Christian Apologists

I used to think the world of Christian apologists a long time ago.  But it's hard to maintain our admiration for them as we age in life.  This is because apologists always use the same old trite arguments that cannot stand logically.

I'll be meeting next week a famous apologist whose father was the teacher of the now renowned apologist and Oxford professor, Ravi Zacharias.

But Ravi Zacharias, according to wikipedia, claims that the theory of evolution is incompatible with the second law of thermodynamics.  It is very hard for me to show any respect for anyone who says that.  I am inclined to think only a fool or a madman will make that claim.  Or an ignorant schoolboy.  I challenge anyone to tell me that he has not heard while at school some loud and boisterous schoolboy proclaiming to everyone that he could disprove the theory of evolution and then proceeding to do so by citing the second law of thermodynamics.  The same boy would probably blush at his folly when he subsequently understood what the second law of thermodynamics really meant.

Ravi Zacharias, alas, never grew up to understand better.

It's not just the second law of thermodynamics that is abused by religious people.  Schrodinger's cat in quantum mechanics has been mightily abused too.  I've heard the New Age movement does that.  Deepak Chopra claims to heal with the help of quantum physics!  I've seen a video in which Dawkins confronted Chopra on this and thrashed him soundly. 

The last time the bishop came to my church (I should know because I heard his sermon twice and I was seated just in front of the pulpit with the rest of the musicians), he made reference to dark matter.

How, you may ask, can dark matter assist any man of God in his sermon?  Dark matter probably exists even though it is undetectable.  It has inferential existence.  Ergo, God exists even though he is undetectable!!!  Ho Ho Ho!!!!


But let me make myself clear.  It would be wrong of me to criticise the bishop and if I gave that impression at all, I must correct it.  The bishop is a brilliant man who is well-versed in the sciences and in philosophy.  But like all clever men, he has to struggle very hard to defend the God concept.  Any intelligent man will sound silly when he tries to defend what cannot be defended.


Why then did he try so hard to defend God?  This is a natural urge a Christian has.  He feels a strong need to defend his faith and to make it appear reasonable or even logical.  He hates to admit that faith is blind, illogical and is absolutely unsupported by any evidence.  He hates to admit that God has as much reason to exist as the leprechaun and the tooth fairy.  That's because we Christians accept God but we reject the tooth fairy.  But that's precisely what faith means.  I choose to believe in God in spite of the available evidence and despite logic.


Jesus commended those who "have not seen and yet believed".  Blind faith is commendable.  But it's not attractive because it makes us sound stupid.


We try hard to make our faith look scientific and in the process, we get ridiculed by atheists.  What I would say as a Christian is this, "I know there is no basis for God's existence.  I know the Bible contains numerous errors.  But despite the evidence, I am still a Christian because I choose to embrace blind illogical faith."


But most of the time, we are too proud to say this.