“The Thinker” by Auguste Rodin
Before showing the foolishness of being embarrassed when said embarrassment is caused by ignorance of Christian belief, we must deal with the lead and clearly false statement “Christianity is anti-intellectual” which shouts a demand for a definition of “anti-intellectual.” So let’s start there.
From Merriam Webster online:
anti-Intellectual: (adjective) “opposing or hostile to intellectuals or to an intellectual view or approach” [1]
So what’s “Intellectual”? Again from Merriam Webster online:
Intellectual (adjective)
a : of or relating to the intellect or its use
b : developed or chiefly guided by the intellect rather than by emotion or experience : RATIONAL
c: requiring use of the intellect2 a: given to study, reflection, and speculation
b: engaged in activity requiring the creative use of the intellect [2]
Christianity meets all the definitions of being intellectual, therefore based on the logical principal of non-contradiction, since Christianity is intellectual, it cannot be anti-intellectual. To be precise, Christianity meets all the above uses of the word “intellectual.” For intellectuals who may question it, following is a brief illustration that Christianity in fact meets all aspects of being intellectual.
1 a. Use of Intellect
God has always wanted his people to use their God-given minds and intellect wto enter into and maintain a relationship with him. From the days of Isaiah the prophet, he invites people “Come let us reason” (Isaiah 1.18). And the messiah, Jesus, himself instructs those who would follow God to love him with all your heart, soul and mind (Mark 12.30, Luke 10.27).
b. Developed of guided by intellect rather than emotion or experience.
I like that the dictionary writers themselves highlight the word Rational. Inasmuch as this entire site is devoted to the proposition that Christianity is a Rational Faith, I will not belabor the point. I will simply invite you to read the articles and reason with me (similar to God’s invitation) on any point that you think I’m mistaken on. Careful though – if you start such a discussion, you will be engaging in an intellectual debate, and in so doing you will be proving the point of this article – that Christianity is rational, and intellectual, and clearly not anti-intellectual.
c. Requiring the use of the intellect
Christianity is filled with propositional truths. So much so that you could call it a propositional faith. I laid out the fundamental propositions of the gospel in the previous article. For ease of reference, I repeat them here, with a few clarifying comments I’m certain enquiring intellectuals would be interested in:
- God exists
- Jesus is the Son of God, (meaning he is the second person of the trinity)
The Nicene creed highlights this point as follows:
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from True God, - Jesus, the second person of the trinity, took on flesh and came to earth
(This is called the incarnation, where Christ, the messiah is “veiled in flesh” a point made by the Christmas carol “Hark! The Herald Angels Sing“) - He took on the sins of all humanity and died for the sins of humans
1 Peter 3.18 - He was dead and buried
Regarding his death, see my article “AD Apologetics – Part 1: Jesus’ death and Empty Tomb“ - He rose on the third day
On his resurrection, see my article “AD Apologetics – Part 2: Jesus’ Triumphant Resurrection“ - By trusting in him as your Lord and savior, he will forgive you of your sins
1 John 1.9
These are all propositional truths. You can choose to believe them or not. But they are not the fodder of a non-thinking, anti-intellectual, emotion driven myth. Further these truths must be understood by a mind mature enough to understand these specific propositional truths. They cannot be understood by a baby, which is one of the reasons I don’t believe in enfant baptism. Those being baptized must be able to understand, and give assent to these propositional truths. Babies can’t do that. It is appropriate for babies to be dedicated, but not baptized. But returning to the point at hand, these are truths to be understood by the intellect. Anyone denying this is being outright dishonest.
For these two items:
2 a: given to study, reflection, and speculation
b: engaged in activity requiring the creative use of the intellect
Let me close with a series of questions for you, Mr. Intellectual, (I used “Mr.” by convention, fully cognizant the questioner could be female) and please tell me with all you intellectual insight what the answer is. If you cannot, will you spare yourself further embarrassment by being honest enough to say that the truths revealed by Christianity are beyond the intellect of the average mere human, and as such Christianity is clearly not “anti-intellectual”?
Five Questions for the Intellectual who believes Christianity is “Anti-Intellectual”
Christianity has an answer for all these questions. Do you, Mr. Intellectual, with all your intellectual insight, have answers?
1. Why is there something rather than nothing?
This speaks to the existence of the Universe. Why does it exist rather than nothing? Please do not cite the Big Bang as an answer. Not only is it a poor explanation for how the universe developed, but it does not at all explain why it exists. If you insist on using origin of the universe explanations, let me remind you of the following.
Given the first law of thermodynamics (matter can be neither created nor destroyed) The Big Bang cannot explain the origin of the matter it claims was created in the singularity – in defiance of the laws of physics.
If you believe in a steady state theory of the universe, your model fails on the second law of thermodynamics, namely that the entropy in a closed system (as is the universe) always increases. That being the case, if the universe were infinitely old (as the steady state model dictates) it should have already reached maximum entropy – in other words nothing but atoms scattered about the universe – no order anywhere, no planets, stars, moons, solar systems, black holes – nothing but free floating atoms. Since that is not the case, the system is not infinitely old, and some entity had to initially organize the universe. (The fact that things are winding down, or increasing in entropy, means that at some point, an intelligent entity had to wind it all up. )
But let me remind you, aside from failing to explain what they claim to – namely the origin of the universe, both theories fail to explain why there is something rather than nothing. So you will need to look elsewhere other than the Big Bang and Steady State theories for why there is something rather than nothing.
2. What is the origin of Life?
The evolution supporting documentary “How Life Began” Starts with the statements:
“…a strange and mysterious phenomenon occurs: non-living material become life.
…
Man continues to seek answers to this extraordinary mystery:
The mystery of How Life Began.[3]
Like you, this documentary has rejected the Christian explanation so they are seeking the answer to the question, “how did life begin?” This would no doubt be a Nobel prize winning answer if you genuinely had one. So if you have an answer, in addition to the scientific community, please contact the History channel and tell them you have an update to their documentary. And please, share your answer with us as well.
3. What is the Origin of Information?
Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the double-helix structure of DNA (along with James Watson) argued in his “Sequence Hypothesis” that the specificity of a segment of DNA “is expressed solely by the sequence of bases,” and “this sequence is a (simple) code for the amino acid sequence of a particular protein.” I discuss that in “Unmasking Mistakes in Memes of evoltion – Part 3: Codes and Complexity” here.
Now given:
a) The first two laws of Gitt’s Laws of Information[4]
- A material entity cannot generate a non-material entity
- Information is a non-material entity
b) All life is based on DNA – the most complex information bearing system known.
c) All evolutionary and atheistic explanations are materialistic, they deny the reality of a non-material entities (such as a spiritual realm) and thus all their answers must be based on solely materialistic, physical entities.
Given these three items, with your deep intellectual insight, please explain:
3.1 What is the origin of the Information in DNA which is required for life?
3.2 What is the origin of the information by which the universe was fine tuned?
Remember, your answers cannot contain evolutionary processes because evolutionary processes are materialistic, and the laws of information state information does not and cannot arise from materialistic processes.
4. What is the Origin of Language in general and the Language families in particular?
Given the above on the origin of information – which cannot be created by material processes.
Now consider languages. Languages are a way to code and share information. And appropriately, languages themselves contain information. This is clear from Shannon’s information theory which Stephen Meyer describes at one point simply as “equating information with the reduction of uncertainty.”[5] Since language itself contains information, language cannot have evolved from a material process.
Given that language could not have evolved, please explain the origin of the first language. And please explain why we see a sharp rise in the number of languages around the time of the Tower of Babylon. (Gen 11.1-9) You can choose to deny any of these claims I’m making, but then you have to defend them, and we would be engaged in an intellectual pursuit, which again, would be contrary to the thesis that Christianity is “anti-intellectual.”
5. What is the Origin of the First Alphabet?
Since we’re considering language, let’s consider what’s needed to write it: an alphabet. In “Patterns of Evidence – The Moses Controversy” film maker and researcher Tim Mahoney discusses with Douglas Petrovich, Professor of Biblical History and Exegesis at the The Bible Seminary the origin of the first Alphabet. Petrovich states that Hebrew was the first alphabet and it was based on Egyptian Hieroglyphs.
Mahoney points out this is critical to the understanding of the Exodus because Moses wrote the Pentateuch (Ex 17.14, 34.27), the first five books of the Bible, and with regards to God’s instructions, God commanded the Hebrews to “Write them on the doorframes of your houses and on your gates.” (Deut 6.9) Thus they needed an alphabet with which to write it. Hieroglyphics would not do.
Mahoney states there were about 1,000 Egyptian symbols used for hieroglyphs (compared to 26 letters of our alphabet) so you’d have to learn the equivalent of about 40 alphabets to use Egyptian hieroglyphics. Egyptologist David Rohl points out the importance of having an alphabet and how impractical it would be to write the Torah, the first five books of the Bible in hieroglyphics:
“And frankly if you’re writing something like the book of Exodus, or the book of Genesis, it takes less room to write it. If it was trying to be written down with something like hieroglyphics, it would have taken miles of papyrus, you know to write that particular book.”[6]
So here are further claims associated with Christianity:
1. The Hebrew alphabet was developed from Egyptian hieroglyphics so God’s word could be written and read.
2. The first alphabet, the “Proto-Sinaitic” Hebrew alphabet, was available by the time of the Exodus (1446 BC) and went with them out of Egypt in the Exodus to the promised Land, and when encountered there, scholars called it “Proto-Canaanite.”
3. Mahoney considers it a “divine tool”[7] needed to meet God’s purpose of his word be written down, studied and passed down to successive generations.
You can dispute me on all these points – that Hebrew was the first alphabet, that it was available at the time of the Exodus, that the Exodus occurred in 1446 BC, that the Hebrews carried the alphabet to Canaan, and that it was given by God to achieve his purposes – but once again you’d be engaging in an intellectual dispute based on intellectual points made about the Christian faith.
So which will it be? Concede now that the charge that Christianity is “anti-intellectual” is a false one, or engage in the intellectual exercises needed to attempt to prove me wrong, in which case not only will you fail, but in the process you will further embarrass yourself by engaging in an intellectual discussion and thus you yourself will be refuting your charge of Christianity being “anti-intellectual.”
Duane Caldwell | August 28, 2024 | Printer Friendly Version
Follow @rational_faith_
Notes
1. Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, s.v. “anti-intellectual,” accessed August 25, 2024, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anti-intellectual.
Back
2. Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, s.v. “intellectual,” accessed August 25, 2024, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intellectual.
Back
3. How Life Began, History documentary, 2008, A&E Television Networks
Back
4. Summary by Scott Hardin, “Embarrassing Information“, Midwest Creation Fellowship lecture, Feb 7, 2022, https://youtu.be/HrHQAnXcdRk?t=2694 B
Back
5. Stephen C. Meyer, Signature in the Cell, New York: HarperCollins, 2009, p. 89
Back
6. David Rohl, ref from Patterns of Evidence – The Moses Controversy, by Tim Mahoney, 2009 Thinking Man Films, MN
Back
7. Tim Mahoney, Ref from Creation in the 21st Century – Ep. “Did Moses Write Genesis?”, TBN
Broadcast 5/23/2020
Back
