Part 7: Philosophy, Reason, and the Rationality of the Christian Faith

What is the connection between Christianity and Philosophy? Is there not a disconnect between these two trains of thought? Paul even mentions to not trust philosophy in his letter to the Colossians, “See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ” (Colossians 2:8). This seems like an obvious condemnation of philosophy, or at the very least, a condemnation of human thinking! Before philosophy can be written off or defended, a quick explanation of how philosophy functions would be helpful. The word philosophy does not give up much meaning to the uninformed. Philosophy is a combination of two Greek words, philein sophia, meaning – lover of wisdom. Philosophy is a mental activity. Usually it involves the exploration of knowledge in a widespread number of areas. It also usually involves trying to understand the world humans live in, what are we, what is true about us, and what is the reality and significance of our relationship to the world and others. More simply put, philosophy attempts to answer the most important and relevant questions of life through thought and mental diligence.

What does this now cursory understanding of philosophy mean for believers – why is it relevant? Simply, one has to perform philosophy to effect some of the most necessary actions commanded by Scripture. 1) It supports Christian Apologetics, which is the practice of offering defenses in support of Christianity (1 Peter 3:15). 2) Philosophical theology, this is the exploration of central doctrines and beliefs integral and core to Christianity. Some of these doctrines are simple, while others require a higher level of abstract thinking. For example: the attributes of God, the incarnation and the atonement of Christ. These are core ideas held closely by Christianity and they require a certain level of philosophy to flesh out their true meaning. In light of this, the objection by Paul in Colossians 2:8 becomes clearer. Paul was condemning ways of thought unbiblical and antithetical to Scripture (Worldly thought patterns). He was not condemning philosophy, which is actually necessary to think deeply about Christian concepts. 3) Christian philosophy can assist Christians in presenting criticisms of secular thought. For example, criticism could be offered toward the pro-choice crowd, specifically, how personhood and human agency is defined – attempting to bolster the case for general pro-life arguments.

 Philosophy normally presents itself within certain categories. There are four main branches (depending on who you ask) of philosophy: Metaphysical, Epistemology, Axiology, and lastly Logic. If an average individual is going to interact with philosophy, likely it will be in one of the subfields of philosophy. Common subfields would include: Philosophy of Religion, Philosophy of the Mind, and Philosophy of Science. Philosophy is helpful in understanding fields outside what is normally perceived as its scope. Philosophy of Science for example; about it one might wonder, “what do philosophy and science have to do with each other”? A fair question, especially when you consider that philosophy and science are practiced in very different manners. Philosophy of Science aids in discovering the many important questions about a discipline and how it is practiced (science). It does not perform science but it communicates to observers how science functions. This would be true for the many subfields of philosophy (e.g. Philosophy of Religion). The philosophy portions of these subfields help to organize thought and practice, also establishing standards of evidence and what healthy and unhealthy practice should look like. All fields of thought/practice use reasoning and will need standards of evidence – philosophy helps answer these questions and form guidelines for standards in many subfields. The three examples of philosophy in Christian practice, along with a cursory knowledge of how philosophy functions in the fields outside of its own should communicate the importance of philosophy.

Before we begin to dive deeply into detailed topics of reason and philosophy, one more introductory topic will be helpful. Undoubtedly, throughout this section, the development of philosophy throughout history will be observed. If historical developments of philosophy and reason will be observed, it will be helpful to have a cursory understanding of how philosophy and reason were viewed historically. The rise of science has led to a bifurcation between philosophy and science. It was not always like this, if you will remember, philosophy is the activity of thinking deeply about life’s great questions and problems. Science does something similar – trying to answer grand questions of life – but with the rise of the scientific method it has become much more empirical, testable and evidence based then philosophy was in the past.

Science has risen in significance, especially in the West. Rightfully so, it has helped solve many of the issues that have plagued humanity. Anti-biotics, MRI machines, along with other medical/scientific inventions have given credence to the popularity of science in popular and academic culture. There was a time when philosophy reigned supreme as the chief advancer of society. What science has done for improvement to mankind over the last several years had been the purview of philosophy before science rose to the top with its scientific method. Natural Philosophy has traditionally been an attempt to understand the physical universe: Physics, Chemistry, Botany, astronomy. At least since Aristotle, and maybe earlier, this was an attempt to understand the physical realities which we resided in. Natural philosophy, along with other branches of philosophy, were the chief undertaking in understanding reality – both physical and non-physical realities. Sir Isaac Newton, needing no introduction, brought to the world the Laws of Gravity. The actual title of the published work was, Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy. First published in 1687, the term philosophy used in the title reflects the significance of philosophy in the academic community of the time. A cursory look throughout history since the time of the Greek Philosophers will reveal any number of important philosophical advancements that have positively affected society.

Why does all this matter? What significance does philosophy play in attempting to understand the greater thesis we are getting at? Remember, the whole of this work is trying to understand how Christianity has positively affected America and the greater western world. If philosophy has been such an important part of society until science arose to modern popularity – should we not look at how Christianity both used philosophy and how Christianity aided philosophy in its growth throughout history? That is what we will do: understand how Christianity has affected philosophy and used philosophy. Philosophy has been integral to the world at large, and the connection between it and Christianity must be explored.

Is the Christian Faith Reasonable and Rational

Before I introduce how Christianity has impacted philosophy, I believe it helpful to first answer this question: Is Christianity itself reasonable and rational? Does it make sense in this complicated world? Is it coherent? Is it intelligible? I believe the answer to be a resounding yes. If we are going to look at how Christianity impacted philosophy and reason we first need to answer a basic question – is Christianity reasonable and rational? To those in opposition to Christianity, even to a portion of Christianity, rationality and faith are two topics that cannot be reconciled. While no orthodox believer would declare himself as a pure rationalist (only trusting the empirical and testable), as that would be a contradict how faith functions, the majority of Christians certainly believe the Christian faith is rational and reasonable. Christianity is coherent, intelligible, sensible, and fits together in a consistent pattern of truth claims. Certain ideas and doctrines within the Christian faith seem mystical and highly abstract. These concepts cannot be reduced to a few philosophical understandings by the human mind ad may be just outside our ability to fully comprehend. Nevertheless, what God generally has revealed to humans is understandable and coherent to the human mind. A Christian faith that does not make sense and cannot relate to reality is a faith that does not have practical application. Jesus himself recognized the need for humans to use their mind, “Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind” (Matthew 22:37). Christianity and its adherents must continue to present faith as an intelligible, rational, and trustworthy way to reach people with the gospel. Jesus commanded to love God with not just our emotions and heart but also with our mind. This obviously communicates that believers should be seeking to acquire greater knowledge and understanding of God the truths communicated by him through Scripture. In the following pages, we will look at some basic implications of what loving God with the mind should look like, especially when viewed within the context of philosophy and rationality.

Differing Viewpoints on the Rationality of Christianity

Generally, there are three different ways to approach the relationship between faith and reason. Fideism, “The position that religious belief-systems are not subject to rational evaluation”.⁷⁷ Fideism would hold that knowledge of Christianity is based upon personal faith and revelation. Followers of fideism hold that human reason is untrustworthy, as it has been tainted by the sinful effects of the fall of Adam/man. They usually reject evidence, evaluation and philosophical reason as a part of faith. This philosophy has a few issues with it; namely that fideism does not lead to belief in the Christian God, and opens the door to religious pluralism. For how does one know which religious system to commit their life too if they cannot evaluate and discern with their mind which is most plausible? This leads to a blind faith, and completely undermines the rationality of Christian faith. 

Next: pure rationalism. According to this style of thinking, a religious position is true only if it is understandable to a rational person. In response to pure rationalism; there have been many rational people who have rejected evidence and arguments in religion, and it is impossible to find one proof that could convince all rational humans. It is simply too stringent a system to be applied to real-life situations. Many rational Christians, who may align as Presbyterians or Reformed Baptists, would reject many of the soteriological tenants of Arminianism. That does not mean the views of salvation expressed by those groups are not rationale, take Traditional Baptists for example or Free Will Baptists. Thirdly, critical rationalism: a religious belief system which should be criticized and rationally observed, despite this, total conclusive proof is unattainable as faith still plays a very important role in religious belief. The critical rationalist is a melding of the two ideals of faith and reason working in harmony. In contrast to pure rationalism, the critical rationalist understands that some theistic arguments may not convince all people, but are still good proofs to some. Over against fideism, critical rationalism holds it is not wrong to seek reasons for faith, but is actually in line with Jesus’ statement in Matthew 24:37. Critical rationalism does not do away with faith, rather, holds that faith must be preceded by understanding for one to have a true Christian experience. To the critical rationalist, faith and reason are not at war, but a melding of faith and reason assists in coming to a full and healthy approach to Christian belief. It offers the most logical and consistent way to understand that faith and reason are not mutually exclusive, but work in unison.

Skeptical Objections to Christian Rationality

To better understand the importance of philosophy and Christianity’s impact upon it, basic objections to Christianity can highlight the significance of the relationship between Philosophy/Reason and Christianity. The atheist or agnostic holds that faith is an untrustworthy way to interpret life. Friedrich Nietzsche describes faith as a willful desire to conduct oneself in an intellectually lazy pattern, “Faith means not wanting to know what is true”.⁸⁰ This is one of the general approaches that skeptics make towards faith and religion, namely, that it is lazy and simple. Nietzsche goes further to declare Christianity as out of touch with reality, “In Christianity neither morality nor religion come into contact with reality at any point”.⁸¹ Here lies one of the chief objections of skepticism; that faith and Christianity are entirely based not on reality, rather, faith is based on the imagined and is akin to belief in the tooth fairy. Richard Dawkins assaults the rationality of faith, “Religion is capable of driving people to such dangerous folly that faith seems to me to qualify as a kind of mental illness”.⁸² Dawkins further assaults the rationality of reason and faith, “religious faith … does not depend on rational justification”⁸³ and later states that religions demand, “unquestioned faith”.⁸⁴ Clearly, the skeptical approach is to regard Christianity as irrational and untrustworthy.

Skeptics view Christianity as an irrational viewpoint, but on what basis? Skepticism arms itself against Christianity on the basis of evidence, especially scientific evidence that can be observed, measured and weighed. Dawkins confronts Christianity on the basis that it does not evaluate evidence, “Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence”.⁸⁵ Further, Dawkins forms the thesis that one cannot be scientifically rational and hold to the idea of faith. Dawkins attempts to drive home the point that faith and science are at war with a 1998 study showing that of American scientists, only seven percent in the National Academy of Sciences believed in a personal god.⁸⁶ Is science ultimately at war with Christianity? Does it disprove or invalidate belief in God? According to Dawkins and others it does. As this debate over evidence and science are combative towards the idea of Christian rationality, the next section will explore the belief that science and empirical evidence does not invalidate Christian belief.  

Does Science Invalidate Christian Rationality

Chief among the reasons for why naturalists believe science has disproved faith lies in the belief and reality of miracles. Timothy Keller in his book, The Reason for God says this, “The first reason that many people think science has disproved traditional religion is that most of the major faiths believe in miracles, the intervention of God into the natural order”.⁸⁷ Since a miracle is a suspension or distortion of the laws of nature, it is immediately cast aside as wishful thinking by skeptics. It is especially important that the Christian can respond to this; the New Testament is full of different miracles held dear in evangelical Christianity. For example: the virgin birth of Jesus and His bodily resurrection from the dead. Keller goes on to state, “Scientific mistrust of the Bible began with the Enlightenment belief that miracles cannot be reconciled to a modern, rational view of the world”.⁸⁸ It would seem that science has invalidated the Bible’s claim to miracles as physical impossibilities. Keller explains that this is a leap of faith, “It is one thing to say that science is only equipped to test for natural causes and cannot speak to any others. It is quite another to insist that science proves that no other causes could possibly exist”.⁸⁹ A good scientist is right to only test for natural causes as that is the only function of science. It is illogical to say that science disproves miracles, because it is not capable of testing for them. Keller brings up another point, “The other hidden premise in the statement ‘miracles cannot happen’ is there can’t be a God who does miracles”.⁹⁰ If God is real then there is nothing illogical about believing in the existence of miracles. If he did create all things, then it follows that he has the ability to suspend or momentarily change the laws of nature to achieve his goals. To prove miracles cannot occur one would have to prove that God does not exist. This is an especially difficult thing to accomplish as God can be neither proved or disproved with 100% certainty.

Invariably, anyone who has an interest in science or Christianity has come into contact with the perceived war between science and Christianity. Keller blames much of this contention on the media: “media needs to report news events as stories with protagonists and antagonists”.⁹² Keller claims that this media coverage gives publicity to battles ranging from evolution being taught in schools, to the debate over abortion. Evolution is perhaps the chief divider of the religious and the scientific. I do not believe that faith and science have to be at war on evolution, many Evangelicals and even Catholics believe evolution to be compatible with Christianity.  Keller distinguishes the importance of not embracing naturalism in concert with evolution, “However, Christians may believe in evolution as a process without believing in philosophical naturalism”.⁹⁴ Naturalism claims that all matter and existence is caused by natural events without the intervention of a god or supreme being. When Naturalism is applied to all of life it enters the arena of philosophy and naturalism as a philosophical approach to life contradicts Christianity. Francis Collins (head of the Human Genome Project), author of The Language of God, supports evolution but applies it with the beliefs of Christianity. This flies in the face of the supposed war that Dawkins and others see as irreconcilable differences in Christianity and science.

Even imminent atheistic scientists do not hold to this dividing view of science and religion. Keller brings up Thomas Nagel and his critique of Dawkins’s desire to adopt philosophical naturalism in concert with evolution. He disagrees with Dawkins that to be scientific one must be a naturalist. Nagel brings up the topic of conscience, “He brings up, for example, whether we really believe that our moral intuitions, such as that genocide is morally wrong, are not real but only the result of neurochemistry hardwired into us”.⁹⁵ Nagel says, “conscious experience, thought, value, and so forth are not illusions, even though they cannot be identified with physical facts”.⁹⁶ Argument from consciousness, that is what Nagel briefly touched on in the past sentences. When the term consciousness is brought up, several different images may come to mind. Generally, though, the chief among those images would probably be: 1) Self awareness (Think therefore I am of Descartes), 2) The mind and its ability to process, problem solve, and form conclusions, 3) The soul, meaning an eternal and immaterial collection of the thinking, processing, and emotional existence of a human. To summarize, consciousness is what makes humans human. It seems hard to imagine that a completely naturalistic worldview could account for all these emotions, moral injunctions, mental processes and levels of self-awareness. In light of that, an eternal consciousness would be the likely initiator of all these beings (humans) who were able to experience consciousness themselves – that would be God. Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli present the argument as follows:

1. We experience the universe as intelligible. This intelligibility means that the universe is graspable by intelligence.

2. Either this intelligible universe and the finite minds so well suited to grasp it are the products of intelligence, or both intelligibility and intelligence are the products of blind chance.

3. Not blind chance.

4. Therefore, this intelligible universe and the finite minds so well suited to grasp it are the products of intelligence.

Consciousness begats consciousness. The consciousness possessed by humans had to have been given by an eternal and supreme being – God. There are just certain things science cannot explain or explore, such as conscience and morality. While science and religion may not be as unified as some would like to think, they are certainly not in such conflict as some would like to believe. Keller concludes the section by saying, “we should disabuse ourselves of the notion that we have to choose between the two, or that if you want to be a Christian you will have to be in conflict with science”.⁹⁷ Science does not undermine the rationality of Christianity, rather they can be more integrative then some would wish to believe.  

Historic Credibility of Christianity

The events of history are rooted in fact and actual happenings. This is important for both sides of the argument – for and against Christianity. William Lane Craig explains, “Christianity is bound up with the truth of certain historical facts, such that if those facts should be disproved, so would Christianity. But at the same time this makes Christianity unique because…we now have a means of verifying its truth by historical evidence”.⁹⁸ The events of history are concrete, undeniable and can exist as proof of the rationality and trustworthiness of Christian faith. First, though, the apologist or Christian must establish the objectivity of history. Norman Geisler says this of arguments against the objectivity of history, “If these arguments are valid, it will make verification of Christianity via a historical method impossible”.⁹⁹ The historical relativist argues that the way which one interprets history is so subjective that it is impossible to understandhistory as reliable. One of their arguments is that history is not observable; more clearly, it cannot observe proof like the scientific method can, therefore it is impossible to know with certainty what happened in the past.¹⁰⁰ Geisler quotes Carl Becker, saying: “The event itself, the facts, do not say anything, do not impose any meaning. It is the historian who speaks, who imposes a meaning”.¹⁰¹ If Christianity cannot stand on the reliability of historical happenings, then a great deal of good evidence and argumentation is wasted. Geisler goes on to critique this understanding of relativistic history, “If by objective one means absolute knowledge, then no human historian can be objective”.¹⁰² If objectivity is defined as a fair presentation of evidence that rational people should accept, then yes, history can be objective. When history is viewed so skeptically that nothing can be known with a verifiable level of uncertainty, why even study it. It must be believed that history can be trusted if historical happenings are going to support Christianity.

Geisler compares historical geology to objective history, “Paleontology is considered one of the most objective of all sciences. However, the events represented by fossil finds are no more directly accessible to scientists or repeatable than are historical events”.¹⁰³ If one can establish the reliability of the eyewitnesses, then one cannot shut the door on historical objectivity. Geisler attacks another argument, “The scientist might contend that he can repeat the processes of the past by experimentation, whereas the historian cannot”.¹⁰⁴ Geisler points out that history too, can be repeated. Similar events as happened in the past are always cropping up, it is legitimate to observe the current happenings and use them as a comparison to the past. The lack of direct access to the time when historical events happened is not a good reason to deny the objectivity of understanding history.

At this time it may be helpful to explore an instance of apologists arguing for the historical evidence of Christianity. The historicity and reliability of the Scripture is often a starting point, “to defend the biblical writings, not as infallible scripture, but as historically credible and reliable documents”.¹⁰⁵ The scriptures pass with flying marks the secular tests for the reliability of ancient texts, “we have many more manuscript copies for the New Testament writings than for other ancient writings, and the time gap between the earliest complete copies and the originals is smaller for the New Testament than for other ancient writings”.¹⁰⁶ Further,“To be skeptical of the New Testament books is to allow all of classical antiquity to slip into obscurity, for no documents of the ancient period are as well attested bibliographically as the New Tesament”.¹⁰⁷ The historical reliability of the Scriptures stand as just one example of history lying in agreement with Christianity. History is on the side of Christianity, and it proves the reliability and rationality of the Christian faith not as blind faith, but as rooted in the happenings of history.

One especially relevant non-biblical source that relates the importance of history and how it can be used to validate the historical reliability of Christianity. Flavius Josephus, a Roman historian wrote of Jesus at least two different times and also once of John the Baptist. His wrote Antiquities of the Jews right around the turn of the first century A.D. He even states that Jesus was viewed by some as the Messiah, later stating that he was crucified by Pontius Pilate. If you would like to read more about Jospehus and his the relevance of his work to Christianity and its historical reliability – follow this link https://www.namb.net/apologetics/resource/josephus-and-jesus/. His importance is paramount, as he is one of the few extrabiblical sources from the same time of the New Testament writers to attest and support the historical existence of Jesus and the Christian movement.

The Rationality of the Existence of God

Christians and theists alike have made arguments for the existence of God as reasonable for nearly as long as those belief systems have been in place. Plato of Greek philosophy, is remembered as one of the oldest to argue for a god’s existence. Christians in particular have made many arguments for a rational belief in a theistic god. Some include: The cosmological argument, the teleological argument, and anthropological arguments. These are just a few categories in which arguments for God are made, and there are numerous variations within each of these categories. William Lane Craig is a proponent of the cosmological argument and has popularized it in recent years. Craig describes the cosmological argument, “the cosmological argument assumes that something exists and argues from the existence of that thing to the existence of a First Cause or a Sufficient Reason of the cosmos”.¹⁰⁸ Craig spends considerable time exploring a version of the cosmological argument known as the Kalam Cosmological Argument. It is as follows, “1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause. 2) The universe began to exist. 3) Therefore, the universe has a cause”.¹⁰⁹

Craig then initiates an exploration of five premises; he starts with the first premise, “something cannot come into being from nothing”¹¹⁰ and, “To suggest that things could just pop into being uncaused out of nothing is to quit doing serious metaphysics and to resort to magic”.¹¹¹ Craig responds to objections made by J.L. Mackie and the naturalistic worldview,

              Does anyone in his right mind really believe that a raging tiger could suddenly come     into existence uncaused, out of nothing, in this room right now? The same applies to the         universe: if prior to the existence of the universe, there was absolutely nothing- no God,        no space, not time – how could the universe possibly have come to exist.¹¹²

The causal principle really is a straightforward concept to grasp – if something is caused there had to be something or someone who caused it. A common objection, that the principle only applies to things in the universe but not the universe itself, “the causal principle is not something you can dismiss like a cab once you’ve arrived at your desired destination”.¹¹³ Craig explores the objection further, “Premise (1) does not state a merely physical law like the law of gravity or the laws of thermodynamics, which are valid things within the universe. Rather is it a metaphysical principle; being cannot come from non-being; something cannot come into existence uncaused. The principle therefore applies to all of reality”.¹¹⁴ Whatever begins to exist must have a cause, and Christians believe that first cause was God.

Craig explores the second premise of the Kalam argument that the universe did begin to exist. To establish that all finite things had a beginning it must also be established an infinite number of things cannot exist. Craig claims that the infinite does not correspond to reality, “if an actual infinite number of things were to exist, then we should find ourselves landed in an Alice-in-Wonderland world populated with oddities”.¹¹⁵ With the impossibility of infinity addressed Craig says, “The series of past events must be finite and have a beginning. Since the universe is not distinct from the series of events, the universe therefore began to exist”.¹¹⁶ Craig also explores scientific arguments for the existence of God in line with the Kalam argument.

Some find philosophical arguments too hard to follow and instead desire scientific evidence. These evidences come from the scientific fields of astronomy and astrophysics. Craig says, “Prior to the 1920s, scientists had always assumed that the universe was stationary and eternal”,¹¹⁷ but, “Tremors of the impending  earthquake that would topple this traditional cosmology application of his newly discovered gravitational theory, the General Theory of Relativity”.¹¹⁸ Einstein proved that his theory could not allow for an eternal universe, “As a result Einstein’s universe was balanced on a razor’s edge, and the lest perturbation – would cause the universe to either implode or to expand”.¹¹⁹ Later, in the 1920s Alexander Friedman and Georges Lemaitre expounded on the work of Einstein and predicted an expanding universe. This idea of expansion is important because it shows that the universe was not eternal and unchangeable, but created and changing, “the universe could no longer be adequately treated as a static entity existing, in effect, timelessly. Rather the universe has a history, and time will not be a matter of indifference for our investigation of the cosmos”.¹²⁰ More simply, Einstein and Friedman’s work proved that the universe was expanding outward. This supports the idea that the universe started from a single point and then has been expanding outward for a set period of time. The ultimate implication being that God created the universe, and a big bang so to speak, occurred and the universe has been expanding outward.

Conclusion

The Christian worldview as a logical and reasonable approach to the ultimate questions of life is a sturdy viewpoint. While many may object to Christianity and others of faith based upon science and history, it becomes apparent that many of these objections do not effectively combat Christian rationality. The revelation of God through His scripture, historical events, and the natural world are more than enough for the believer to stand concretely in their faith. It should be evident throughout this section that:

1. Philosophy and reason is indispensable to Christianity

2. The Christian faith has many reasons to be believed and considered rational (Arguments for the existence of God, Historical Reliability, etc.)

Now, we have established the importance of philosophy and how it can be used to defend and argue for Christianity. Let us look at how Christianity has so impacted philosophy throughout history.

• Peterson, Michael.  Reason & Religious Belief: an Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion,          2nd ed.

NY: Oxford UP, 1998. 

• Ibid.
• Ibid.
• Nietzsche, Friedrich Wilhelm, and H. L. Mencken. The Antichrist. Waiheke Island: Floating         Press, 2010.
• Ibid.
• Dawkins, Richard. The  Selfish Gene. New ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989. 330.
•  Dawkins, Richard. The  God Delusion. London: Bantam Press, 2006. 306.
• Ibid.
• Dawkins, Richard. Untitled Lecture, Edinburg Science Festival, 1992.
• The God Delusion, 100.
• Keller, Timothy. The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism. New York: Dutton, 2008. 88.
• The Reason for God, 88.
• Ibid, 88.
• Ibid, 89.
• Ibid, 90.
• Ibid, 90.
• John Paul II’s Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, October 22, 1996.
• The Reason for God, 90.
• The Reason for God, 95
• Nagel, Thomas. The Fear of Religion, The New Republic, October 23, 2006.
• The Reason for God, 95.
• Craig, William Lane, and William Lane Craig. Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics. Rev. ed. Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books, 1994.
• Geisler, Norman L., and Norman L. Geisler. The Big Book of Christian Apologetics: An A to Z           Guide.Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2012. 217.
• The Big Book of Christian Apologetics, 232.
• Becker, Carl. Detachment and the Writing of History. Edited by Phil Snyder. Greenwood: Westport, CT, 1972. 21.
• The Big Book of Christian Apologetics, 235.
• Ibid, 235.
• Ibid.
• Boa, Kenneth, and Robert M. Bowman. Faith Has Its Reasons: Integrative Approaches to Defending the Christian Faith. 2nd ed. Waynesboro, GA: Biblica Publishing, 2005.
•  Montgomery, John Warwick. Clark’s Philosophy of History. Philadelphia: Presbyterian &         Reformed, 1968.
• Ibid.
• Reasonable Faith, 96.
• Ibid, 111.
• Ibid.
• Ibid.
• Ibid, 113.
• Reasonable Faith, 114.
• Ibid.
• Ibid, 120.
• Ibid.
• Ibid, 125.
• Reasonable Faith, 125.
• Ibid.
• Ibid, 126.