and we can make decisions on the basis of such hypotheticals.

Now so far I've been talking about nothing more than God's nature as any simple theism might consider it. But Christianity makes some additional claims concerning God's nature and acts. Now a simple theism would tell us that God deserves our highest adoration simply because God possesses infinite worth. Christianity shows us divine characteristics as displayed by God's actions that would draw us to adoration. For the former we might admit on a purely intellectual and very dispassionate level that God deserves our highest adoration. For the latter, it would be much more difficult to deny that God deserves our commitment or to remain dispassionate.

Christian scripture claims that Jesus chose to endure one of the most excruciatingly painful deaths imaginable since this was the only way we could be reconciled to God. Only thus would our greatest good occur and the judgment we deserve be averted. But furthermore, it might be argued that God the Father endured the same suffering. All that Jesus endured was fully experienced in the very depth of the Godhead. (I cannot make sense of passages like John 3:16 as having any essential meaning at all unless this is so.) Now most Christian theologies will say that God freely decided that the death of Jesus must occur. Even some of the most Calvinistic theologies will say that at least God is free. Furthermore, it is usually believed that Jesus was free to choose to give his life or to refuse.

On the other hand, I'm not sure that it is necessary that God be free. It might be that God's nature of absolute goodness implies infinite love for that which God has created. It might be argued that because God is love, God had to act in this way. And Jesus, being one with the Father in will and in his love for us, likewise had to so act. (I tend more toward this latter view myself.)

Notice that in either case, if either view is true, we have an act of God that shows how very deserving God is of our adoration. If you insist that someone must be free, that one must be able to fail to achieve a given action in order to be deserving of praise, then (in the first view) God has acted in exactly this way. But even if God is not free, it seems to me that if God loved us so much as to endure such pain to save us, for this God certainly deserves our adoration. (J5 pp 23-24)

References

35. Kenneth Grahame, The Wind in the Willows (New York, Charles Scribner's Sons, 1961), p. 127; cited in C.S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain, 18.

Note: To see where we are on the original 27 page debate, the notation in italics at the end of some of the above paragraphs will indicate first the speaker (F or J) and secondly the numbered response or statement paper. Thus J1 is the first statement paper by Jensen, F2 is the first response by Flew and thus the second statement paper, J3 is Jensen's response to Flew's paper F2, etc. The page number(s) will give some indication of where these statements are located within the full debate.

Editorial and Material Contributors:

Rich Bledsoe, Chris Hassell ,Dennis Jensen, Justin Jensen

Some of the specific writers in this issue wish to remain anonymous.