A Response to Genetically Modified Skeptic Part 1 — Stand to Reason Podcast
Greg Koukl and Jon Noyes respond to a video by @GeneticallyModifiedSkeptic (Drew McCoy) that critiques one of Greg’s STR U courses.
0:00 Introduction
8:27 What to watch for and a mini lesson on empiricism
13:40 Greg responds to, “STR U isn’t a real university” and “I expected the course to be more nuanced”
16:00 Greg responds to, “The fact of God’s existence does not prove his existence is in any way relevant to human life”
21:40 Greg discusses the definition of “Theism”
28:00 Greg discusses the definition of “Atheism” and the difference between one-on-one, personal discussion and an educational class with specifically defined terms
34:20 The Bump of Stuff and the Cosmological argument
50:13 Greg responds to, “It’s dishonest to say anything other than ‘I don’t know,'” and, “The scientific process is better suited to reveal reliable information”
53:52 Greg responds to, “The conclusion that a powerful, intelligent being created the universe doesn’t follow from your premises”
55:56 Greg responds to, “What atheist is saying the everything came from nothing?”
#StandtoReason #Apologetics #Christianity #Worldviews
————— MENTIONED ON THIS SHOW —————
Genetically Modified Skeptic’s video responding to Greg’s STR U course: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fsw-lSp3rq8
STR U Online Training: https://training.str.org/
————— CALL IN TO THE SHOW —————
Have a question or comment? Call Greg Koukl, live Tuesdays 4-6pm Pacific Time, at (855) 243-9975.
————— SUBMIT YOUR QUESTION —————
If you’d like to submit your question ahead of time for the broadcast, or if you’d like to submit a question for the #STRask podcast, fill out our form at https://www.str.org/training/broadcast.
————— FIND MORE FREE TRAINING —————
Website: https://www.str.org/
Stand to Reason University: https://training.str.org/
Stand to Reason Apps: https://www.str.org/apps
————— CONNECT —————
Twitter: https://twitter.com/STRtweets
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/standtoreason93
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/standtoreason
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/stand-to-reason/
————— GIVE —————
Support the work of Stand to Reason: https://str.org/donate
source
ChatGPT 4:
Here’s a critique of Greg Koukl’s arguments based on the transcript, focusing on the nuances of his assertions and the foundational assumptions that underpin his points:
### 1. *Assumption of Causality in Cosmological Arguments:*
*Original Claim:* Koukl argues that everything must have a cause, and this extends to the universe; hence, a powerful, immaterial, and personal being (God) is the most likely cause of the universe.
*Critique:* Koukl’s reliance on the causality principle outside the known universe assumes that intuitions and principles derived within our universe necessarily apply to its origins. This is a philosophical assumption, not an empirical fact. The application of causality to the universe’s beginning—especially when considering quantum mechanics and theories of cosmology that posit different states of "nothingness" or quantum vacuum fluctuations—might not hold. The leap from "something caused the universe" to "that something is God" requires more rigorous justification, as it potentially commits a category error: attributing human-like agency (personal cause) to cosmological phenomena.
### 2. *Conflation of Different Definitions and Theological Implications:*
*Original Claim:* Koukl defines atheism and theism in traditional senses (atheism as the belief that there is no God, and theism as the belief in a personal God), critiquing alternative definitions as less coherent or practical for discussion.
*Critique:* By restricting definitions, Koukl potentially excludes broader philosophical and theological discussions that could provide richer insights into the atheism-theism debate. His approach dismisses non-theistic religious beliefs (like certain interpretations of Buddhism) and more nuanced versions of theism that may not include a personal god. Furthermore, defining atheism strictly as "belief in no God" rather than "lack of belief in God" frames atheism as a definitive stance rather than a default position, which could bias the discussion unnecessarily.
### 3. *Empirical Claims About the Universe's Origins:*
*Original Claim:* Koukl uses current scientific understanding as evidence that the universe had a beginning, suggesting this supports theistic claims about cosmological origins.
*Critique:* While it is true that the Big Bang theory is the prevailing scientific model, it describes the early development of the universe rather than its absolute beginning. Theories such as eternal inflation, cyclic models, or quantum gravity suggest alternatives where the singularity isn't a true beginning but a transition. These aren’t merely speculative but are based on extensions of existing theories aiming to integrate general relativity and quantum mechanics. Hence, claiming a definitive beginning of the universe that implies a creator might be premature and overly reliant on specific interpretations of scientific theories that are still under active debate.
### 4. *Philosophical Assertions on Morality and Existential Meaning:*
*Original Claim:* Koukl argues that theism provides a better explanatory framework for "the bump of bad" (morality) and "the bump of me" (existential meaning).
*Critique:* This claim hinges heavily on the assumption that objective morality and existential meaning necessitate a divine source. However, secular philosophical frameworks such as existentialism, humanism, and secular ethics offer robust explanations for morality and meaning without recourse to supernatural entities. Koukl’s argument appears to employ a false dichotomy by suggesting that the only alternatives to theistic morality are nihilism or moral chaos, which overlooks a rich landscape of secular moral philosophy.
### 5. *Use of Authority and Anecdotal Evidence:*
*Original Claim:* Koukl cites authorities and anecdotal evidence (e.g., influential scientists who converted to theism) to bolster his claims about the universe's origins and the viability of theistic explanations.
*Critique:* The appeal to authority and anecdotal evidence risks committing logical fallacies where the opinions of experts outside their fields of expertise are used to substantiate unrelated claims (e.g., a physicist's theological conclusions). The conversion of a scientist to theism does not serve as empirical evidence for theism but rather highlights a personal, subjective interpretation of the evidence.
### *Conclusion:*
While Greg Koukl’s arguments are constructed to affirm the coherence of theism in explaining various aspects of reality, a more nuanced critique reveals several areas where these arguments may falter under deeper scrutiny, particularly when considering broader definitions, alternative scientific theories, and secular moral philosophies. The debate between atheism and theism benefits from a comprehensive analysis that considers these complexities rather than relying solely on traditional interpretations and binary oppositions.
I watched Drew's critique of Frank Turek and mainly his interpretation of Romans 1. He criticized Turek's literal interpretation as wrong, but he never gave an alternative interpretation at the same time he claimed Turek gave no reasons for his interpretation! As a person who has a PhD education from a liberal university, I kept waiting for it, but it never came. I know of no different "liberal" interpretation of the passage that would change its meaning. The impression I got of Drew's view was that his feelings were hurt by Frank's statement about atheists.
What many theists miss out on (and I see it here) is that without god we are left with "what is" and that they therefore conclude that there is no morality. While technically "true" in the sense that there is no supernatural guidance, it does not follow that moral (or ethical) stands are useless, impractical, or not desired.
In fact, as an agnostic/atheist,who believes in evolution, I think the simple explanation is that human beings learned to rely on each other
much like many animals do (wait -do animals have morals too???). Knowing that kindness, generosity and what we equate as other forms of "goodness" are helpful to society seems like a motivator to codify these into religion. This is SO COMMON an human occurrence that most religions agree on the terms of morality -despite the fact that they come from different religions. That indicates a very human, very social trend… So chicken or the egg? Atheists and theists agree that -generallycooperation benefits us all (hey sometimes everybody disagrees, but…). Consequently "morality" is a useful concept in and of itself -and doesn't need any God(s) to be useful or "right".Compassion and empathy
also useful evolutionary trendsteach us "do unto others as you would them do unto you".Discipline and principle are what allow us to get it right when we can (ie: be kind and forgiving, buuuut don't be a doormat)
How disturbing to find someone coming from a Christian family to someone who is so opposed to the faith now. People would say that he never was a Christian in the first place. I wonder
You mention Roger Penrose, whose famous theory about the universe is Conformal Cyclic Cosmology according to which we're also heading towards a Big Bang, not just having come from one. The fact that there is a consensus about timing of Big Bang doesn't imply there is a consensus about it having been the only such event anywhere in the cosmos. Also, while the Big Bang is generally agreed to be an event we can't see beyond (unless you believe aforementioned Penrose) from where we are in the observable universe, but that does not imply it was the absolute beginning of everything. The fact we can't see what's behind a door doesn't mean there has to be a god behind it.
Absolute beginning from nothing is not even a scientific candidate.
einseins plunder was to consider it a plunder. The cosmological constant is used today. If einstein had discomfort with expasion is irrelevant. (Argument from authority)
Big bang as comming into being from nothing was debunked by leading scientists responding to the calam argument.
On the personal god definition the speaker lost the argument. The dictionary definitions he gave do not insist a "personal" god. Exactly thos critique he could not refute.
Talking at length about the atheist definition misses the point at that moment. And that he has the right to define the term as he sees fit was conceded anyway.
He promised to answer to the substance of drews cheitique.
Definitions evolve like every thing else in the world. It’s not a dodge.
the fact of Gods existence
Ummm okay when was this fact demonstrated?
Atheism is honestly just evil, it's basically like the snake in the garden of eden who came and instilled lies in Eve's head. They don't provide any answers just confusion, doubt and disbelief I don't understand why people listen to them and even take them seriously.
I NEED to see a live debate between Greg and Drew.
27:29 About the point of theism and atheism, I agree with Greg that Drew did give some bad examples that do not fall under the umbrella of theism (like an impersonal God, as that is deism), but the original definition mentioned by Greg wasn't exactly perfect. Just because a definition is found in a layman dictionary does not mean that it is a meaningful definition in a nuanced discussion/lesson.
The definition given by Greg was "a belief that there is a personal God".
The fact that Greg said "a personal God", which is referring to a singular being, means that he is excluding polytheism, which is under the branch of theism. So Greg was actually giving the definition of "monotheism". Therefore, I think both sides had their errors here.
Secondly, the definition of atheism: I agree with you. Atheists have the burden of proof as well. I believe that there is no God. There could be a God, because ultimately, I do not know how the world begin, and whether it was created. But I am relatively confident, perhaps even certain, that even if there is a God, it's unlikely to be the one you believe in.
9:20 to 9:44 says it all.
More Christians need to engage atheists on their utube channels in the comments sections. Good place to practice your apologetics methods.
For part 2 of Greg's response, visit https://youtu.be/QmLAr0uzHiI.