Podcast appearances and mentions of gregg alexander

Seth and Marc discuss the one-hit blunder You Get What You Give by New Radicals. A whiny anti-establishment song by someone who is putting out albums paid for by people who are the establishment is a bit of a strange choice and we hate it.

Prompt the first: You Get what you give https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_Get_What_You_Give_(song) The song was released in November 1998 - Clinton had turned 52 a few months earlier. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregg_Alexander (b. 1970) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danielle_Brisebois. (b. 1969) 4:38YouTube • NewRadicalsVEVONew Radicals - You Get What You Give (Official Music Video)     Prompt the 2nd: The Parable of the Sower https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Sower_(novel) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octavia_E._Butler       Prompt the 3rd: What's next https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_West_Wing https://crisis.generationalize.com/2016/04/cultivate-patience-and-keep-your-hands.html

Brian barrels through the histories of Gregg Alexander (the singer/songwriter who got three chances to make it to pop star status and when he finally did – walked away) and Danielle Brisebois (the child actor turned musician who would vocalize via two different genre-defining anthems on the same week.) Support the show on Patreon. SHOW NOTES: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danielle_Brisebois https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-greenville-news-danielle-brisebois-b/100962358/?locale=en-US https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0075097/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0_tt_8_nm_0_in_0_q_the%2520premonition The Premonition (full movie): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGMQwWpv7L8 https://www.instagram.com/p/C0g6TkUOH7f/ https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-republic-danielle-brisebois-on-archi/100962099/?locale=en-US https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Strouse https://tedium.co/2024/08/25/new-radicals-gregg-alexander-history/ Kevin & Bean interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZV0i4lPhxA https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/found-star-new-radicals-gregg-739434/ https://www.realgonerocks.com/2009/11/gregg-alexander-intoxifornication/ https://popsublime.blogspot.com/2010/09/music-of-gregg-alexander.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Nowels New Radicals on All That: https://youtu.be/lPDlG5bjPyA?si=2OpXf0Y-ds4FAiGL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Radicals https://www.theringer.com/2021/1/20/22241467/new-radicals-history-you-get-what-you-give https://intermediaries.wordpress.com/tag/new-radicals/ https://news.pollstar.com/1998/12/21/new-radicals/ https://www.concertarchives.org/bands/new-radicals The press release Gregg writes: https://web.archive.org/web/20121110110511/https://www.prnewswire.co.uk/news-releases/new-radicals-dissolves-156295355.html  https://www.detroitnews.com/story/entertainment/music/2024/08/23/new-radicals-return-with-new-music-for-first-time-in-25-years/74915946007/ https://www.theverge.com/2016/4/21/11477490/sing-street-john-carney-interview-once-begin-again Gregg Alexander songs he wrote for others playlist: https://open.spotify.com/playlist/4YBo9X6uPktenqruUjFQNT https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2024/mar/18/natasha-bedingfield-how-we-made-unwritten

Il y aurait bien des manières de décrire Lily Allen, mais voici les trois adjectifs qui me semblent les plus appropriés : fougueuse, désinvolte et audacieuse. Avec "Smile", premier tube à son actif en 2006, son charme à l'anglaise a opéré même outre-manche. Prêts à revenir 18 ans en arrière ?Crédits de l'épisode :- "Smile" (Clement Dodd, Darren Lewis, Iyiola Babalola, Jackie Mittoo, Lily Rose Cooper, Future Cut)- "I know where it's at" (Shaznay Lewis, Karl Gordon, Walter Becker, Donald Fagen, Paul Griffin / Karl Gordon, Cameron McVey, Magnus Fiennes)- "Smile – Acoustic version" (Clement Dodd, Darren Lewis, Iyiola Babalola, Jackie Mittoo, Lily Rose Cooper, Future Cut)- "Everything's just wonderful" (Lily Rose Cooper, Greg Kurstin)- "Smile – Maquette" (Clement Dodd, Darren Lewis, Iyiola Babalola, Jackie Mittoo, Lily Rose Cooper, Future Cut)- "LDN" (Lily Rose Cooper, Duke Reid, Darren Lewis, Iyiola Babalola, Future Cut)- "Shame for you" (Lily Rose Cooper, Blair Mackichan)- "Littlest things" (Lily Rose Cooper, Mark Ronson, Pierre Bachelet, Santi White, ROY,- "Not big" (Lily Rose Cooper, Greg Kurstin)- "Free soul" (Soul Brothers)- "Scream & shout" (Jef Martens, Jean-Baptiste, Tula Contostavlos, William Adams, Lazy Jay)- "Baby one more time" (Max Martin, Rami Yacoub)- "Murder on the dancefloor" (Sophie Ellis-Bextor, Gregg Alexander, Matt Rowe)- "Smile - Simlish version" (Clement Dodd, Darren Lewis, Iyiola Babalola, Jackie Mittoo, Lily Rose Cooper, Future Cut)- "Hip's don't lie" (Shakira, Wyclef Jean, Omar Alfanno, Latavia Parker, Jerry Duplessis, Luis Diaz)- "The fear" (Lily Rose Cooper, Greg Kurstin)- "22" (Lily Rose Cooper, Greg Kurstin)- "Fuck you" (Lily Rose Cooper, Greg Kurstin)- "Hard out here" (Lily Rose Cooper, Greg Kurstin)- "Family man" ((Lily Rose Cooper, Benjamin Garrett, Starsmith, Mark Ronson, Seb Chew)L'épisode contient également :- Un extrait de l'interview de Lily Allen chez Rinse FM (08/05/2018)- Un extrait de l'interview de Lily Allen dans Taratata (2006)Un grand merci à la petite princesse Milana, à Mélissa et à Giacomo pour avoir apporté leur contribution à cet épisode.Hébergé par Ausha. Visitez ausha.co/politique-de-confidentialite pour plus d'informations.

If I had to chose a week to be sick this would have been the one. That's because as lousy as I feel, watching the festivities out of Chicago for the DNC is making me feel so much better. Although the first night was a difficult act to follow, the Harris/Walz team did just that. With a number of moving and motivational speeches -- as expected from former President Barack Obama and the man who could have been one Bernie Sanders, the two that floored me were from the first Second Gentleman - and soon-to-be first First Gentleman Doug Emhoff and the knockout speech delivered by Michelle Obama. By the way, Doug Emhoff chose for his entrance and exit music one of my favorite songs, "You Get What You Give" by New Radicals. New Radicals released their one and only album in the late 90s, Maybe You've Been Brainwashed Too.  It quickly rose to the top of my favorites of that year. I was Music Director and later Program Director of the radio station I worked for at the time, Los Angeles' Channel 103.1. And I was fortunate enough to interview Gregg Alexander, the man who was New Radicals. He didn't do many interviews, and never recorded another album, though he continued writing and producing for other artists, preferring to remain out of the spotlight. To honor our first Second Gentleman, and the man who will be our first First Gentleman, here's my interview with Gregg Alexander, recorded May 3, 1999 ( the day that my daughter was likely being born on the other side of the world in Kazakhstan... a story for another day)... Enjoy! I am still recuperating so will share with you a couple of full speeches from last night (can you guess which ones?) as well as some clips and observations as my still-on-the-mend psyche can conjure up. Either way, the chat room is open during the live show and we're partying like it's 2024!!!

Today, we examine the remaining 6 tracks from studio album 11, from INXS' Switch recording that as discussed on the previous episode, showcased a new era for the band. With a variety of band member contributions, side 2 highlighted a distinct set of sounds, sonics and lyrics with the band exploring a more creative process. Opening proceedings with a unique Co-write between ex New Radicals frontman Gregg Alexander, Annie Roboff (Indigo Girls) and Andrew Farriss, we see INXS broaden their traditional sound with a bunch an assortment of ballads, mid tempo rock tracks, reggae and four to the floor synth rock anthems (Hungry). It highlights Andrew Farriss previous years traveling the globe seeking lyrical inspiration and song craft partnerships that was lost with Michael's unfortunate passing. The fruits of these travels is more than reflected in the final recordings. With a punchy, but effective news section update and some auction/raffle announcements, we also share news on an exciting former guest who'll be re-appearing on episode 192. So for your weekly fill of all things INXS, become a patron and gain access to this exclusive special episode. Love and peace Thank you for all your support.  https://www.inxsaccessallareas.com

Today, we examine the remaining 6 tracks from studio album 11, from INXS' Switch recording that as discussed on the previous episode, showcased a new era for the band. With a variety of band member contributions, side 2 highlighted a distinct set of sounds, sonics and lyrics with the band exploring a more creative process. Opening proceedings with a unique Co-write between ex New Radicals frontman Gregg Alexander, Annie Roboff (Indigo Girls) and Andrew Farriss, we see INXS broaden their traditional sound with a bunch an assortment of ballads, mid tempo rock tracks, reggae and four to the floor synth rock anthems (Hungry). It highlights Andrew Farriss previous years traveling the globe seeking lyrical inspiration and song craft partnerships that was lost with Michael's unfortunate passing. The fruits of these travels is more than reflected in the final recordings. With a punchy, but effective news section update and some auction/raffle announcements, we also share news on an exciting former guest who'll be re-appearing on episode 192. So for your weekly fill of all things INXS, become a patron and gain access to this exclusive special episode. Love and peace   To listen to the full episode you need to becaome a "Rockstar Patron" to our how. https://patron.podbean.com/INXSAccessAllAreas To find out more about our show and keep up todate about INXS check out our website  https://www.inxsaccessallareas.com/  

In this week's episode, Matty and Craig are shooting from the hip. But can Craig convince Matty that I Won't Change You – a song Sophie Ellis-Bextor herself has all but disowned – really isn't that bad?  Follow us on X: @matkinsactor @cantstoppop and Instagram: @mat_atkins9 @cantstop_thepop If you like what we do, leave a review! We also have a Patreon: patreon.com/cantstopthepop for some exclusive content we're working on.  To read about I Won't Change You on Can't Stop The Pop: https://www.cantstopthepop.com/2022/01/10/sophie-ellis-bextor-i-wont-change-you/ 

Mark and Thom take a musical detour, diving into the fascinating world of one(ish) hit wonders. They explore bands that struck gold perhaps more by luck than design, the intriguing sway of celebrity lineage, the irony of singer-songwriters scaling charts with others' compositions, fleeting moments of stardom, and a chance encounter in a grocery store, fueled by a shared love of hockey, that birthed a band. Join the duo as they jam out and discuss the memorable hits of Primitive Radio Gods, The Wallflowers, Jan Arden, New Radicals, and Dogstar. It's a rhythmic adventure you'll relish!Show notes00:01:31 - Catching up, discussing the new Futurama. Mark speaks about newly-discovered music from Burro Buracho Records, introduces Charles Ellsworth, and teases an upcoming musician feature.00:04:08 - Introduction to the premiere of the "Once Every Two Weeks One-Hit Wonder Wrap-Up."00:04:47 - Introduction to Primitive Radio Gods.00:06:26 - The Hail Mary that landed Primitive Radio Gods a record contract with Fiction Records/Columbia.00:07:48 - Ben Stiller's efforts to persuade Chris O'Connor to use "Standing Outside a Broken Phone Booth with Money in my Hand" in the movie "Cable Guy."00:13:22 - O'Connor references a poignant Hunter S. Thompson quote in response to a query about his perspective on the music industry, while Mark reflects on his own challenges with success.00:15:16 - Delving into the origins of the song title "Standing Outside a Broken Phone Booth with Money in my Hand."00:15:45 - Analyzing "Standing Outside a Broken Phone Booth with Money in my Hand."00:19:38 - Beginning of The Wallflowers with Jacob Dylan.00:21:47 - The Wallflowers' debut album and their emergence as a renowned touring band.00:22:30 - Transition to Interscope Records, collaboration with T-Bone Burnett, and the release of "Bringing Down the Horse."00:23:55 - Release of "6th Avenue Heartache" and the influences of David Fincher, Adam Duritz, and their appearance on Saturday Night Live.00:24:12 - Celebrating the tremendous success of "One Headlight."00:28:18 - A look at Jan Arden's "Living Under June" and its single "Insensitive." Mark reflects on memories associated with the album.00:30:00 - A closer look at "Insensitive," its origins with songwriter Ann Lore, and its inclusion in Christian Slater's "Bed of Roses."00:33:40 - Mark offers a candid review of "Living Under June."00:37:12 - Mark and Thom take a moment to share a compilation of songs that resonated with their teenage emo hearts.00:39:10 - Introducing New Radicals' "You Get What You Give."00:39:20 - Thom critiques the song, discusses Gregg Alexander's background and the formation of New Radicals.00:43:00 - Spotlighting the touring musicians of New Radicals and delving into the band's intricate history.00:44:10 - Recounting New Radicals' touring history and early successes.00:45:11 - Discussing celebrities' reactions to being mentioned in this song.00:46:26 - Thom shares his views on the album and the song's place in pop culture.00:47:44 - Mark introduces Small Fecal Matter, which later evolved into Dogstar.00:49:21 - A chance meeting in a grocery store, discussions about hockey, and the fortuitous formation of Dogstar by Mailhouse and Keanu Reeves.00:50:00 - Exploring the origins of Dogstar's name, their inaugural concert which paved the way for Weezer, and their tours with renowned artists like David Bowie and Bon Jovi.00:52:22 - Introducing Dogstar's "Happy Endings" American debut with the single "Corner Store."00:53:04 - Mark discusses the connection between Weezer, River Fenix/Fenix TX, and Dogstar.01:02:38 - Wrapping Up Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

So here, it is, the second review of our One Hit Wonders round, this time listening to New Radicals' Maybe You've Been Brainwashed Too. The album was released October 16, 1998, and is essentially an album by lead singer, Gregg Alexander, who is the only person to play on all the album's tracks. He enlisted a swath of session musicians (28) to play instruments while recording, really making this an album of hired guns. The very successful You Get What You Give charted high on most Top 40 lists around the world, then the band broke up in 1999. A second single, Someday We'll Know, was released shortly after the band called it quits and the rest is history.

On Gregg Alexander's 53rd birthday, Danny and Rich spend the night breaking down the one album his band New Radicals made, the pop masterpiece Maybe You've Been Brainwashed Too. 

Episode 193 – Eternal Information – Part 1 – What is Information Welcome to Anchored by Truth brought to you by Crystal Sea Books. In John 14:6, Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life.” The goal of Anchored by Truth is to encourage everyone to grow in the Christian faith by anchoring themselves to the secure truth found in the inspired, inerrant, and infallible word of God. Script: In the beginning the Word already existed; the Word was with God, and the Word was God. From the very beginning the Word was with God. The Gospel of John, Chapter 1, verses 1 and 2, Good News Translation ******** VK: Hello and Happy New Year! I’m Victoria K. Welcome to Anchored by Truth brought to you by Crystal Sea Books. We’re excited to be with you at the start of this New Year and we pray that this year will bring joy and blessings to all our listeners, especially the joy of having a closer fellowship with our Lord Christ Jesus. Today on Anchored by Truth we’re going to start the new year with a new – and frankly novel series. As just about everyone knows, the Christian faith in America has been subjected to more challenges in the last decade than probably in the first two centuries of the country’s existence. So, as we open up this New Year we want to discuss a subject that has particular relevance in our day and time –being able to demonstrate that the Christian faith has a firm basis in reason and evidence. RD has entitled this series “Eternal Information.” So, we have RD who is an author and the founder of Crystal Sea Books, in the studio today. RD, why did you decide we need to take a special look at the topic of “information?” RD: Well, I’d also like to say Happy New Year to everyone who is joining us here today. I wanted to spend a few episodes of Anchored by Truth focusing on information in part because of a book I came across not too long ago called In the Beginning was Information. The book was written by a German information specialist named Dr. Werner Gitt. VK: Dr. Gitt was a director and professor at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology and he was the head of the Department of Information Technology there. Obviously, Dr. Gitt knows a thing or two about information. RD: Obviously. And just obviously the title of Dr. Gitt’s book is a play on Genesis, chapter 1, verse 1 and the Gospel of John, chapter 1, verse 1 which we heard in our opening scripture today. VK: In the New International Version, Genesis, chapter 1, verse 1 reads, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Those are certainly two of the most famous verses in the Bible. RD: Yes, they are. So, when I heard about Dr. Gitt’s book I became intrigued because just hearing the title made me look at those two verses in a different light. It’s not just the title calls to mind Genesis, chapter 1, verse 1 and John, chapter 1, verse 1. It’s that it made me start thinking about how the undeniable existence of information gives us a whole new way of demonstrating to the unbelieving world that it is impossible to form a coherent view of life and the universe without acknowledging the existence of God. VK: And helping spread the awareness that you must acknowledge God to have a coherent worldview is one of the ideas that we focus on here at Anchored by Truth. And it’s become increasingly important even with the church. We live in an age where our historical cultural consensus has shifted. Some commentators have said that we are now living in a “post-Christian” world. For people who are not believers this means that they live in a world that has gone “beyond” the constraints and “narrowness” of Christianity. Fewer people, as a percentage of the population, belong to churches than in generations past, and many of the mainline churches are experiencing declines not only in membership, but in influence on society, government, education, family, and the culture as a whole. As we look around us we see that young people are far more consumed by the death of an entertainer than the death and resurrection of Jesus. We also see that more people are consumed by concern for temporary pleasures than their eternal destiny. This is obviously is dangerous to individual destinies but it is also dangerous to the destiny of our communities and nation. RD: Exactly. People within the church have been warning of the danger we’re facing for decades but the danger has only grown during those decades. We want to point people back to the eternal truth that there is a God and that God has a plan not only for people but for communities, nations, and the world. But we don’t want to just proclaim the truth, though that is obviously where we must start. We also want to explain the evidence and reasons behind our belief. And it turns out that the concept of information forms an extremely powerful line of evidence that points to the fact that God existence can’t be reasonably denied without abandoning any claim of living a life guided by logic and reason. You know it’s not enough to simply point out the danger that comes from abandoning God. We have to do what we can to turn people away from the danger. VK: And the danger posed by abandoning God has been recognized for quite a while now. Almost 3 decades ago, in their 1994 book, Handbook of Christian Apologetics, Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli [TA-CHEL-EE], who are both professors of the philosophy of religion at Boston College, said the following: “Western civilization is for the first time in its history in danger of dying. The reason is spiritual. It is losing its life, its soul; that soul was the Christian faith. The infection killing it is not multiculturalism – other faiths – but the monoculturalism of secularism – no faith, no soul. Our century has been marked by genocide, sexual chaos and money-worship. Unless all the prophets are liars, we are doomed unless we repent. . .The church of Christ will never die, but our civilization will. If the gates of hell will not prevail against the church, this world certainly won’t. We do apologetics not to save the church, but to save the world.” VK: Well, before we go too much farther we want to acknowledge someone who has been very important to our show, Dr. Gregg Alexander. Dr. Alexander practiced medicine in Tallahassee, Florida for over 4 decades but more importantly for us, he led a Sunday school class in his church for more than 25 years. Dr. Alexander is extremely thoughtful and insightful. We are indebted to him because his counsel and insight especially about apologetics has been extremely valuable and elements of it are going to appear throughout this series. We may not always have time to acknowledge a particular example of his contributions so we just want acknowledge his importance and value right up front. So, how do you want to start? RD: Well, let’s take a look at a seemingly innocuous example of something you hear every day that actually has profound implications. How often do you say to someone or have someone say to you “Send me your information.” VK: I imagine that phrase “send me your information” is probably said thousands or millions of times a day all around the world. RD: But what does it mean? VK: For most people it means send me your “contact information” such as phone number, email address, possibly your job or office information and – these days rarely – your mailing address. In other words, “send me your information” is another way of saying tell me how I can get a hold of you. RD: I agree. We ask for people to give us their information without a second thought. And similarly we don’t think very much about the way they are going to send that information. These days it will probably be electronically more often than not but even with electronic transmission the actual media will vary. Some people might use email, others text messages, and in some cases the two people won’t have to do anything at all. If they are close enough some cell phones might automatically exchange information with other phones. VK: And, again, rarely people might send a card, business card, or even a letter to a physical address that would provide the information. RD: Agreed. But the key thing to notice about any and all of these possibilities is that the thing that everyone wants, the information, has nothing to do with the form of transmission. The information will remain the same regardless of whether it’s emailed, sent via the post office or messenger, or even whether someone sent it using smoke signals, Morse code, or carved it on a clay tablet and dropped it off? The information, the object of the transmission, is completely independent of the mode of transmitting it from one party to another. VK: So, what you’re saying is that the content of the information has nothing to do with the method of transmission. And, to carry that thought a little further, the information content has nothing to do with the matter or energy that goes into its production, transmission, or retention. We can type one set of characters on a keyboard and say one thing, and we can type another set of characters on that same keyboard and say something completely different. The same set of plastic, copper, and glass can produce a recipe for tiramisu or the instructions for building a nuclear bomb. We can use a pen and paper to send someone our address and phone number or to give them the location of buried treasure. RD: Exactly. The nature or content of the information has nothing to do with the chemistry or physics used to produce, transmit, or store the information. The same chemistry or physics can produce treasure maps, diagrams for building houses or airplanes, or a formula for a life-saving medicine. You get the idea. So, the question arises then – exactly what is information? VK: I see where you’re going. Information is real. Information has content. Information tells us what is going on in the worlds of chemistry, physics, or biology. But information is not dependent on any of those things. Information can affect chemistry or physics but it is not arise from chemistry or physics. I suppose another way of saying the same thing is that information is not dependent on the matter or energy but matter and energy are used in the transmission or reception of information. When you start to look at it closely information is a tricky sort of thing. RD: Information is a tricky sort of thing because the information itself is non-material but we can perceive it, record it, store it, and transmit it by material means. The fact that information is non-material is a very important attribute to note. Information may be transmitted, stored, and received by material means but none of that affects the information itself. Nor does the type of material being used to transmit or store the information matter. The same chemical formula can be written on paper, appear on a computer screen, be etched into stone, or simply memorized by a person but the formula, the information, remains the same. The non-material nature of information is going to be key fact that we will revisit frequently during this series. VK: Well, here is an obvious question. If information is non-material does that mean it’s spiritual? Christians, of course, acknowledge the reality of the spiritual realm. Ephesians, chapter 6, verse 12 is one of the best known verses in the Bible and it says, “For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realm.” RD: When we say that information is non-material we are definitely not saying that it is spiritual. By saying it is non-material we are noting that information as a component of the created order is present and evident in what we might call the natural world. It’s just that in the natural world information cannot be measured by any one of the same units that are used to measure and express the attributes of matter or energy. VK: According to one of the articles that Dr. Gitt wrote for Creation Ministries International a physical magnitude is a “System of units that has seven base units: mass, length, electric current, temperature, amount of substance, luminous intensity and time. All physical quantities can be expressed in terms of one of these base units (e.g. area = length x length) or by a combination (by multiplication or division) of several base units (e.g. momentum = mass x length / time). This is not possible in the case of information and therefore information [does not possess] physical magnitude!” RD: Exactly. Speaking precisely, information does not have any mass. It is massless. All matter involves mass which can be weighed in a gravitational field. Similarly, information, though it can be transmitted by energy, is not created by energy nor does it interact with energy. Thus, information can be distinguished from other massless entities such as photons, which are massless but which can be generated by matter and do interact with matter in the physical domain. We know from Einstein’s famous formula that matter and energy have a direct relationship with one another. VK: You’re referring to Einstein’s famous formula from the Theory of Relativity “e=mc2.” RD: Yes. But, so while information is non-material it is present and an integral part of the observable universe. But the spiritual realm that Bible recognizes is not part of the observable universe. In effect, there is a veil that separates the spiritual portion of God’s creation and the physical portion. We would not know about the spiritual portion if God had not chosen to reveal its existence in His special revelation, the Bible. This is quite different from information where we cannot avoid acknowledging its presence in the observable universe. VK: In fact, if someone wanted to deny that information exists they would be using information to try to make their denial. Denying the existence of information is itself a form of information. As we have discussed at other times on Anchored by Truth the concept of information is self-affirming. It cannot be denied without at the same time being used. So, that answers the question of how information – even though it is non-material – is not the same as a spiritual entity. Information’s existence is easily, and non-deniably, discernible from observations of the physical universe. The spiritual dimension can only be known by a revelation from a spiritual being which God is. The Gospel of John, chapter 4, verse 24 tells us that “God is spirit.” So, where do you want to go from here? RD: Well, I always think a good place to start when you’re looking at a concept is with defining some terms. So, let’s take a look at a couple of definitions for the term “information.” Why don’t you start by reading the definition of information from the Merriam Webster Dictionary? VK: The online Merriam Webster Dictionary defines information as (1 ) knowledge obtained from investigation, study, or instruction; or (2 ) the attribute inherent in and communicated by one of two or more alternative sequences or arrangements of something (such as nucleotides in DNA or binary digits in a computer program) that produce specific effects. RD: Right. That second portion of the definition is particularly intriguing because even the Merriam Webster Dictionary takes notice of the fact that DNA, which is a component of the cells of all living creatures, contains information. One of the episodes that we are going to do during this “Eternal Information” series is going to focus on the information present in biological entities – in living creatures. But for now let’s note that Merriam Webster notes that information is “inherent in and communicated” by “sequences” or “arrangements of something” and that those sequences or arrangements “produce specific effects.” Now let’s take a look at a definition for “information” that Dr. Gitt has expressed. VK: In an article that Dr. Gitt produced for Creation Ministries International Dr. Gitt stated this: “…we developed an unambiguous definition of information: namely an encoded, symbolically represented message conveying expected action and intended purpose. We term any entity meeting the requirements of this definition as “universal information” (UI).” We’ll put a link to this article in the podcast notes that are available on certain podcasting apps. RD: So, immediately we see some common elements between the Merriam Webster definition and Dr. Gitt’s definition of information even though Dr. Gitt is being more technical for purposes he comes to later in his discussion. Merriam Webster talks about “alternative sequences or arrangements of something …that produce specific effects.” Dr. Gitt speaks about an “encoded, symbolically represented message.” Merriam Webster says that the sequence or arrangement of something is intended “produce specific effects.” Dr. Gitt says that the symbolically coded message is “conveying expected action and intended purpose.” So, both of these definitions are pointing to some essential elements that are inherent in “information.” Information contains specified sequences, elements, codes, and symbols. And those specified sequences, elements, codes, and symbols have been arranged or encoded for a specific purpose to produce specific effects. So, in addition to the non-material nature of information another overarching concept that leaps out at us about information is that information is ordered, organized, and specified. We can be certain, then, that information is an expression of intelligence. It has to be. Information cannot be the product of mindless, random, or undirected activity of anything. Organization and randomness are the opposites of each other. Nothing random or chaotic is going to produce a sequence of codes or symbols that it intended to produce a specific effect. VK: Your cat might walk across your computer keyboard and generate a series of letters on the screen and might even hit a button that generates a print command. But that does not mean that the series of letters or characters you see on the screen or the printed piece of paper constitutes information. The product of your cat’s activity on the keyboard is gibberish or nonsense. If the cat does enough walking on the keyboard it might by chance generate a recognizable word like “eat” or “to.” But that still does not make the cat’s production information. Information, as a component of the physical universe, possesses order, structure, specificity, and meaning. So, we’ve covered some important concepts today but is there anything else we need to discuss before we close for today. RD: Yes. The big reason we are undertaking this series on information is not just to have a philosophical discussion about information but to point out that information points undeniably to existence of the God of the Bible. As we’ve been discussing information is always the product of intelligence. So, if information is present as a component of the observable universe that means that intelligence must be also. Let’s say this a little differently. Much of the time our contemporary culture views the universe as being a construct composed of matter, energy, time, and space. The most radical among us say that that is all that is present anywhere and by doing so they are trying to exclude the possibility of God’s existence as a reasonable proposition. VK: One of the most common objections to acknowledging God is that if God can’t be seen or heard or touched then there is no evidence of God’s existence. That’s a common assertion today and is the attitude, usually unspoken, that underlies the assertion, “you have faith, but I have science.” RD: Yes. Christians, by contrast, point out that not only do logic, reason, and evidence – and science - affirm God’s existence but the notion that God doesn’t exist always runs into irreconcilable conflicts and logical fallacies. This discussion of information is simply pointing to another one of those conflicts and fallacies. If it could be shown that the universe were the result of just matter, energy, time, and space ideas like the Big Bang theory and the General Theory of Evolution might be sensible. But as we have been discussing the universe cannot be reduced to being the product of just matter, energy, time, and space. The universe as we see it around us contains, and must contain, information. VK: In effect, you’re saying that the observable universe goes beyond the material elements in its composition. That’s very similar to the question you sometimes ask about whether physics plus chemistry can produce biology. That’s the notion that undergirds the entire idea of evolution. The basic idea is that some chemical components eons ago randomly collided with each other. There was an energy source, though no one knows quite what it was, that somehow activated the chemical elements and voila – life started. But as you point out so frequently, chemistry plus physics does not equal biology. Chemistry plus physics plus information equals biology. RD: Yep. The universe we see around us is more than just matter, energy, time, and space. Matter and energy are material components of the universe and the space-time continuum defines the boundaries within which matter and energy interact. But, at a bare minimum, those four components by themselves could never give rise to life, even if they could somehow explain all of the inanimate elements of the universe. VK: So, the big idea that we wanted to introduce today is that information and its presence in the universe is another line of evidence that proves that if God did not exist the universe would not appear as we see it. Information is non-material and information always exhibits order, organization, specificity, and purpose. And those things require intelligence. Well, sounds like we’re in for quite a thought-provoking journey. Hopefully, not too many headaches. This sounds like a great time to pray. Today let’s listen to a prayer of praise of Adoration for the Creator God who set the cosmos into motion and established a home on the earth for His people as He prepares them for an eternity with Him in heaven. ---- PRAYER OF ADORATION FOR THE CREATOR VK: We’d like to remind our audience that a lot of our radio episodes are linked together in series of topics so if they missed any episodes or if they just want to hear one again, all of these episodes are available on your favorite podcast app. To find them just search on “Anchored by Truth by Crystal Sea Books.” If you’d like to hear more, try out crystalseabooks.com where “We’re not perfect but our Boss is!” (Bible Quotes from the Good News Translation) The Gospel of John, Chapter 1, verses 1 and 2, Good News Translation Laws of information 1 (creation.com) Laws of information 2 (creation.com) We are less than dust (creation.com)

New Radicals, Gregg Alexander, and Rick Nowels.

WTOP Entertainment Reporter Jason Fraley chats with former New Radicals frontman Gregg Alexander as this year marks 25 years since the founding of the band. They spoke in 2015 about his Oscar-nominated song “Lost Stars” from the John Carney movie “Begin Again," as well as sharing memories of New Radicals hits like "You Get What You Give." (Theme Music: Scott Buckley's "Clarion")

New Radicals deep dive, K-Fed posts videos of Britney's bad parenting, Tommy Lee's new dong shot, Rosita is missing at Sesame Place, Anne Heche toxicology, Bonerline calls, 8/11 anniversary, and Tom Mazawey's wobbly takes, Top 5 Baseball Swings & Favorite Celeb Sex Tapes.Female Celebrities "Sending Temps Soaring": Melanie Griffith. Tiffani Amber Thiessen. Courtney Love. Christina Aguilera. Mark Wahlberg's daughter. Kesha. And... Wendy Williams?Tommy Lee 'accidentally' posted his dong on Instagram. It's aged well.Anne Heche is not doing well and it appears she was high on cocaine, fentanyl and booze.Drew is thrilled that Marilyn Manson looks absolutely terrible.A new documentary is out on Discovery+ about the atrocities of Armie Hammer.Timeshares are an old school scam.K-Fed posted videos of crazy Britney Spears arguing with her kids. Sam Asghari thinks her teenage sons should be proud of her nudes pictures. Britney is also now in trouble for being a racist.This 6-year-old in Columbus likes to party.For some reason Tim Robinson & Sam Richardson from The Detroiters hate us.Music: Drew did a complete deep dive on Gregg Alexander and the New Radicals. He also put together a list of bands that has some success despite only one album. We miss Wesley Willis.Grab your EXCLUSIVE NordVPN Deal by going to nordvpn.com/dams to get up a Huge Discount off your NordVPN Plan + 4 months for free! It's completely risk free with Nord's 30-day money-back guarantee!Call or dial 209-66-Boner to play along with the Bonerline.Out long national nightmare is over now that BranDon has internet now. Please stop sending him the story of the go getter in Scio Township that fixed the same issue all by himself.A fight at the GM Orion Assembly plant led to the death of a 49-year-old Pontiac man.We interrupt Tom Mazawey's dinner to breeze past Al Avila's firing, the start of the Lions 2022 season, say nothing about the Kobe Bryant picture trial, speculate why Tom Brady had to leave practice, Tom Izzo's brand-new contract, take Trevor Bauer's side (then immediately change his position), predict Deshaun Watson's suspension, add nothing to the 2022 World Cup, his LLWS hot takes, cry about the Derek Jeter documentary, give his top 5 swings in baseball history, comment on Pete Rose's great day, list his favorite celebrity sex tapes and more.Merrick Garland held a presser today regarding the Donald Trump raid. Lenny Dykstra doxxed the federal judge (the same judge linked to Jeffrey Epstein). FBI Christopher Wray is getting death threats. Paul Pelosi Jr. got the hookup from mommy, Nancy, to travel to Asia to help his business needs.R Kelly had $28K in his commissary fund seized and he's suing to get it back.A house blew up more than any house has ever blown up in Indiana.Ellen has NOTHING to say about her ex-girlfriend's accident. Rosie O'Donnell is really sorry about Anne Heche jokes she told 20 years ago.It's 8/11. #Neverforget.Fun Governor, Darren Rovell, tries to debunk the Cal Ripken Jr. vs Kevin Costner urban legend but we don't believe him. Top 5 Kevin Costner movies, GO!Ezra Miller's pronouns make every article about him difficult to read. The mom and kids that were living with him are missing.Racist Rosita is missing at Sesame Place.Karl got to go to the South Park concert in Colorado. Lucky...Social media is dumb, but we're on Facebook, Instagram and Twitter (Drew and Mike Show, Marc Fellhauer, Trudi Daniels and BranDon).

Jordan and Alex dive into this beloved '90s hit, which was recently resurrected at President Biden's inauguration ceremony. They'll explore the colorful story of Gregg Alexander, the reclusive pop genius who retreated from music stardom as soon as the song broke around the world, yet continued to pen chart-toppers under pseudonyms. They'll also get into the beef between Alexander and Marilyn Manson as a result of this song, and why it's earned praise from the likes of Bono, Joni Mitchell and Ice-T, and how they ripped apart a mall food court for the song's iconic music video. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Cette chanson va propulser Gregg Alexander et sa bande en tête des charts...

Episode 156 – Why Am I Here – Part 5: Character, Careers, and Callings Welcome to Anchored by Truth brought to you by Crystal Sea Books. In John 14:6, Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life.” The goal of Anchored by Truth is to encourage everyone to grow in the Christian faith by anchoring themselves to the secure truth found in the inspired, inerrant, and infallible word of God. Script: However, you are chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, people who belong to God. You were chosen to tell about the excellent qualities of God, who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. 1 Peter, chapter 2, verse 9, God’s Word Translation ******** VK: Hello! I’m Victoria K. Welcome to Anchored by Truth brought to you by Crystal Sea Books. We want to thank you for joining us as we continue a series we began a few weeks ago on Anchored by Truth. We’ve entitled this series “Why am I here?” We wanted to do this series because there has probably never been a time in history in our culture when so many people seem to wonder whether their lives have meaning. One of our listeners recently told us, “So many people, especially younger people, are asking this question either out loud or in their malaise and lack of direction in life.” We agree. So, to help us to continue to see what the Bible has to say about this very important topic, we have RD Fierro back in the studio. RD is an author and the founder of Crystal Sea Books. RD, you entitled this series “Why Am I here?” Before we get too far along would you like to comment on how you believe the widespread belief in evolution has contributed to what our listener called this “malaise and lack of direction in life?” RD: Well, before I comment on that I would like to add to your thanks to the listeners for tuning in today – whether they’re listening on the broadcast or podcast. We know that people in today’s world have a lot of demands on their time so we’re grateful for anyone who devotes part of their day or week with us. Well, as we’ve mentioned a couple of times during this series anyone who believes in what is often termed the general theory of evolution believes that all life originated with the random collision of some atoms and molecules in some corner of the world eons ago. Charles Darwin talked about “a warm little pond.” Today, evolutionists are more likely to refer to “deep ocean vents” or some other place more exotic. But regardless of where they envision the first life began they are united in the belief that there was no intelligence or design that created life. As such anyone who starts with this foundational premise believes, as Dr. Jonathan Sarfati puts it, we’re all the result of “goo to you via the zoo.” VK: In other words if all life began as the result of blind, random chance all subsequent life must be the product of a series of blind, random chances. It may be an incredibly long series of such chances but we’re all products of chance. RD: Right. And there is no way to coherently extract a meaningful purpose for a life that is just the result of a series of blind, random collisions of inanimate particles. VK: In other words for the question “why am I here” to have any real meaning we must first embrace the fact that we live in a created order that was established by a God who is not only able to create but also interested in the ongoing operation of His creation. This is exactly the kind of God that the Bible tells us about. That’s why we have been so careful during this series to always reiterate three fundamental points about our search for meaning in our lives. First, we must acknowledge the reality that we live in a universe that was created by an intelligent, purposeful, and moral Being. Second, the created order suffered a dramatic change when some of the creatures within that universe misused their free will and chose to rebel against their Creator. Therefore, we now live in a fallen creation. And third, we live in a somewhat unique historical period because we live in between the first and second comings of the Lord of Creation, Christ Jesus. RD: As we contemplate the question of why we are here we are inevitably searching for a meaning to our lives. That’s not only a natural question, but I believe it reflects a part of God’s intentional design for the only earthly creature who is described as having been made in God’s own image. Part of the way we bear God’s image is by possessing certain attributes that He communicated to us. God is purposive. We have a desire (well, most of us anyway) to live purposeful lives but how can we do that if we do not know what purpose we are designed to fulfill? The question, why am I here, is part of God’s design to make us turn to Him. As it’s sometimes said, if something is broken the best place to turn is the designer and builder. VK: And we are all broken to some extent. That’s the bad news. The good news is that we don’t have to stay that way. In the Gospel of John, chapter 10, verse 10 Jesus says “I came that they may have life, and may have it abundantly.” That’s from the Berean Literal Bible. The “they” Jesus came to give life to is us. And He doesn’t want us to just have life but have it “abundantly.” The New Living Translation puts it this way: “My purpose is to give them a rich and satisfying life.” RD: Exactly. Jesus wants us to have “rich and satisfying lives.” Certainly, one aspect of having a satisfying life is to know that we are fulfilling God’s purpose for our life. VK: But we can’t know what that purpose is if we don’t acknowledge the reality that confronts all of us as we make our way through this world. We must acknowledge that God is our Creator to even begin a meaningful search. We must acknowledge that we live in a creation marred by sin to know that we need help to deal with the effects of sin. And we must understand that once sin entered the created order God began a plan of redemption that included His Son coming to earth twice. The first time God’s son, Jesus, came to act as the Messiah who would take sin’s consequences onto Himself. He came as the lamb to be slain. The second time Jesus comes will be as a conquering lion. He will end the redemptive phase of history and begin the eternity where people will receive the rewards or punishments they earned while on this earth. RD: Right. To have a complete understanding of that reality we must come to a place where we’re very familiar with the content of the Bible. The Bible is the only book that gives us a complete revelation of God’s character, His creative activity, and the plan of redemption. These are the points we covered in our first couple of episodes in this series. And in our second episode we also noted that once we understand these basics we could start to take a close look at what the Bible has to say about why we are here. And one of the first things that we noticed was that the Bible tells us that one of the reasons God has put us on this earth is to develop godly characters, holy characters. This is a very important part of us being God’s image bearers. We should reflect God’s holy character in our own lives. VK: And we noted that the Bible is very clear about God’s desire for us to develop holy characters. Leviticus, chapter 19, verse 2 says, “Be holy because I, the LORD your God, am holy.” That’s from the God’s Word Translation. RD: Exactly. So, to be more explicit when it comes to discovering what the Bible has to say about why we are here we should definitely become aware of three distinct areas of our lives: our character, our careers, and our calling. VK: Well, to use an old philosophical adage those areas may be distinguished but they cannot be separated. Our character is certainly going to influence our careers and callings. Similarly, what we choose for a career is certainly going to influence how our character develops. Without wanting to be too negative there are some career choices that would do nothing beneficial for our characters but we’re not going to name them because those kind of influences get enough play in the media and on the internet as it is. RD: That’s a very important note. But it is helpful to at least think about the distinction between those parts of our lives because it helps us to understand what choices are open to us and how those choices affect our purposes in this life. And maybe that’s something we need to also need to say explicitly. Sometimes we people ask the question “why am I here” they are looking for someone – a parent, friend, or even an angel or God – to give them an answer. But they may not realize that our own choices affect our purposes in life. In other words the search for a purpose to our lives is not a one-time, one way business where we ask and someone else answers and that’s the end of it. VK: What you’re saying is that there are certain parts of the answer to the question “why am I here” that are common to all of us. We can say with confidence that we’re all here because God made us in His image, has a plan and purpose for our lives, and wants us to develop holy characters. But as our lives move along our choices at one point are going to influence our purpose for the rest of our lives. Sometimes those choices will be positive ones. Someone who chooses to go to medical school and become a doctor will have a wide variety of career choices that will not be open to other people. But, sadly, all too often those choices may be negative ones. I know of a young woman who made the choice to drive drunk after having two previous DUI’s. But on this occasion she drove drunk and ran into another car injuring a mother and killing a child. That choice obviously will affect her for the rest of her life. Now part of her purpose is going to have to be to successfully complete a long prison sentence and then begin to rebuild her life. That purpose would have been completely unnecessary if she had made a different choice. RD: Yes. For most people a search for the answer to the question “why am I here” will likely be a recurring one. When we are young we may strongly believe we are here to follow a particular career but regardless of whether that choice pans out it’s not uncommon for us to discover other reasons we are here as we pass through our adult lives. That’s one reason it’s a good idea to distinguish between our careers and what I’m labeling as our callings. Our careers and our callings may be closely linked or they may have very little to do with one another. VK: Why don’t you give us an example of what you’re thinking about? RD: Well, let’s return to your earlier comment about choices. A young man or woman who decides to attend medical school and become a doctor will most likely find their career in the medicine but that may or may not be where they find their calling. I’m thinking of Dr. Gregg Alexander who is a frequent guest on Anchored by Truth. He spent over 40 years practicing medicine. He set up the emergency room at one of our local hospitals and later became a very successful orthopedic surgeon. He was a very good doctor. But he has also taught an adult Sunday school class for over 25 years and he is a very gifted student of the Bible and class leader. So, at least part of Dr. Alexander’s calling was to help other people know the Bible better and develop spiritually. That’s a calling he could have pursued if he had chosen a different profession but he would tell you his skills a teacher were influenced by the practice of his profession. VK: That’s a good example of how careers and callings may be distinguished but cannot be separated. I know of an attorney who is very successful as a trial attorney but who has been on numerous medical missions to some very remote places. He may not practice medicine on those missions but the support he provides to his medical team members is invaluable. And this observation about careers and callings is by no means limited to doctors and attorneys. There are countless plumbers leading youth groups, mechanics serving as church elders, and sales people teaching religious education classes. RD: And we need to be clear that even though the examples we’ve been giving have been primarily about church or religious activities they don’t have to be. People who work with the homeless, the hurting, and the hungry aren’t always going to be doing so in connection with a church or parachurch ministry and they don’t have to be to please God. In his epistle to the Galatians the Apostle Paul said, “Whenever we have the opportunity, we have to do what is good for everyone, especially for the family of believers.” That’s Galatians, chapter 6, verse 10 from the God’s Word Translation. Notice that Paul tells us to do what is good for “everyone” – that is people both inside the church and outside. Now Paul emphasizes that we should do good “especially” for believers but that is by way of emphasis that if we have a duty to do good for everyone we certainly should be doing so for those in the church. VK: So, there are some important points that we have been going over here. First, as we think about “why we are here” – what our purpose is in this life – there are Biblical instructions that apply to all people all the time. We are all directed to develop holy characters. RD: And we can add to that that we are all directed to develop other spiritual attributes as well. Back to the book of Galatians – in Galatians, chapter 5, verses 22 and 23 Paul says, “But the spiritual nature produces love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control.” Those attributes are sometimes referred to as the “fruits of the Spirit.” In other words we should all strive as a part of developing a character pleasing to God to allow the Holy Spirit to work within us to develop love, peace, patience, kindness, etc. VK: So, part of why we are here is to develop holy characters – and a holy character isn’t just defined as someone who thinks of themselves as being pious or spiritual. That’s certainly part of being holy but someone who thinks of themselves is as likely to be sanctimonious as they are truly spiritual. Holy people do their best to avoid sin but they don’t stop there. They cultivate attributes that make them blessings to their fellow believers and to the world in general – like being patient, kind, and loving. We are all directed to develop holy characters. That’s a general instruction for all people for all times. But as we probe our individual answers to the unique purposes for our individual lives we run into the questions of careers and callings. RD: Right. And in our last episode of Anchored by Truth we spent some time on the question of careers – in essence a question of work and vocations. And we saw by looking at the Bible that there are a wide variety of careers that people can choose and still be effective servants of the Lord. Sometimes people might think that they have to choose to work in a ministry or religious vocation for God to use them but that’s not true at all. Robert Letourneau’s name is well known in the construction field because even though he dropped out of school in the 7th grade he held over 300 patents in the field of earthmoving. Letourneau’s sister challenged him at an early age to get serious about serving God. He thought it meant he should be a preacher or a missionary. But after praying with his pastor about it his pastor told him “God needs businessmen too.” So, Letourneau became what he called “God’s business partner.” VK: And Letourneau [LEH-TOUR-KNOW] was a very successful business partner for God, wasn’t he? Letourneau eventually gave away 90% of what he earned to charitable projects all over the world. He once said, “I shovel money out and God shovels it back, but God has a bigger shovel.” Letourneau is just one example of someone who fulfilled a calling to serve God through amazing giving even though his career was designing and building earth moving equipment. RD: Right. Letourneau’s career and calling could be distinguished but they were never separated. And we see that example in the Bible repeatedly from all up and down the economic and social spectrum. Amos was called to be a prophet but for his occupation he was a shepherd and tender of sycamore figs. Those were considered humble occupations. Nehemiah was called to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem but before he did that he was the cupbearer to the Persian emperor – a very exalted position. VK: Moses started out living in the palace of the most powerful ruler of his time, the Egyptian Pharaoh. But Moses had to leave the palace and at the time he was called to be Israel’s deliverer he had been a shepherd on the backside of the desert for 4 decades. Then he went from being a shepherd to leading a nation of over 2 million people for the next 40 years. So, Moses case was high to low to high – talk about someone who had his ups and downs. RD: Yes. During His ministry Jesus commended the faith of Roman soldiers, tax collectors, fishermen, and housewives. So, one thing that is clear by looking at scripture is that God can choose people from just about any career field to serve Him and His kingdom. And God may choose to leave us in our career field as we fulfill our calling as He did with Robert Letourneau – or God may call us to change our career as He did with Peter, James, and John. VK: Well, how can we know what God is calling us to do – either in our careers or in our kingdom calling? I suppose one thing we might want to examine is the timing of when that may happen. A quick glance at scripture will tell you that we may be in a career for years before we receive a call from God to begin to serve Him in a particular area. RD: Moses is a great example of the time that can elapse in someone’s life between them choosing their work and their ultimate calling. It’s often said Moses spent 40 years in the house of Pharaoh, 40 years on the backside of the desert, and 40 years leading the children of Israel to the Promised Land. VK: I’ve heard it phrased “Moses spent 40 years thinking he was somebody, 40 years finding out he was a nobody, and 40 years finding out what God can do with a nobody.” RD: I’ve always loved that characterization of the life of Moses. And Moses was obviously a case where he received his call from God in a very dramatic fashion, although his choice to be a shepherd was far more mundane. He became a shepherd because after he fled Egypt he really didn’t have anywhere to go, but through God’s providence he wound up living with a family of nomadic shepherds. So, he became a shepherd out of simple necessity. VK: And simple necessity is still a way many of us wind up performing the work we do – and that’s just fine. We don’t need to have every direction we take in life marked out by fire and flame. In fact, at our age, we are often grateful when we receive direction in simple and ordinary ways. RD: Exactly. When it comes to receiving direction for our career or calling some people might be waiting, or even hoping, for a voice to speak out of the darkness or a flashing sign in the heavens that gives them a clear answer. Even mature believers might be hoping for God to send them a vision or appear in a dream. Well, we certainly believe that God can communicate to His people in any manner He chooses. But the truth is that God usually provides us direction in the most mundane ways. With Letourneau he received important guidance after a conversation with his pastor. That’s usually not a bad place to start. But we can also get good guidance from any mature Christian, especially those whose lives reflect a deep dependence on God and a reverence for His word. VK: It has been said that God will give us guidance for our lives in 4 different ways. The primary way God gives us guidance is through His word in the Bible. A second way is through the counsel of mature believers. We’ve already alluded to those. But a third way that God gives us direction is through what the old-timers termed “providential circumstances.” Sometimes we want to go to a particular school but we don’t get accepted – at least not at first. That tells us for the time being we need to make a different choice. We may be hoping for a particular job but it’s not offered. Or we may have been thinking about one job and another one opens up unexpectedly. God routinely opens and closes doors in our life. That’s a third way God tells us which way He wants us to go. RD: And the fourth way is by what may be termed “direct revelation” – not necessarily that God speaks audibly or through a vision – but God will give us strong impressions and leadings. Sometimes he will call our attention to things we had overlooked before or he may cause us to see something in scripture we hadn’t noticed. But I think it’s very important to note that there is no reason for God to use the 4th way, direct revelation, if we haven’t diligently pursued the first 3. God will speak to us but he’s very unlikely to give us a job for which we failed to submit an application. VK: As I like to say, “God expects us to do our own homework.” God is not interested and will not reward passivity or laziness when we need to be in motion. In Luke chapter 5, verses 4 and 5, Jesus told Simon Peter, “Take the boat into deep water, and lower your nets to catch some fish." Simon answered, "Teacher, we worked hard all night and caught nothing. But if you say so, I'll lower the nets." After Simon Peter did as Jesus commanded they caught so many fish their nets were breaking. Jesus didn’t tell Simon Peter to row out to deep water and the fish would jump into the boat. RD: So, before we close let’s take a look at where we are in answering our question. When we ask the question, “why am I here” we’re doing it because either because we want to be assured our lives have meaning or we are genuinely trying to figure out God’s will for our lives. To be assured that our lives have meaning we just have to remember that we have been created by an almighty God in His image. We have inherent worth and dignity because He is the ultimate font of worthiness and dignity. And we can be assured that God has a plan for our lives because His word plainly tells us that He does. As we noted earlier the New Living Translation of John 10:10 tells us that Jesus says: “My purpose is to give them a rich and satisfying life.” VK: This sounds like a great time for a prayer. Today let’s listen to a prayer of adoration for the Father who cares so much for His children that He sent His only begotten Son to die for us – to give us life and give us a life that can be rich and satisfying. ---- PRAYER FOR ADORATION OF THE FATHER VK: Before we close we’d like to remind our audience that a lot of our radio episodes are linked together in series of topics so if they missed any episodes in this series or if they just want to hear one again, all of these episodes are available on your favorite podcast app. To find them just search on “Anchored by Truth by Crystal Sea Books.” If you’d like to hear more, try out crystalseabooks.com where “We’re not perfect but our Boss is!” (Bible Quote from the God’s Word Translation) Colossians, chapter 3, verse 23, God’s Word Translation

New Radicals, the band that wrote the ubiquitous single "You Get What You Give" which will never the airwaves, was the brainchild of Gregg Alexander and former child actor Danielle Brisebois, the former who had previously failed to breakthrough in the late 80s/early 90s solo artist. Donning the iconic bucket hat and calling-out (then) current celebrities like Courtney Love and Beck gave critics something to spill ink about, but the overall 1998 release Maybe You've Been Brainwashed Too never got the attention the single managed. Drawing on pop from several decades and angles, the band moves effortlessly between 90s alt-rock less expected sounds like the soulful bounce of Hall and Oates or twists and turns of Todd Rundgren. While the album hones in on specific moods, like longing blue-eyed soul on one track and Badfinger-esque 70s pop on the next, the variety of players gives the overall record an inconsistent vibe with tracks often exceeding their welcome by a minute or two.   Songs In This Episode: Intro - You Get What You Give 22:16 - Mother We Just Can't Get Enough 30:06 - In Need of a Miracle 37:47 - I Don't Wanna Die Anymore Outro - Flowers   Support the podcast, join the DMO UNION at Patreon. Listen to the episode archive at DigMeOutPodcast.com.

Episode 154 – Why Am I Here – Part 3: Biblical Illiteracy Welcome to Anchored by Truth brought to you by Crystal Sea Books. In John 14:6, Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life.” The goal of Anchored by Truth is to encourage everyone to grow in the Christian faith by anchoring themselves to the secure truth found in the inspired, inerrant, and infallible word of God. Script: Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light for my path” (Psalm 119:105); “Your statutes are my heritage forever, they are the joy of my heart” (Psalm 119:111); Psalm 119, verses 105 and 111, New International Version ******** VK: Hello! I’m Victoria K. Welcome to Anchored by Truth brought to you by Crystal Sea Books. We’re very grateful to be with you as today as we continue the series we began last week on Anchored by Truth. We’ve entitled this series “Why am I here?” To help us continue considering a question that has probably occurred to just about every person who has ever lived. The answer to the question is both simple and profound. We’re all here because God made us. That’s a pretty simple statement but it has profound implications. So, to help us explore some of those implications, today we’re fortunate to have Dr. Gregg Alexander back on the show with us. Gregg is a retired Tallahassee physician who has taught an adult Sunday School class for more than 25 years. As such he has seen humanity from all sides and he is definitely a very deep student of the Bible. GREGG would you like to take a couple of minutes and tell us a little about why you have been such a faithful teacher for your church? GREGG OPENING COMMENTS - VK: One of the reasons we wanted to have Gregg back on the show is because several years ago Gregg did a study series for his Sunday school class on Biblical illiteracy. As we have been discussing in our first episodes in this series in order to develop an answer to the question of why we are here we must understand our role in the created order. This, in turn, means we must recognize that we were created by an almighty, loving God and that God has designated man to bear His image within the created order. The only creature that God made who is said to bear God’s image is mankind. That designation is not given to any other earthly creature or even to the angels. But we cannot fully comprehend what bearing God’s image means if we are not familiar with the Bible. So, we wanted to spend at least one show in this series talking about the poor state of Biblical literacy within our current culture. Gregg, when you did your series on Biblical illiteracy why did you feel that it was so important to take that up as a subject? GREGG: The Church competes in the marketplace of ideas and ideologies. Listeners to Anchored by Truth are probably far more Biblically literate than members of our society at large and that’s good. But we need to understand what is going on in the culture around us if we are to minister effectively to it. Groups like Barna, Gallup, and Pew Research try to keep track of trends, and if they are correct in their analysis, the picture is not good. In 2006, Gallup asked people whether the Bible is the inspired Word of God. Only 26% said “yes” – down from 40% in 1980. The number of people who said the Bible is a collection of stories, fables, myths, history, and teachings increased from 10% in 1980 to 19% in 2006. Consider these numbers as you remember that more than 75% of the respondents were professing Christians. VK: Yikes. That’s pretty scary. 75% of the people responding to Gallup self-identified as professing Christians and yet only 26% said that the Bible is the inspired word of God. And that was 15 years ago and we know that the situation quite likely hasn’t gotten any better. That’s one of the reasons we launched Anchored by Truth. We want to reawaken a widespread understanding that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant, and infallible word of God. GREGG: And that’s one of the reasons I wanted to come back on Anchored by Truth – to help sound a wake-up call. Plus, you have a good variety of coffee choices in the studio. But aside from the coffee I want people to begin to rediscover that their lives will be richer and more meaningful if they will take the time to really begin to study and dig into the Bible. I would like to serve as a stimulus toward greater and more regular study of the Bible, and greater trust in its ultimate authority for our lives. God wants us to pray and read our Bible. It’s not about hearing someone talk about the Bible, it’s about digging into it deeply. God wants us to be an instrument in His hand, but He needs His instruments to be sharp. VK: Well, I know that you believe that God’s desire for His children to be informed students of His word which is effectively illustrated from a passage in the book of Acts from chapter 17. What specific passage are you thinking about? GREGG: I think that the way Luke describes the Apostle Paul’s encounter with a group of Bereans illustrates our need for scripture perfectly. Acts described the believers in Berea, which is a region in Greece near Thessalonica, in this way: “As soon as it was night, the brothers sent Paul and Silas away to Berea. On arriving there, they went to the Jewish synagogue. Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true” This is Acts 17:10-11. Note that this part of Acts says that they “examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.” To the Bereans the Scriptures were the test for truth. And, since the time of Christ, the books that have been put together to form our Bible have been revered by Christians as the word of God applicable to all time and all circumstances, and the revelation of the mind and will of God. VK: And frankly there was a time in America when you might have been able to make a similar statement about a large percentage of the population. As the survey information you cited above shows that may no longer be true but at one time it certainly was. GREGG: When this country was founded the Bible was respected by just about everyone, and biblical principles formed the shape and stability of the culture. This was clearly evident in the realm of public education. Children were taught the alphabet using the textbook entitled The New-England Primer, published in 1687. Most, if not all, of the Founding Fathers were taught to read and write using this book which unashamedly taught the Christian worldview. This textbook was gradually replaced by a series of books known as the McGuffey Readers. William McGuffey was a committed Christian who was consumed by two passions: public education and preaching the Gospel. McGuffey presented education from a biblical foundation, and he reinforced biblical principles of life and morality in the lessons. VK: So, it sounds like we started out pretty well in America. In our early history the Bible was not a book that was relegated to church buildings on Sundays as it is so often today. The Bible was a book that was a part of everyday life and not just for adults but for people of all ages. That opens up the question of “what happened?” GREGG: When McGuffey died in 1873 his book underwent a radical transformation. America was changing into a pluralistic society – a melting pot of religions and worldviews. Europe was already reacting to the revolutionary socialism of Karl Marx; the philosophy of Kant followed by Nietzsche; Europe's increased concern with material naturalism disguised as science in general and Darwin in particular; and a general intellectual rebellion against tradition and authority. The revised McGuffey Readers went totally secular to meet the supposed need of national unity and the dream of America as the place of refuge for the world’s oppressed masses. VK: You know we sometimes think that the secularization of America started in the latter part of the 20th century. A lot of people think of the 1970’s as a decade of “free love” and the anti-institution movement. But you’re saying that the roots of secularization started almost 100 years earlier aren’t you? And along with that secularization there was a steadily diminishing regard for the Bible wasn’t there? GREGG: In general, yes. The secularization of America did not start in period following World War II though it certainly accelerated them. In the latter part of the 19th century the biblical doctrines of salvation, righteousness, and piety, and their biblical examples and references, began to be replaced by civil and social values and morality. McGuffey’s Eclectic Primer of 1836 was published as a “Revised Edition” in 1881, and it contained no reference to God, His sovereignty, or man’s accountability to Him – the revised McGuffey Readers were then wholly secular. And, if all that wasn’t bad enough, in the 1920s/1930s American education came under the spell of John Dewey (1859-1952), a psychologist and philosopher who is the person most responsible for how American children are educated today. Dewey changed the priority of education from acquiring knowledge to experiencing knowledge. In the 1920s, he became known for his criticism of traditional teaching with its didactic delivery of facts to be remembered in favor of a dialectic (the use of logical argument or discussion: a “back-and-forth”) experience of “facts.” VK: So, what you’re saying is that this trend toward a loss of a Biblical worldview began to be reflected in a wide variety of ways and by a large number of people. That reminds me of Galatians, chapter 5, verse 9. “This false teaching is like a little yeast that spreads through the whole batch of dough!” That’s from the Good News Translation. The English Standard Version says, “A little leaven leavens the whole lump.” GREGG: So, part of the lump that Dewey’s teaching leavened was author Stephen Prothero who wrote a book in 2007 called Religious Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know -- and Doesn't. Prothero, who was a professor of religious studies and chair of the religion department at Boston University, was initially a follower of Dewey’s progressive educational model. Having been turned off since high school to the study of history as a mindless accumulation of names and dates, he embarked on an enlightened teaching career using a test-free environment of “challenging conversation.” He quickly learned, however, that students can’t discuss what they don’t know – that there had to be some common knowledge in order to understand what the words meant! Can you imagine how things would be dangerously different if engineering, aeronautics, law, or medicine were taught by “dialectic”? VK: Well, I don’t think I would like to fly in a plane by someone who had not been taught that there are certain facts and laws of physics that aren’t subject to your opinion. And I certainly don’t want a doctor who thinks that anatomy is a subject where cultural trends are a substitute for knowing the difference between muscles and bones. GREGG: Prothero tells an interesting story of a conversation with a visiting professor from Austria who offered some observations on American undergraduates. This visiting professor from Austria said American undergraduates are “very religious” compared to their European counterparts, but they know next to nothing about religion. The European students have compulsory religious education, but wouldn’t be caught dead in a church, and are far less likely to believe in heaven and hell. The Americans, in contrast, are simultaneously religious and ignorant of religion – they attend churches and synagogues but religious ignorance is bliss. VK: We don’t think about that very much. In America religious education is almost entirely confined to seminaries or divinity schools where those happen to appear in a broader university setting. But it is common in European nations for there to be mandatory religious education at all grade levels. But the visiting professor’s observation shows that it takes more than intellectual knowledge to be a follower of Jesus. We must trust with our hearts in Jesus’s atoning work for salvation to occur. GREGG: True, but that does not mean that we can neglect the intellectual, informational aspect of our faith. In America, faith without understanding appears to be the standard among college undergraduates. They are Protestants who can’t name the four Gospels, Catholics who can’t name the seven sacraments or the seven deadly sins (“There are six things the Lord hates, seven that are detestable to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked schemes, feet that are quick to rush into evil, a false witness who pours out lies and a man who stirs up dissension among brothers” [Proverbs 6:16-19]), and Jews that can’t name the five books of Moses. VK: And that lack of religious comprehension in college students pretty much mirrors things in other parts of society, doesn’t it? GREGG: Yes. Things are no better in the society/culture at large. For comedians, there are subjects that are almost too easy – sure things that guarantee a laugh. For Jay Leno one late night, it was the Bible. During the taping of one of his television shows, Leno moved through his audience asking people what they knew about the Bible. "Name one of the Ten Commandments,” he said. "God helps those who help themselves?" someone ventured. "Name one of the apostles," Leno told them. No one could. Finally, he asked them to name the Beatles. Without hesitation, the answer came ringing from throughout the crowd: George, Paul, John and Ringo. Leno wasn't spoofing the Bible that evening. He was spoofing our society, which claims a grounding in Judeo-Christian principles and yet – according to a number of surveys – is increasingly losing touch with the Scriptures. VK: George Barna is one of the pollsters who follows faith trends most closely isn’t he? I’ve often seen citations from surveys that he has conducted and they rarely contain good news if you are interested in how well American Christians grasp the basics of their historic faith. GREGG: That’s correct. Evangelical pollster George Barna says that over the past 20 years we have seen the nation's theological views slowly become less aligned with the Bible. Americans still revere the Bible and like to think of themselves as Bible-believing people, but the evidence suggests otherwise. Christians have been increasingly adopting spiritual views that come from Islam, Wicca, secular humanism, the eastern religions, and other sources. That's because we're not reading and studying the Bible. If we don't know what God says is truth, it makes us vulnerable to believing a lie. VK: So, you would share the perspective that we often express on Anchored by Truth – that is important for Christians to fully engage their minds in practicing their faith. And the centerpiece of that practice must be devoting time and attention to understanding and comprehending the Bible. GREGG: I definitely agree that one of the most serious problems in the church today is one of "Biblical Illiteracy.” And unfortunately this problem is limited to those in the world, but it is also present in the church. Another pollster George Gallup has said “Americans revere the Bible - but, by and large, they don't read it. And because they don't read it, they have become a nation of biblical illiterates." How bad is it? Consider these results from various surveys: • Fewer than half of all adults can name the four gospels. • Many professing Christians cannot identify more than two or three of the disciples. • 60 percent of Americans can't name even five of the Ten Commandments. VK: Wow. That’s pretty startling. I think when I was young just about every kid in my neighborhood would have known those things. GREGG: And it doesn’t stop there. Here are a few more statistics that should stagger anyone who thinks that the Christian faith is important. • 82 percent of Americans believe "God helps those who help themselves" is a Bible verse. • 12 percent of adults believe that Joan of Arc was Noah's wife. • A survey of graduating high school seniors revealed that over 50 percent thought that Sodom and Gomorrah were husband and wife. VK: 12 percent of adults believe that Joan of Arc was Noah’s wife? Ok. I don’t know whether that is funny or sad. GREGG: Well, here is one more for you. According to David Eikenberry, youth pastor at Orchard View Congregational Church in Muskegon, Michigan only two of 10 people participating in a recent Gallup survey correctly identified who delivered the Sermon on the Mount. Most thought. The Sermon on the Mount was preached by Billy Graham and not by Jesus. VK: So, all of this goes back to the purpose of this series. We are trying to help people develop a trustworthy answer to the question of why we are here. Why are human beings present on the earth in the first place? And in our first two episodes we made the point that for us to have a meaningful answer to the question of why we are here we must understand that we were made by an almighty and loving God. But after the creation of our first parents, Adam and Eve, they rebelled against the one prohibition that God gave them and that introduced sin and death into the created order. But God began a plan of redemption and we know live during a unique time in that plan. We live in the period between the first coming of the Messiah and His planned future return. This points out the need for people to become very familiar with the Bible. It is only from the Bible that we can develop a full-orbed understanding of who and what God is. The Bible gives us as comprehensive a picture of God as the human mind is able to form. From the Bible we learn about God’s unrivaled power, unblemished righteousness, immaculate character, and amazing love and grace. This enables us to have a full appreciation of His glory and majesty and then contemplate our own lives and meanings knowing that the sovereign, royal and perfectly holy God has chosen us to bear His image. GREGG: The first step in Christian understanding is the reading and understanding of the Bible. Therein contains all the truth any person can need for an understanding of God (in all Three Persons); forgiveness of sin, salvation, and eternal life; the commandments of God that we are to follows in order to glorify Him and bring blessings on us; and the moral guidelines for living a righteous life. If we don’t understand these basics I don’t see how people can ever truly understand their purpose in this life. The verse that I have used to best describe the theme of this short series is Hosea 4:6. VK: That verse says, “My people are destroyed from lack of knowledge. Because you have rejected knowledge, I also reject you as my priests; because you have ignored the law of your God, I also will ignore your children.” GREGG: And here are a couple of other verses that make the same point that without a knowledge of God's Word, a person has no real direction or guidance in life: “Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light for my path” (Psalm 119:105); “Your statutes are my heritage forever, they are the joy of my heart” (Psalm 119:111); and: “ Great peace have they who love your law, and nothing can make them stumble. I wait for your salvation, O Lord, and I follow your commands. I obey your statutes, for I love them greatly. I obey your precepts and your statutes, for all my ways are known to you” (Psalm 119:165-169). VK: And, of course, these are just a sampling of verses that we could point to where scripture makes it clear that we must know God’s word if we are to know our purpose in God’s kingdom. But, as we did in our first two episodes, we want to be clear that pursuing meaning for our lives is a journey not necessarily a single destination. We have to meet people where they are so someone in a crisis who is wondering if their life has meaning needs reassurance first. That reassurance comes in the form of knowing there is a God who loves and cares for them and has a plan for their lives. But as the crisis hopefully passes we need to help them move on to a deeper and more sustaining answer. If we don’t, and they don’t, the next crisis will be a question of when not if. GREGG: And those kinds of crises occur more often today than ever before because if they don't know the Bible they can't know the truth about why they are here. If there is a new “religion” in America, it is the religion of “tolerance.” The primary dogma of tolerance comes from religious pluralism, which affirms that all religions are equally valid and deserving of equal respect, and from postmodernism which refuses to commit to any absolute truth. Christianity is clearly out of step with today’s culture. Jesus said this in John14:6, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” It’s easy to see how Jesus’ exclusive claim could be very difficult and embarrassing for a child coming up in the pluralistic soup of the last few decades, or for anyone who has grown up in America in recent decades. The paradox of “tolerance” by today’s definition is that Christians lose in two ways. First, the Christian is labeled intolerant of other religions because of the narrowness of his views. Second, Christianity is the least tolerated of all religions. But the paradox of “tolerance” is that our society also loses. Without a firm anchor to the truth people start drifting in this sea of religious pluralism and like any boat that can’t be secured it may be easily swamped by storms or rough waves. As Anchored by Truth is doing in this series we must master the basics about God, man, and purpose from the Bible to truly understand why we are here. If we don’t gain a firm grasp on those basics we may ask the question “why am I here” until the second coming but we won’t get any closer to finding an answer that will keep our boats afloat. Well, before we close I’d just like to thank you for the opportunity to join you on Anchored by Truth. VK: And we’d certainly like to thank Dr. Gregg Alexander for being our guest today. His service to the church has spanned decades and he is certainly an inspiration for all of those of us who are privileged to know him. So, before we go here is a brief summary of where we are in our series about “why am I here.” To know why we are here we must understand the nature of the created order and a few other basics. Those basics include knowing that God created the universe. We need to know this so we can understand the nature of reality. Next, we need to know that the created order fell when man sinned. But that God began a plan of redemption and the key step in that plan was the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. So, to know why we are here we must know how we are related to Jesus. And to get a firm grasp on those first two point we must study the Bible because if we don’t our knowledge of God, Jesus, reality and redemption is going to be incomplete. As always we want to close with prayer. Today let’s listen to a prayer for the renewal of the church. The church is a great place to begin to know what the Bible is saying so we want strong and healthy churches. But for us to be strong and healthy members of the church we have to study the Bible for ourselves. And as we mentioned today scriptural literacy is one of the greatest challenges of our age. ---- PRAYER FOR RENEWAL OF THE CHURCH VK: Before we close we’d like to remind our audience that a lot of our radio episodes are linked together in series of topics so if they missed any episodes in this series or if they just want to hear one again, all of these episodes are available on your favorite podcast app. To find them just search on “Anchored by Truth by Crystal Sea Books.” If you’d like to hear more, try out crystalseabooks.com where “We’re not perfect but our Boss is!” (Bible Quote from the New International Version) Psalm 119, verses 105 and 111, New International Version

New Radicals, the band that wrote the ubiquitous single "You Get What You Give" which will never the airwaves, was the brainchild of Gregg Alexander and former child actor Danielle Brisebois, the former who had previously failed to breakthrough in the late 80s/early 90s solo artist. Donning the iconic bucket hat and calling-out (then) current celebrities like Courtney Love and Beck gave critics something to spill ink about, but the overall 1998 release Maybe You've Been Brainwashed Too never got the attention the single managed. Drawing on pop from several decades and angles, the band moves effortlessly between 90s alt-rock less expected sounds like the soulful bounce of Hall and Oates or twists and turns of Todd Rundgren. While the album hones in on specific moods, like longing blue-eyed soul on one track and Badfinger-esque 70s pop on the next, the variety of players gives the overall record an inconsistent vibe with tracks often exceeding their welcome by a minute or two.   Songs In This Episode: Intro - You Get What You Give 22:16 - Mother We Just Can't Get Enough 30:06 - In Need of a Miracle 37:47 - I Don't Wanna Die Anymore Outro - Flowers   Support the podcast, join the DMO UNION at Patreon. Listen to the episode archive at DigMeOutPodcast.com.

Episode 149 – Truth and Proof – Part 9 – The New Testament is Reliable Welcome to Anchored by Truth brought to you by Crystal Sea Books. In John 14:6, Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life.” The goal of Anchored by Truth is to encourage everyone to grow in the Christian faith by anchoring themselves to the secure truth found in the inspired, inerrant, and infallible word of God. Script: …why are some of you saying there will be no resurrection of the dead? For if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, then all our preaching is useless, and your faith is useless. 1 Corinthians, Chapter 15, verses 12 through 14, New Living Translation ******** Hello! I’m Victoria K. Welcome to Anchored by Truth brought to you by Crystal Sea Books. As listeners who have been with us for the last several episodes know we have been working on a series that addresses Christian apologetics. We’ve called this series “Truth and Proof.” This series was inspired by Dr. Gregg Alexander who has been teaching Sunday school for more than 25 years. Several years ago Dr. Alexander developed a very similar series for his class. When we learned about it, we were so impressed we wanted everyone to have access to the wonderful work Dr. Alexander had done. And Dr. Alexander has been kind enough to join us on a few of our episodes during the series. But today we are joined by another special guest. Today on the show we have Doug Apple who is the manager of the WAVE-94 radio station in Tallahassee, Florida. Doug is an extremely faithful student of the Bible and he has thought deeply about his faith. Doug would you like to take a couple of minutes and tell us a little about yourself? DOUG: - Introductory comments - VK: Wow. 14 grandchildren! That’s such a blessing and I’m sure one of the reasons Doug has been so blessed is because of his love for – and dedication to – God’s Word. Doug is so serious about his love of scripture that he has taken upon himself to memorize entire books of the Bible including several from the New Testament. So, it’s particularly appropriate for us to have Doug here today because today on Anchored by Truth we are going to tackle one of the most important topics about the truth of Christianity – the reliability of the New Testament documents. The New Testament is the part of the Bible that tells us about Jesus’s life, death, and resurrection. DOUG: And, of course, we get the very title of our faith from Jesus. Jesus was the Christ. The term “Christ” comes from the Greek word Christos which means the “anointed one” or the “chosen one.” This is the same term as “Messiah” which came from the ancient Hebrew word “Mashiach.” So, Christianity is essentially a belief in the work and person of Christ. And while that sounds very simple to say it’s actually a truth so profound we’ll spend all eternity understanding it more thoroughly. But we certainly begin our understanding of that truth by reading the New Testament documents. As such, knowing that the New Testament is reliable and true is a fundamental part of demonstrating that the God that logic tells us must exist is, in fact, the God of the Bible. VK: Christianity depends entirely on the historical person of Jesus Christ. Otherwise Paul could not have said the verse that we heard in our opening scripture from 1 Corinthians. Notice that Paul said, “For if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, then all our preaching is useless, and your faith is useless.” The Apostle Paul stated very plainly that the Christian faith is all about Jesus. And, while there is information about the Messiah in the Old Testament, that information is prophetic. The Old Testament anticipates the arrival of Jesus. But it is in the New Testament that hear we hear about that arrival. Therefore, since the New Testament is the primary source of information about the words and works of Christ, if it is not accurate then we do not possess a first-hand account of Jesus’ claims, character, and credentials. The historical integrity of the New Testament is crucial to Christian apologetics. DOUG: Before we get too much into our discussion about why we can have confidence in the reliability of the New Testament, we should probably note that there are some people who believe that no history can be objectively known. Unfortunately, we live in a time when the past is often manipulated by the subjective desires of historians, writers, politicians, social change advocates, con artists, or others who have an agenda that is served by a revision of history. Political correctness doesn’t just affect how contemporary issues are being framed. It is also being woven into all kinds of discussions of history. Pretty much everyone who is paying attention knows that. But political correctness is not what I’m talking about here. There is a strain of thought among some elites, especially academic elites, who believe that it is impossible for us to know anything true from or about history. VK: But the kind of radical skepticism that would say that history is objectively unknowable eliminates the possibility of knowing anything at all about the past. As soon as we get anywhere close to such a radical belief all university history and classical departments evaporate – there is no source about past events that can be trusted. Such skepticism would eliminate all historical science, such as anthropology, geology, paleontology, archaeology, and forensic science because each of these depends on examining and interpreting remains or evidence from the past. Since everything not occurring now is history, such a belief system would eliminate all eyewitness testimony. Even living witnesses could only testify to what they saw at some other point in time. But if this skepticism were true their testimony would not be considered relevant, real, or accurate. On the other hand, if their testimony could be accepted while they are living, wouldn’t it also be true to say that the records they leave behind are just as credible as their testimony in the present time? DOUG: And, another question: isn’t a statement that says we can’t objectively know history an attempt at establishing an absolute and objective truth about history? The statement that “The past is not objectively knowable” is itself an objective statement about the past. Therefore, the position against the knowability of history is self-defeating. It fails the test of its own central premise. In effect, metaphorically speaking, the idea that we can’t know anything true from or about history shoots itself in the head. VK: So, let’s move on to talking about the reliability of the New Testament documents. As we have indicated without a reliable New Testament, we have no objective, historical way to know what Jesus said or did. We cannot establish whether Jesus was God, what Jesus taught, or what His followers did and taught. We must know if the sources or witnesses used by the authors were reliable, and we must show that the manuscripts were written early enough and with enough attention to detail to be accurate records of actual events. As we look at these questions, we will see that we have every reason to be confident in the accuracy of the New Testament. DOUG: So, what you’ve proposed is that the first step in establishing the historical accuracy of the New Testament is to show that the documents were written by reliable eyewitnesses of the events or their contemporaries. And the second step you mentioned is to show that the New Testament documents have been accurately transmitted from the time of their original autographs, i.e. the original documents, down from the time of their creation to our time. And contrary to what many critics believe and say, there is more evidence for the historical accuracy of the life, death, and resurrection of Christ than for any other event from the ancient world. These issues are a crucial part of the overall rational defense of Christianity. VK: So, let’s start by looking first at one of the things we just mentioned: the dating of the New Testament manuscripts. One of the things we want to determine is whether they were “early enough?” In other words, were they prepared close enough in time to the events they tell us about to be reliable? Critics of the Bible and of Christianity would have better arguments if they are able to separate the actual events from the records of those events by as much time as possible. If they can stretch out the time from the date of the event to when the event was first recorded they can argue that the New Testament writers created the events rather than reported them. This then permits them to argue that the New Testament, especially the Gospels, more than likely contains myths. This is a common assertion among scholars. The longer the time between an event and the first record made about it the more likely that embellishments will creep in. And another thing we want to determine is the question of authorship. Said differently, we want to be sure that the record writer was not too greatly removed from the event. Distance is not a problem if the writer was also an eye witness of the event, but historical records are often prepared by people who were not eye witnesses themselves. But we would still consider a record to be reliable if the writer spoke directly to an eye witness or had direct access to supporting information such as records or artifacts that corroborated key details. DOUG: So, let’s take a look at some specifics at one of the most important books of the New Testament, the book of Acts. The Gospel of Luke and the book of Acts were both written by Luke. The person to whom they were written “Theophilus”, the style, and the vocabulary indicate that they were, indeed, written by the same person. The date and authenticity of the Acts of the Apostles is crucial to the historical account of early Christianity, because if Acts was written before AD 70 then it has great historical value in informing us of the earliest Christian beliefs. AD 70 is a crucial date because that was when the famous Roman general and later emperor, Titus, destroyed Jerusalem. When Titus destroyed Jerusalem a great many Jews died and the rest were scattered. The nation of Israel disappeared in 70 AD and would not be restored for almost 2 millennia. It was ultimately reconstituted in 1948 by the allies after World War II. VK: So, if the book of Acts was written before 70 AD there’s a much better chance Luke would have been able to speak to eyewitnesses while they were still alive. And the fact that Acts was written by Luke is also crucial. We know from Paul’s letters that Luke was a companion of the Apostle Paul during many of his ministry travels. Therefore, if Acts was written by Luke, it brings us right to the apostolic circle. In other words this means Acts was written by someone who would been a close companion to those who participated in the events reported. And Luke himself was likely an eyewitness to some of the events. In other words, we have the very closest relationship of the author to the historical report. DOUG: Right. So, that is one big point about the historicity of the book of Acts. The author would have had personal knowledge of the events he recorded or he spoke to people who had personal knowledge. As to the question of the when Acts as written, the traditional date assigned to the creation of Acts is 62 AD. This means it was written before the loss of many of the eyewitnesses from the destruction of Jerusalem. It also means it was written by a contemporary of Jesus himself because Jesus died in approximately 33 AD. One person who has assigned a date for the composition of Acts to no later than 62 AD is Roman historian Colin Hemer. Hemer cites a wide range of evidence for his view. For instance, there is no mention in the book of Acts of the fall of Jerusalem. This would be an extremely unlikely omission if the fall of Jerusalem had already occurred. Acts contains no hint of the outbreak of the Jewish War which occurred in AD 66. Acts also does not mention the dramatic deterioration of relations between Romans and Jews which preceded the war. This implies it was written before that time. Moreover, there is no hint of the deterioration of Christian relations with Rome which was caused by Nero’s persecution of the Christians in the late 60s. Hemer believes that Acts was most likely composed between 60 AD and 62 AD because of these and other factors. VK: The other factors include the fact that there is no hint of the death of Jesus’ half-brother, James, at the hands of the Sanhedrin. According to the famous Jewish historian, Josephus, in his book, Antiquities, James was martyred in 62 AD. Had the martyrdom of James already occurred it is extremely unlikely that Luke would have ignored an event that important to the early church. Also, the prominence and authority of the Jewish sect called the Sadducees noted in Acts belongs to the pre-70 AD era. This indicates that Acts was written before the collapse of the Sadducees’ political cooperation with Rome. DOUG: Yes. Also, Luke doesn’t give any indication in the book of Acts that he is aware of Paul’s letters, his epistles, to the various churches in Greece and Asia. In both his gospel and in Acts Luke is very careful about getting particular details right. If Acts was written later in the first century, why wouldn’t Luke have attempted to support his historical account by citing relevant sections of the Epistles? The Epistles evidently circulated through the churches and must have become available sources because they were passed along in every generation. This silence suggests that Acts was written early during the apostolic era. Finally, the ending of the book of Acts does not continue Paul’s story. It simply stops at the end of the two year described in Acts 28, verses 30-31. VK: Those verses say “For two whole years Paul stayed there in his own rented house and welcomed all who came to see him. Boldly and without hindrance he preached the kingdom of God and taught about the Lord Jesus Christ.” DOUG: So, the fact that Acts just ends with a simple declaration of what Paul had been doing for the previous two years makes it look very much like Luke was just bringing his narrative up to date at that point. Remember, that Luke tells us that he was writing both of the books attributed to him to a man named Theophilus in order for Theophilus to “know the certainty of the things you have been taught.” In his book, The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History, Hemer says, “It may be argued simply that Luke had brought the narrative up to date at the time of writing, the final note being added at the conclusion of the two years.” So, all of these factors tell us that the date for the composition of the book of Acts was quite likely not later than 62 AD and may have been even earlier. VK: So why have we spent so much time now focusing on demonstrating that the book of Acts is a reliable record of history. How does this fit in to our larger goal of establishing that the God that exists is the God of the Bible? DOUG: Because, if Acts is shown to be accurate history, then it brings credibility to its reports about the most basic Christian beliefs. For instance, the book of Acts contains accounts of the life, death (Acts 2:23), resurrection (Acts 2:23, 29–32), and ascension of Christ (Acts 1:9–10). It also contains the records of a number of miracles (Acts 2:22) and it gives us important contextual information that enable us to make better use of that Paul’s letters to the churches that are also important parts of the New Testament. VK: Acts also contains significant details about Jerusalem, Rome, and many other geographical areas that have been extensively substantiated by historical and archaeological research. In other words, Acts is confirmed by overwhelming evidence. Nothing like this amount of detailed confirmation exists for any other book from antiquity. This is not only a direct confirmation of the earliest Christian belief in the death and resurrection of Christ, but also, indirectly, of the Gospel record, since Luke also wrote a detailed Gospel. The evidence that we have that validates Acts confirms not only the historical accuracy of the book of Acts but also the reliability and validity of several other books of the New Testament. DOUG: Exactly. Luke’s Gospel directly parallels the Gospels of Mark and Matthew. As we’ve been talking about, the best evidence is that Acts was composed around AD 60 which places its composition only about twenty-seven years after the traditional dating of the death of Jesus. This places the writing during the lifetime of eyewitnesses to the events recorded – and as we have mentioned this enhances our confidence in the trustworthiness of what it reports. This dating of Acts does not allow time for any mythological development by persons living generations after the events. Furthermore, if Luke wrote Acts, then his “former treatise” (Acts 1:1), the Gospel of Luke, should be seen as written at an even earlier date, and, therefore, easily within the life-time of apostles and eye-witnesses who could have refuted all or part of Luke’s Gospel if he had gotten anything wrong. VK: And as we have mentioned in other episodes of Anchored by Truth we have to remember that all of the New Testament documents were being written in a world that was largely hostile to Christianity. If Luke had been creating fabrications it would have been easy for the people of the time to rebut his books and many of the people of the time had a strong motivation for doing so. The fact that Luke’s records have survived with the content they did tells us that he was reporting the truth. DOUG: So, let’s take a quick look at some of the other writings of Paul. It is widely accepted by critical and conservative scholars that 1st Corinthians was written by AD 55 or 56. This is only about a quarter century after the crucifixion. Further, in 1 Corinthians Paul speaks of “most” of the 500 eyewitnesses to the resurrection who were still alive when he wrote (15:6). This shows that was a substantial body of people at the time that Paul wrote who could confirm the central fact of the Christian faith, Christ’s resurrection from the dead. VK: And along with 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians and Galatians are known to be early. All three reveal a historical interest in the events of Jesus’ life and give facts that agree with the Gospels. Paul speaks of Jesus’ virgin birth (Galatians 4:4), sinless life (2 Corinthians 5:21), death on the cross (1 Corinthians 15:3); resurrection on the third day (1 Corinthians 15:4), and post-resurrection appearances (1 Corinthians 15:5-8). Paul also gives historical details about Jesus’ contemporaries, the apostles (1 Corinthians 15:5-8), including his private encounters with Peter and the apostles (Galatians 1:18-2:14). DOUG: Critics of the New Testament sometimes claim that the New Testament was not written until almost 400 years after Jesus lived – but these critics are confusing the date that the New Testament documents were written with the time at which they were compiled into the form that we most commonly see them today. We have abundant evidence that the New Testament documents were all prepared well before the end of the 1st century AD. For example, we know that the many of the books of the New Testament were widely quoted by the early church fathers starting in the late 1st century AD. Well for the early church fathers to quote the documents they had to have already been in wide circulation. VK: For instance, of the four Gospels alone there are 19,368 citations by the church fathers from the late first century on. This includes 268 by Justin Martyr who lived from 100 AD until 165 AD. There were 1017 by Clement of Alexandria who lived from approximately 155 AD to 220 AD and there were 3822 by Tertullian who lived around the same time. DOUG: And even earlier, Clement of Rome cited Matthew, John, and 1 Corinthians in AD 95-97. Ignatius referred to six Pauline Epistles in about 110 AD, and between 110 and 150 Polycarp quoted from all four Gospels, Acts, and most of Paul’s Epistles. Papias who was a companion of Polycarp quoted from the Gospel of John. This is particularly significant because Polycarp knew John personally and was a disciple of the apostle John. This argues powerfully that the Gospels were in existence before the end of the first century, while eyewitnesses (including the Apostle John) were still alive. Jose O’Callahan, a Spanish Jesuit paleographer, made headlines around the world on March 18, 1972, when he identified a manuscript fragment from the Dead Sea Scrolls, Qumran Cave 7 as a piece of the Gospel of Mark. Fragments from this cave had previously been dated between 50 BC and AD 50 which in 1972 was not typically thought of as being within the time frame for New Testament writings. Using the accepted methods of papyrology and paleography, O’Callahan compared sequences of letters with existing documents and eventually identified nine fragments as belonging to one Gospel, Acts, and a few Epistles. Some of these were dated slightly later than 50, but still extremely early. VK: Both friends and critics agreed that, if valid, O’Callahan’s conclusions revolutionize New Testament theories. If O’Callahan is correct, the implications for Christian apologetics are enormous. The Gospel of Mark must have been written within the lifetimes of the apostles and contemporaries of the events. This completely eliminates any time for mythological embellishment of the record. It must be accepted as historical. And since the manuscripts found in the Dead Sea scrolls are not originals but copies, the originals would have necessarily been written earlier. This means these parts of the New Testament would have certainly been copied and disseminated during the lives of the writers. These early dates do not allow time for myths or legends to creep into the stories about Jesus. Historians generally agree legend development takes at least two full generations. Even putting aside O’Callahan’s claims, the cumulative evidence places the New Testament documents within the first century and the lives of eyewitnesses of Jesus’s life and resurrection. DOUG: There is a growing acceptance of early New Testament dates, even among some critical scholars. Let’s take a quick look at two of them illustrate this point: former liberal archeologist William F. Albright and radical critic John A. T. Robinson. Albright wrote, “We can already say emphatically that there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the New Testament after about AD 80, two full generations before the date between 130 and 150 given by the more radical New Testament critics of today” (Recent Discoveries in Bible Lands, 136). Elsewhere Albright said, “In my opinion, every book of the New Testament was written by a baptized Jew between the forties and the eighties of the first century (very probably sometime between about AD 50 and 75)” (“Toward a More Conservative View,” 3). Known for his role in launching the “Death of God” movement, Robinson wrote a revolutionary book entitled Redating the New Testament. In it he determined that the New Testament books should be dated even earlier than even the most conservative scholars ever believed. Robinson places Matthew at AD 40-60, Mark at about 45-60, Luke at or before 57-60, and John at 40-65. This would mean that one or two Gospels could have been written as early as 7-10 years after the crucifixion. At the latest they were all composed within the lifetimes of eyewitnesses and contemporaries of the events who could have refuted any parts of the accounts had they been in error. VK: In short we have very strong evidence that the New Testament documents were written very close to the time of the events they record. We know that they were composed by either eyewitnesses to the events or the authors had direct access to eyewitnesses. And we have so many quotations from the original documents in the writings of the early church fathers we can be very sure that the transmission of the original texts was reliable. This sounds like a time to go to God I prayer. Today let’s listen to a prayer for our country – that God’s hand of mercy and provision would be with us now and always. ---- PRAYER FOR THE NATION (MARCUS) VK: We’d like to remind our audience that a lot of our radio episodes are linked together in series of topics so if they missed any episodes or if they just want to hear one again, all of these episodes are available on your favorite podcast app. To find them just search on “Anchored by Truth by Crystal Sea Books.” If you’d like to hear more, try out crystalseabooks.com where “We’re not perfect but our Boss is!” (Bible Quote from the New Living Translation) 1 Corinthians, Chapter 15, verses 12 through 14, New Living Translation SELECTED FACTS THAT DEMONSTRATE THE HISTORICITY OF ACTS Archaeologists at first believed Luke's implication wrong that Lystra and Derbe were in Lycaonia and Iconium was not (Acts 14:6). They based their belief on the writings of Romans such as Cicero who indicated that Iconium was in Lycaonia. Thus, archaeologists said the Book of Acts was unreliable. However, in 1910, Sir William Ramsay found a monument that showed that Iconium was a Phrygian city. Later discoveries confirm this. Evidence That Demands a Verdict - Ch. 4 p. 8 (angelfire.com) Similarly, Luke’s identifying Gallio as proconsul of Achaia in A.D. 51 has been confirmed by a discovered inscription at Delphi (18:12). His report of Claudius’ expulsion of the Jews from Rome around A.D. 49 is referred to by Suetonius (Life of Claudius, 25:4). His incidental reference to Felix as Roman procurator along with his Jewish wife Drusilla is corroborated both by both Josephus and Tacitus (24:24, cf. Ant. 20:131–43, History, 5:9, Annals, 12:54). His identification of Festus as Felix’s successor is likewise confirmed by Jospehus and Suetonius (Ant. 20:182; Claudius, 28). And his mentioning of Agrippa II and Bernice, elder sister of Drusilla and widow of Herod, is again corroborated by Jospehus (25:13, cf. Ant. 20:145). Is the Book of Acts Reliable? - Greg Boyd - ReKnew The topographical position of Iconium is clearly indicated in Acts, and the evidence of Ac has been confirmed by recent research. Was Iconium in Phrygia or in Lycaonia, and in what sense can it be said to have belonged to one ethnical division or the other? The majority of our ancient authorities (e.g. Cicero, Strabo, Pliny), writing from the point of view of Roman provincial administration, give Iconium to Lycaonia, of which geography makes it the natural capital. But Xenophon, who marched with Cyrus' expedition through Phrygia into Lycaonia, calls Iconium the last city of Phrygia. The writer of Acts 14:6 makes the same statement when he represents Paul and Barnabas as fleeing from Iconium to the cities of Lycaonia--implying that the border of Phrygia and Lycaonia passed between Iconium and Lystra, 18 miles to the South. Other ancient authorities who knew the local conditions well speak of Iconium as Phrygian until far into the Roman imperial period. At the neighboring city of Lystra (Acts 14:11), the natives used the "speech of Lycaonia." Two inscriptions in the Phrygian language found at Iconium in 1910 prove that the Phrygian language was in use there for 2 centuries after Paul's visits, and afford confirmation of the interesting topographical detail in Ac (see Jour. Hell. Stud., 1911, 189). In the apostolic period, Iconium was one of the chief cities in the southern part of the Roman province Galatia, and it probably belonged to the "Phrygian region" mentioned in Acts 16:6. The emperor Claudius conferred on it the title Claudiconium, which appears on coins of the city and on inscriptions, and was formerly taken as a proof that Claudius raised the city to the rank of a Roman colonia. It was Hadrian who raised the city to colonial rank; this is proved by its new title, Colonia Aelia Hadriana Iconiensium, and by a recently discovered inscription, which belongs to the reign of Hadrian, and which mentions the first duumvir who was appointed in the new colonia. Iconium was still a Hellenic city, but with a strong pro-Roman bias (as proved by its title "Claudian") when Paul visited it. Iconium - International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (biblestudytools.com)

Episode 147 – Truth and Proof – Part 7 – Science Points to a Creator Welcome to Anchored by Truth brought to you by Crystal Sea Books. In John 14:6, Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life.” The goal of Anchored by Truth is to encourage everyone to grow in the Christian faith by anchoring themselves to the secure truth found in the inspired, inerrant, and infallible word of God. Script: Then God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. And God saw that the light was good. Then he separated the light from the darkness. 5God called the light “day” and the darkness “night. Genesis, Chapter 1, verses 3 and 4, New Living Translation ******** Hello! I’m Victoria K. Welcome to Anchored by Truth brought to you by Crystal Sea Books. We’re excited to be with you as we continue our series we’ve called “Truth and Proof.” This series is all about the truth that there is a God and that God is the God of the Bible. Furthermore, as we go along we are offering the proof that supports the truth. This series on Anchored by Truth was inspired by a Sunday School lesson series that was prepared and delivered by Dr. Gregg Alexander. Today we’re fortunate to have Dr. Gregg Alexander back on the show with us. He’s going to help us explore one of the best known lines of reasoning that demonstrates God’s existence: the cosmological argument. But before we get into the meat of the show, GREGG would you like to take a couple of minutes and tell us a little about why you decided you wanted to do your “Truth and Proof” series for your Sunday School class? GREGG: - Introductory comments - VK: So, I’d like to remind everyone that the reason we have undertaken this series is to help listeners know how to defend the Christian faith. This defense is often termed “apologetics.” Lay people will sometimes think that apologetics as an area of study is beyond the reach of regular Christians. But we certainly don’t believe that it is. Any reasonably mature, thinking Christian can readily understand the lines of reasoning that demonstrates that the existence of God is a logical necessity to have a coherent world view. And when we speak of defending the Christian faith we’re not thinking of people going out and debating on a stage somewhere. The first place we must defend our faith is in our own hearts. The second place that we must defend it is in our own homes. If all we ever did with apologetics was do those two things any efforts we made would be well worth while. GREGG: I agree. 10, 20, or 30 years ago we lived in a culture that readily accepted Christianity even if some individuals did not. 50 years ago you would even find some support for the Christian world view taught in grade schools and high schools because the truth of Christianity was widely accepted. But those days are long behind us. Our broader culture is no longer not only not acquiescent to Christianity but it is outright hostile to it. And some elements of our society are vehemently hostile. We have entered one of those periods of history where Christians can no longer be complacent that we just worship in our churches and things will be all right. The opposition to Christianity enters every home, every day if in no other way through the internet and the so-called mainstream media outlets. Arguments against the validity of Christianity are all around us. If we do not actively prepare to counter them the fabric of our society will continue to erode. VK: But the good news is that it does not have to be that way, does it? We have the truth on our side but we must equip ourselves to be able to present that truth. It is not up to us to change anyone’s heart. That’s God’s job. Our job is just to be able to witness to the truth in gentle and respectful ways. GREGG: As I said last time I was on Anchored by Truth, that there is nothing more important than our faith in God and not just any God but the God of the Bible. A correct understanding of God is the difference between an eternity in heaven or an eternity in hell. Those are pretty high stakes.. VK: But the good news is that it does not have to be that way, does it? We have the truth on our side but we must equip ourselves to be able to present that truth. It is not up to us to change anyone’s heart. That’s God’s job. Our job is just to be able to witness to the truth in gentle and respectful ways. Well, let’s do a very brief review of one of the major points that we discussed last time – a proof for God’s existence that you call the “metaphysical proof.” The metaphysical proof for God’s existence begins quite simply with the observation that we exist. And we know that we exist as contingent, dependent creatures. GREGG: And because we are dependent creatures we know we must depend on someone or something outside ourselves for our origin and for our continued existence. But that chain of dependency cannot go on forever. Somewhere there must be a Being that caused the origin of contingent beings and provides the resources or elements upon which they are dependent. We call that Being a Necessary Being. The Necessary Being must be uncaused and independent and therefore must be infinite because He existed before anything else. As such, there was nothing and no one who could place limits on him. And, when we look more closely we see that we possess the attributes of personality, rationality, and morality. The only possible reason we can possess such attribute is if the Necessary Being possessed them first. VK: The irresistible conclusion from this line of reasoning is that the Necessary Being satisfies all the qualities of a theistic God. He is self-existent, infinite, uncaused, personal, rational, and moral. So, the metaphysical proof for God is one way of demonstrating that God is – for lack of a better term – “necessary” to explain the universe we see around us. But, Dr. Alexander, you said that today you wanted to offer another line or argumentation that also demonstrates this same point. GREGG: Yes. Today, I want to move on to a look at the cosmological proof for God’s existence. The cosmological argument for the existence of God is probably the best known of all the many arguments that are used. The Cosmological Argument is an argument from consideration of the beginning of the universe – it comes from the Greek word cosmos meaning “universe, world.” There are two forms of the argument. The first says that the cosmos or universe needed a cause at its beginning, the second form argues that it needs a cause to continue existing. The first form is called the horizontal argument because it proceeds along the time line from the beginning. It is also called the kalam (Arabic: “eternal”) cosmological argument: the universe is not eternal, so it must have had a Cause. That Cause must be considered God. This argument has a long and venerable history even outside Christianity. For instance, there are Islamic philosophers such as Alfarabi and Avicenna who have been strong advocates for it. So, today I want to take a look at some of the scientific evidence that supports this form of the cosmological argument, i.e., it is evidence that reasons back to a Cause of the beginning of the universe. VK: Well, just to be sure that we are being clear for the listeners the Cosmological Argument for the existence of God goes like this: 1. The universe had a beginning. 2. Anything that had a beginning must have been caused by something else. 3. Therefore the universe was caused by something else - a Creator. GREGG: Yes. And to help us keep organized as we go through a discussion of some of the scientific evidence I want to use the 5 letter acronym “SURGE” to make these categories of evidence easier to remember. The “S” is Newton’s Second Law of Thermodynamics. The “U” is for the universe which is expanding. The “R” is for the radiation echo from space, more technically known as “microwave background radiation.” The “G” is for Great Galaxy Seeds. The “E” is for Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity. Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity was the beginning of the end for the idea that the universe is eternal. The theory has been verified to five decimal places, and it demands an absolute beginning for time, space, and matter. From General Relativity came the discoveries of the expanding universe, the radiation echo, and the great galaxy seeds. VK: And again, just to be clear, today there is no way in the brief time that we have allotted to each of these shows that we can cover all the material that is relevant to the cosmological argument. There are a great many allied issues that pertain to the issue of the origin and operation of the cosmos that we simply don’t have time to get into today. These are issues that are relevant to the general discussion of the validity of the Bible and the historicity of Genesis in particular – but they are outside the scope of today’s discussion. : GREGG: I agree. But just to illustrate your point let’s look at a scenario. Suppose someone were to say to you, “there’s no such thing – or person – as God; the universe has always been here; why does there need to be a ‘creator’?” Carl Sagan once said, ‘the cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be.’ VK: Then I might reply “what about the Big Bang? What about all the scientists who have accepted it as a fact, and have gone from that point to trying to figure out the age of the earth? Afterall, the mere fact that scientists are trying to establish the age of the universe tells us they don’t think it eternal.” GREGG: Then our hypothetical atheist might say, “But I just can’t accept all that Bible stuff – especially the Genesis stuff that says the universe is only six or seven thousand years old – that’s ridiculous – everyone knows there were dinosaurs on earth from about 120 million years ago to about sixty million years ago; where’s all that in your Bible? – isn’t that proof that the Bible is nothing more than a story – probably a myth – maybe a hoax?” VK: Then after reading your Sunday School notes I might reply, “That brings up some interesting questions. For instance, when it comes to dating the age of the earth many people are familiar with the process of using uranium and plutonium degradation to assign a date to the earth’s age. Many people may also have heard about potassium-argon dating or carbon-14 dating. All of these have been used extensively. But what most people don’t know is that when they have been used they come up with variable and inconsistent conclusions. Yet, there is another method - helium diffusion dating – that has its foundation in research from the 1970’s and was the work of a group of very reputable scientists. And helium diffusion dating shows the universe to be about six thousand years old. GREGG: And that is the whole reason I write those notes – to help people understand that some of the issues that people see as being settled are, in fact, very much still in doubt. To my knowledge helium diffusion dating has never been proven wrong. Furthermore, there was a leg bone of Tyrannosaurus Rex unearthed in 1990 and studied at the University of Montana. This particular leg bone was not only found to not be fully fossilized, but had blood cells and hemoglobin fragments remaining in it! How a bone that is supposed to be 60 million years old still has visible blood cells and hemoglobin is a complete mystery to scientists. But it is not a mystery if the bone is thousands of years old and not millions. The point of this scenario is to illustrate that many of the issues that people point to that they believe invalidate the Bible do not do so at all. But these are really peripheral questions that we can discuss some other time. The main question is whether or not the universe had a beginning, and the argument against there being a beginning is not only with the Bible, but with virtually all secular scientists. VK: And that’s an important point. The most widely accepted theory of the origin of the universe today is undoubtedly the so-called “Big Bang” theory. The Big Bang theory hypothesizes that about 14 to 16 billion years ago there was a truly cosmic explosion – the Big Bang – that created all the structures that we currently see around us in the universe. Now not all scientists agree with the Big Bang theory as the best explanation for the origin of the cosmos but it is the dominant theory today. So, what we are going to do next is proceed with an analysis of how even the Big Bang theory points to the fact that, if it were true, the universe had a beginning in space and time. This does not mean that we are agreeing with the validity of the theory. We are merely demonstrating that even by secular science’s most accepted hypothesis it is inescapable that the universe is not eternal. Now, when many secular scientists are asked what caused the Big Bang they just sort of shrug their shoulders or they dismiss the question as being irrelevant. But, of course, the question is not irrelevant at all. GREGG: No. It is not. But for today we’re going to confine ourselves to demonstrating that even if we were to accept the Big Bang theory we still find out that the universe cannot be eternal. In our last episode of Anchored by Truth we introduced the acronym SURGE to organize five categories of evidence that show that the universe had a start in space and time. So let’s look again at the S-U-R-G-E acronym for evidence of a beginning of the universe. VK: The “S” in SURGE stands for Newton’s Second Law of Thermodynamics. According to the second law of thermodynamics - in a closed, isolated system, such as the universe is - the amount of usable energy is constantly decreasing. Or, simply put, the universe is running out of power. Therefore, it cannot be eternal. Otherwise, it would have run out of usable energy long ago. GREGG: Exactly right. Things left to themselves, without outside intervention, tend toward disorder because of the decline in energy – the law of “entropy” [symbol S in physics, appropriately] which is a measure of the unavailability to do work, i.e., the tendency of a closed system toward disorder. Since the universe has not reached a state of total disorder, then this process has not been going on forever. The fact that the universe still has an abundance of usable energy tells us that the universe cannot be eternally old. VK: The “U” in SURGE is for the universe which is expanding. GREGG: Right. In 1916 Albert Einstein didn’t like where his theory of General Relativity was taking him. He was “irritated” that his calculations were indeed revealing that the universe was not eternal but had a beginning, i.e., all time, all space, and all matter had a starting point. History records how he tried to “fudge” his numbers by introducing a “constant” in order to show that the universe is static and to avoid the issue of a beginning. But in 1929 he looked through Edwin Hubble’s telescope and he could no longer avoid the obvious: the universe was indeed expanding. VK: And I believe that the evidence that the universe is indeed expanding is often referred to as the “redshift.” GREGG: Yes. The so-called redshift is an apparent displacement of the light waves coming from distant galaxies toward the longer wavelengths, i.e., toward the red end of the visible spectrum. This is usually interpreted as a “Doppler effect” resulting from the recession of the galaxies along the line of sight. The Doppler effect is the apparent change in the observed frequency of a wave as a result of relative motion between a source and an observer, e.g., the sound made by a low-flying aircraft as it approaches an observer is different from the sound made as it passes and flies away because of “compression” of the sound waves as it approaches, and “expansion” of the sound waves as it moves away. The redshift indicates that the distance between the galaxies is continuously increasing, i.e., the universe is continuously expanding. VK: Does the “redshift” tell us anything else? GREGG: Well, it told Einstein that his General Theory of Relativity was correct – much to his own disappointment. Dutch astronomer Willem de Sitter discovered that Einstein’s theory of General Relativity, if correct, required the universe to be expanding which meant it couldn’t be eternal. The rate at which the velocity of recession of the galaxies increases with distance as determined by the redshift is expressed as the Hubble constant. The reciprocal of the Hubble constant, the Hubble time, is a measure of the age of the universe, assuming that the rate of expansion has remained constant. The rate of expansion of the universe, whether speeding up or slowing down, is not fully agreed upon, but it seems likely that the gravitational attraction between the galaxies would result in slowing down the rate of expansion with time. So, there are some unknowns associated with an expanding universe but the one element that is not in debate is that it points to a universe that is not eternal. VK: And, again after reviewing your Sunday School series, the “R” in SURGE is for the radiation echo from space, more technically known as “microwave background radiation.” By 1948 three scientists had predicted that this radiation would be in space if the so-called Big Bang actually occurred. And in 1965 two scientists at Bell Labs, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, detected cosmic radiation that was coming at them from all directions. This discovery was huge because it confirmed the presence of heat and light radiation that would be the expected afterglow from the fireball of the gigantic Big Bang explosion. GREGG: Right. The light waves from the Big Bang are no longer visible because the wavelengths have been stretched by the expanding universe to wavelengths slightly shorter than those produced by a microwave oven. This was the nail in the coffin for any lingering hope that the universe is in an eternal steady state. Astronomer Robert Jastrow said this: “The discovery of the remnant of the primordial fireball radiation made a deep impression on astronomers. After this discovery, support for the Steady State theory weakened although some astronomers still favored it. The clincher, which has convinced all but a few doubting Thomases, is that the radiation discovered by Penzias and Wilson shows the characteristic pattern of intensities at different wavelengths and frequencies of radiation that matches the pattern of the radiation produced in an explosion … The idea of a universe that came into being abruptly is distasteful to the scientific mind. Yet the evidence for the expanding universe is too clear to be ignored.” VK: And, the “G” is for Great Galaxy Seeds. If the Big Bang actually occurred, scientists believed that we should see slight variations, or “ripples” in the temperature of the cosmic background radiation. These ripples would allow matter to congregate by gravitational attraction into galaxies. In 1989 the search for these ripples was initiated by the satellite called COBE for Cosmic Background Explorer. GREGG: Yes. The findings from COBE were announced in 1992 and were so incredible that Stephen Hawking called them “the most important discovery of the century, if not of all time.” What were the findings? Not only were the ripples discovered, but the ripples show that the explosion and expansion of the universe was so precise as to cause just enough matter to congregate as to allow for galaxy formation, i.e., to form “seeds,” but not enough to cause the universe to collapse back on itself. Any slight variation either way and biological life as we know it would not have been possible. The lead astronomer of the project, George Smoot, called the findings the “fingerprints of the maker.” COBE documented the presence of incredible energy seeds, the largest of which extends across one-third of the known universe. VK: And the “E” in SURG E is for Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity. This was the beginning of the end for the idea that the universe is eternal. The theory has been verified to five decimal places, and it demands an absolute beginning for time, space, and matter. From General Relativity came the discoveries of the expanding universe, the radiation echo, and the great galaxy seeds. GREGG: Right. Astronomer Robert Jastrow said this in an interview with Christianity Today: “Astronomers now find they have painted themselves into a corner because they have proven, by their own methods, that the world began abruptly in an act of creation to which you can trace the seeds of every star, every planet, every living thing in this cosmos and on the earth. And they have found that this happened as a product of forces they cannot hope to discover . . . That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact.” VK: Now I would like to clarify something for the benefit of our audience. Today we have been speaking of the origin of the universe using the conventions that are most commonly used in scientific circles today such as “Big Bang.” But we would like to point out that there are competent scientists, both Christian and non-Christian, who would disagree with idea of a “Big Bang.” They would not disagree that empirical observations point to a beginning for the universe. But they look at the same evidence that used to support the Big Bang theory and interpret it differently. GREGG: Right. That’s a very important note. The scientific evidence for the Cosmological Argument addresses the first premise in the argument, i.e., “The universe had a beginning.” We’ve used the SURGE acronym to make it easy to organize five categories of evidence from secular science that can be used to prove there was a beginning – usually called the “Big Bang” by the secular scientists. But as you’ve noted, not all astrophysicists are so secular, and some have postulated theories based on sound science that sound very biblical, using terms like “the deep” (Genesis 1:2), “the expanse” (1:6), and the six days of Creation. In our last episode I mentioned two books that provide alternate interpretations. The conclusions of the authors on the major question are the same. The universe had a beginning. But their understanding of the mechanics are different. The books I would direct you to are Starlight and Time by D. Russell Humphreys (Master Books, 1994), and the follow-up by the same author entitled Thousands, not Billions. VK: When we began this discussion of the cosmological argument we said there are two forms of the cosmological argument. Thus far we have only looked at the first of the two. The first says that the cosmos or universe needed a cause at its beginning. The second form argues that it needs a cause to continue existing. The first form is called the horizontal argument because it proceeds along the time line from the beginning. The second form of the cosmological argument is called the vertical cosmological argument, and it doesn’t reason from a beginning but from the being of the universe as it now exists. But whichever form of the argument is used, the scientific evidence that we have been talking about supports the cosmological argument. It is evidence that reasons back to a Cause of the beginning of the universe. GREGG: And this kind of evidence can be effective in helping bring people to the truth. For instance, as we mentioned last time, Jastrow started out as an agnostic but he came around to the fact that the nature of the universe persuaded him that the universe needed a creator. VK: Well, we hope everyone will join us next time as we continue this fascinating discussion about the arguments and evidence that demonstrates that there is a firm basis in logic and reason for our Christian faith. This sounds like a great time to go to God in prayer. Today let’s listen to a prayer for our friends. Good friends are a blessing from God and we should all take time regularly to pray for God’s mercy and favor to be with them. ---- PRAYER FOR FRIENDS VK: We’d like to remind our audience that a lot of our radio episodes are linked together in series of topics so if they missed any episodes or if they just want to hear one again, all of these episodes are available on your favorite podcast app. To find them just search on “Anchored by Truth by Crystal Sea Books.” If you’d like to hear more, try out crystalseabooks.com where “We’re not famous but our Boss is!” (Bible Quote from the New Living Translation) Genesis, Chapter 1, verses 3 and 4, New Living Translation

Episode 146 – Truth and Proof – Part 6 – A Creation Needs A Creator Welcome to Anchored by Truth brought to you by Crystal Sea Books. In John 14:6, Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life.” The goal of Anchored by Truth is to encourage everyone to grow in the Christian faith by anchoring themselves to the secure truth found in the inspired, inerrant, and infallible word of God. Script: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Genesis, Chapter 1, verse 1, New Living Translation ******** Hello! I’m Victoria K. Welcome to Anchored by Truth brought to you by Crystal Sea Books. We’re excited to be with you as we continue our series we’ve called “Truth and Proof.” This series is all about the truth that there is a God and that God is the God of the Bible. Then we’re going on to offer proof that supports that truth. Today we have Dr. Gregg Alexander back on the show with us. This is a real blessing for us because this series that we are doing was inspired by a series that Gregg presented to his Sunday School class several years ago. GREGG would you like to take a couple of minutes and tell us a little about your background and perhaps just a little bit about your own testimony? GREGG: - Introductory comments - VK: So, I’d like to remind everyone of the purpose of this series. We are learning how to defend the Christian faith. This defense is often termed “apologetics.” Now sometimes people will get the mistaken impression that apologetics is an arcane or esoteric area of study beyond the reach of ordinary Christians. Nothing could be further from the truth. Apologetics is simply the way we work out the command given to us in 1 Peter, chapter 3, verse 15 where we are told: “… if someone asks about your hope as a believer, always be ready to explain it. But do this in a gentle and respectful way.” That’s the New Living Translation. The truth is that any sincere, mature Christian can become an effective apologist – at least effective enough to demonstrate the two main points that are the concern of classical apologetics. The first point is the existence of God and the second point is that God is the God of the Bible. What do you think, GREGG? GREGG: I agree. It does take some time and effort to develop a well-grounded understanding of the principles and concepts that are usually included under the umbrella of apologetics – but when you consider the payoff it’s an investment well worth making. VK: What are you thinking? GREGG: Simply that there is nothing more important than our faith in God and not just any God but the God of the Bible. A correct understanding of God is the difference between an eternity in heaven or an eternity in hell. Those are pretty high stakes. And unfortunately, right now in our country and in our time none, or at least very few, of the cultural, academic, or societal forces are aligned to help preserve our faith. So, unlike times past, when you might have thought that some degree of common sense apologetics would have helped us become grounded in the basis for our faith – none of that is present today. But that doesn’t mean we can’t succeed in developing the strengths and skills we need. We can. With just a bit of concentration and thought people can not only know that there is a “god,” but also they can know a lot about the nature of that “god” including that logic and reason tell us that god is the God of the Bible. VK: So, where do you want to start today? Last time we covered the fact that even pagan philosophers have reached the realization that somehow, somewhere there must be a cause for everything that we see around us. We spent quite a bit of time on Aristotle’s thinking on the subject of ultimate causes and the kinds of changes we see from empirical observations of the universe. GREGG: And that was a great foundation for what I’d like to talk about today. I’d like to start by talking about what I call the “Metaphysical Proof of God’s Existence:” VK: Sounds intriguing. Where do you begin? GREGG: I begin with the most obvious statement of all – one that cannot be denied. Something exists and I’ll extend that a bit further to say I actually do exist. VK: Well, I can vouch for that. If you didn’t exist who would I be speaking with? GREGG: Precisely. Someone trying to deny my existence would be making a denial to a non-existent entity and that would be pretty silly. But something else I know, we all know for sure, is that I am a contingent being. I came into being and I change. Therefore, something must have caused my existence. I could exist or not exist. At one time I didn’t exist. Since there was a time I didn’t exist something must have caused me to come into being. The result of this line of reasoning is that we can be absolutely positive that I have a cause. Now nothing cannot cause something. Everything that has had a beginning has had a cause. VK: Again, all that seems perfectly obvious. So obvious, that is almost seems unnecessary to state it. GREGG: It is obvious but it is an essential step along our line of reasoning and I don’t want to skip any steps. I want everyone to be absolutely sure of the foundation that we’re building. So, once we’re sure that we know that I, and all human beings and other creatures for that matter, are contingent beings we can easily see they cannot account for their own existence. So, the next point in this metaphysical proof of God’s existence is that only a Necessary Being can cause a contingent being. Therefore, I am caused to exist by a Necessary Being. This follows undeniably from the points that we have already discussed. VK: Well, just to be sure that everyone is following along let’s define our terms. By contingent being you simply mean a being that might exist or might not exist. Such a being is dependent on something or someone else beyond itself for its existence. GREGG: Yes. And a Necessary Being is a being that does not depend on anyone or anything else to account for its existence. This Being accounts for its own existence or said slightly differently this Being is self-existent. It possesses the power of existence unto and by itself. VK: And since a contingent being cannot account for its own existence it would be dependent on a Necessary Being. Aristotle called this Being the “Unmoved Mover.” And some people refer to it as the Prime Mover. Everything in motion has to have been set in motion but somewhere there as to be a first cause for motion or change. GREGG: Exactly right. So, these points establish the fact that somewhere there is a Necessary Being that began the entire change of existence for everything else – for all contingent beings, structures, or artifacts. But let’s continue our line of reason. I know more about me than just that I exist. I know that I am a personal, rational, and moral kind of being since I engage in personal, rational, and moral actions and activities. I don’t just exist. I exist in a particular way with particular abilities and attributes. Therefore, it is reasonable for me to look for a cause for my abilities and attributes. VK: Again, that follows undeniably. When Dr. Jonathan Sarfati was helping us with our Truth in Genesis series he would often remind us that being able to explain the operation of something is quite different from being able to explain the origin of the thing. It’s one thing to know that a car needs gas, or batteries, to move down a road but that’s very different from explaining how the car was built in the first place. GREGG: But when we see a car we know that somewhere at sometime there was a car builder that had to create the car. And we know that that car builder must have had the requisite knowledge and abilities to create the car to function the way it does. The car didn’t just magically create its own ability to move and carry passengers and cargo. Well, since I know that I possess the ability to engage in personal, rational, and moral actions and activities I can know that this Necessary Being must be a personal, rational, and moral kind of being. The Being couldn’t give me something he didn’t already possess. So, by the Principle of Analogy I can know that I am similar to him. VK: I think I know where you are going with this particular thought. Since you are a personal, rational, and moral kind of being we can know that this Necessary Being is personal, rational, and moral. He must possess these attributes because we owe our origin to him. So, he must have imparted these attributes to us. If he had not how could we explain our possession of them? GREGG: That is exactly right but now we have to qualify that observation. The Necessary Being does possess personal, rational, and moral attributes but he possesses them in a necessary way, not in a contingent way. In other words, these attributes must exist within the essence of the Necessary Being. No one gave these attributes to the Necessary Being. The Necessary Being has always existed so there was no way for another entity to pass anything to him at a point of origin. Any attributes the Necessary Being possesses are part of his very essence. VK: The Necessary Being is eternal and uncaused. I don’t want to be tedious but this being is Necessary. He’s necessary because if he didn’t exist no contingent being would ever have existed. The Necessary Being is necessary for anything else to exist – including us. So, if there weren’t a Necessary Being out there, or in here for that matter, we contingent beings wouldn’t be around at all to be talking about him. Our existence is contingent on his existence. This isn’t the kind of thing must of us spend our days discussing. GREGG: Well, as a wise man once said, “Given the state of our nation and world maybe it would have been a good idea for us to spend our days discussing these kind of ideas.” More damage may have been done to the world from the idea that the universe has no creator and that human beings are just a random collection of undirected molecules than from any other idea in history. As we’ve been talking about, nothing that is dependent or contingent can come into being without being created by a Necessary Being. And that Necessary Being must be personal, rational, and moral or he could not have created personal, rational, or moral creatures. Furthermore, that Necessary Being must be unchanging, unlimited and singular. VK: How can we be sure about that? GREGG: Because a Necessary Being does not and in fact cannot come to be. A Necessary Being has no possibility to be other than it is. And that Necessary Being cannot be caused by another, undergo change, or be limited by any possibility of what it could be. And there cannot be more than one Necessary Being because there cannot be two infinite beings. If there were two Beings then each would be limited by the presence of the other. That would mean that neither Being would be unlimited. VK: Well, the logic behind that chain of thought seems to be impeccable. We know that we are contingent, dependent creatures. That’s easily proven. Cut off oxygen for ten minutes, water for a couple of weeks, or food for a month or so and we will all find out that we are dependent on forces and substances outside ourselves to maintain our existence. So, someone or something must be there to supply what we need. And that someone or something must have always existed otherwise there would have been no beginning to the chain of dependency. And we know can see that that Ultimate Beginning has to be unlimited, unchanging, personal, rational, and moral. If it were not we couldn’t be here and possess the attributes that we do. Right? GREGG: Right. Therefore, beginning with our own existence we have built a line of reasoning that one necessary, eternal, uncaused, unlimited (= infinite), rational, personal, and moral being exists. So, now let’s move to assigning a better, or at least more user friendly label, for that Being. Such a Being is appropriately called “God” in the theistic sense, because He possesses all the essential characteristics of a theistic God. This is a powerful, I might say irrefutable, argument that the theistic God exists – the One God Who is prior to all that had a beginning. “over and above,” i.e., transcendent over all that had a beginning – the One Being Who cannot not be, cannot not know, cannot be limited in power or presence or perfection, cannot be other than Reality – cannot be other than Truth. Simply stated, God is not a “logical principle,” but the Giver of logical principles. VK: Wow. When you think about it – and sadly not many of us do – this line of reasoning that demonstrates a Theistic God is something any thinking person can grasp. We’ve only been talking about this metaphysical proof for God for about 15 minutes. So, in 15 minutes or less we’ve been able to follow a chain of thought tht moves from simply being aware of our existence to being aware that a Theistic God must exist. This seems almost deceptively simple. GREGG: I don’t know that I would say that it is “simple” but I would say that it is understandable by any person who will take – as you said – to think about it. And one of the magnificent parts of this line of argumentation is that no one needs any special preparation to grasp it. No one needs a special college course, seminary class, or even enormous library to absorb it. It just takes pulling ourselves away from our phones, TVs, and social media accounts long enough to focus on a little deep thinking. Surely, our God deserves that much of our time and attention. VK: So, that’s what you call the metaphysical proof for God’s existence. And I think anyone who was paying close attention would see that it is very persuasive. In fact, it’s hard to see how someone could reasonably disagree with its line of reasoning. We exist. We exist as contingent, dependent creatures. Dependent creatures must depend on someone or something outside themselves, but that chain of dependency cannot go on forever. Somewhere there must be a Being that caused the origin of contingent beings and provides that upon which they are dependent. We call that Being a Necessary Being. The Necessary Being must be uncaused and independent and therefore must be infinite because He existed before anything else. As such, there was nothing and no one who could place limits on him. And, when we look more closely we see that we possess the attributes of personality, rationality, and morality. The only possible reason we can possess such attribute is if the Necessary Being possessed them first. So, the Necessary Being satisfies all the qualities of a theistic God. He is self-existent, infinite, uncaused, personal, rational, and moral. Does that just about sum it up? GREGG: Yes, but let me hasten to add that the metaphysical argument for God’s existence is not the only way of demonstrating that the God of the Bible must exist. I know we don’t have a lot of time remaining today but let’s at least take a quick look one or two others. Now, the three best known arguments for the existence of God are the Cosmological Argument, the Teleological Argument, and the Moral Argument. I say that these are the best known because there are other arguments for God existence but I want to keep this discussion as practical as we can. We just don’t have the time to be exhaustive. The first of these three is the Cosmological Argument which is an argument from consideration of the beginning of the universe (Gk, cosmos = “universe, world”). The second is the Teleological Argument from design (Gk., telos = “end, purpose”) and the third is Moral Argument. VK: And let me note that for anyone who would like to pursue a more exhaustive study Crystal Sea Books founder, RD Fierro, and you highly recommend Norman Geisler’s Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. Much of the information Dr. Alexander is presenting now can be found on pages 276 through 283 of that book. GREGG: The Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics is a particular favorite of mine and I had the pleasure of meeting Dr. Geisler and I have enormous respect for the work he did. He is now home with Jesus but the value of his work remains. So, let’s move on. The Cosmological Argument begins with the fact that there is a universe rather than none at all, which must have been caused by something beyond itself. The law of causality says that every finite thing is caused by something other than itself. There are two basic forms of this argument. The first form of the Cosmological Argument says that the cosmos or universe needed a cause at its beginning. The second form argues that it needs a cause to continue existing. The argument that the universe had a beginning caused by something beyond the universe can be stated this way: 1. The universe had a beginning. 2. Anything that had a beginning must have been caused by something else. 3. Therefore the universe was caused by something else (a Creator). VK: That seems pretty straightforward. That’s the basic line of argumentation. So, what evidence can be cited in support of the validity of the argument? GREGG: A wide range of both scientific and philosophical evidence can be used to support this argument. For instance, time cannot go back into the past forever, for it is impossible to pass through an actual infinite number of moments. You can never finish an infinite series of real things. If this is so, then time must have had a beginning. If the world never had a beginning, then we could not have reached now. But we have reached now, so time must have begun at a particular point and proceeded to today. Therefore the world is a finite event after all and needs a cause for its beginning. This part of the argument can be summarized like this: 1. An infinite number of moments cannot be traversed. 2. If an infinite number of moments had to elapse before today, then today would never have come. 3. But today has come. 4. Therefore, an infinite number of moments have not elapsed before today (i.e., the universe had a beginning) 5. But whatever has a beginning is caused by something else. 6. Hence, there must be a Cause (Creator) of the universe. VK: So, the Cosmological Argument begins with the simple point that there is undeniably a cosmos. Something exists. We can all discuss the various elements and parameters of the nature of the cosmos but it is undeniable that we live within a cosmos. And once we begin looking carefully at that cosmos we can start to see that the individual elements of the cosmos always direct us back to the same basic point. The universe had a beginning and anything that has a beginning cannot explain its own existence. But I think we have to be careful. Sometimes when we talk about these things it can be very challenging. As we’ve said. These are not the kinds of things we normally talk about in everyday conversation. GREGG: I agree. There are great arguments for the existence of God that are a lot more fun than the rather laborious points we’ve been going through. But we have to remember that these metaphysical first principles are the bedrock of reality, and they are the spring board from which comes the other arguments, for most of the commonly used arguments are in some manner related to cause and effect. The principles and the metaphysical proof for God’s existence that I have just laid out are probably a bit cumbersome for casual conversation. So, in our next episode of Anchored by Truth I hope you’ll let me come back and give the audience some arguments that are handy, easy to remember, easy to understand, and very difficult to refute. VK: Can we get a sneak peek at what some of those might be? GREGG: The scientific evidence for the Cosmological Argument always goes back to the first premise in the argument, i.e., “The universe had a beginning.” So, I like to use five categories of evidence from secular science that prove there was a beginning – usually called the “Big Bang” by the secular scientists. VK: But we would like to add that in this context the term “Big Bang” is just a label – a shorthand way of saying the universe had a beginning. So, while secular scientists may call the beginning of the universe a “Big Bang” the scientific evidence of the universe’s beginning fits equally well, or better, with an instantaneous act of creation by an almighty God. GREGG: Agreed. So very quickly, the word SURGE, makes these categories of evidence easier to remember. The “S” is Newton’s Second Law of Thermodynamics. The “U” is for the universe which is expanding. The “R” is for the radiation echo from space, more technically known as “microwave background radiation.” The “G” is for Great Galaxy Seeds. The “E” is for Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity. This was the beginning of the end for the idea that the universe is eternal. The theory has been verified to five decimal places, and it demands an absolute beginning for time, space, and matter. From General Relativity came the discoveries of the expanding universe, the radiation echo, and the great galaxy seeds. VK: And the fact that the universe’s beginning points to the need for God was recognized by well-known Astronomer Robert Jastrow. Jastrow said this in an interview with Christianity Today: “Astronomers now find they have painted themselves into a corner because they have proven, by their own methods, that the world began abruptly in an act of creation to which you can trace the seeds of every star, every planet, every living thing in this cosmos and on the earth. And they have found that this happened as a product of forces they cannot hope to discover . . . That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact.” GREGG: Jastrow started out as an agnostic but he came around to the fact that the nature of the universe persuaded him that the universe needed a creator. Interestingly, not all astrophysicists are so secular, and some have postulated theories based on sound science that sound very biblical, using terms like “the deep” (Genesis 1:2), “the expanse” (1:6), and the six days of Creation. Two books I would direct listeners to are Starlight and Time by D. Russell Humphreys (Master Books, 1994), and the follow-up by the same author entitled Thousands, not Billions. VK: Well, we hope everyone will join us next time as we continue this fascinating discussion with Dr. Alexander. This sounds like a time to go to God I prayer. Since our children are back in school and busily working their way through the academic year, today let’s listen to a prayer for all of them who could benefit from a little divine help with upcoming tests. ---- PRAYER FOR TAKING A TEST VK: We’d like to remind our audience that a lot of our radio episodes are linked together in series of topics so if they missed any episodes or if they just want to hear one again, all of these episodes are available on your favorite podcast app. To find them just search on “Anchored by Truth by Crystal Sea Books.” If you’d like to hear more, try out crystalseabooks.com where “We’re not famous but our Boss is!” (Bible Quote from the New Living Translation) Genesis, Chapter 1, verse 1, New Living Translation

Episode 144 – Truth and Proof – Part 4 – The Basics of Logic Welcome to Anchored by Truth brought to you by Crystal Sea Books. In John 14:6, Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life.” The goal of Anchored by Truth is to encourage everyone to grow in the Christian faith by anchoring themselves to the secure truth found in the inspired, inerrant, and infallible word of God. Script: Come now, let us reason together, says the LORD… Isaiah, Chapter 1, verse 18, English Standard Version ******** VK: Hello! I’m Victoria K. Welcome to Anchored by Truth brought to you by Crystal Sea Books. Today we’re going to continue with the series we recently started on Anchored by Truth that we calling “Truth and Proof.” As we mentioned in our first couple of episodes this series was inspired by a teaching series that Dr. Gregg Alexander did for his Sunday school class a few years ago. The reason we call this series truth and proof is because we’re going through a step-by-step reasoning process to show that it is possible to know the truth and prove that the Christian faith is strongly supported by logic, reason, and evidence. We’re following Dr. Alexander’s teaching approach because he did a magnificent job of clearly establishing the truth and proof of the Christian faith. I’m in the studio today with RD Fierro, author and founder of Crystal Sea Books. RD, where are we headed today? RD: I’d also like to welcome all the listeners today and thank them for joining us. This is another one of the series that we do that requires our listeners to really engage their brains and think more deeply about their faith. We know this can take some extra effort but we strongly believe that those who do it will be richly rewarded – not only because they will come a deeper and richer understanding of their faith but also because they are being obedient to the command that Jesus gave in the Gospel of Mark, chapter 12, verse 30. VK: In the New Living Translation that verse says “And you must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your mind, and all your strength.” So, this series is one in which we are certainly giving listeners a chance to love the Lord with all their minds. RD: That is definitely true. But in diving more deeply into the underpinnings of their faith the listeners are also making a determined effort – that’s strength. And they are demonstrating that they want a deeper relationship with the author of their salvation – so that is expressing their heart’s desire. VK: And the reason we believe they will be rewarded is because all of that represents one form of obedience to the Lord. And the Lord rewards obedience. And in a certain sense it is as hard, or harder, to be obedient to the Lord when it comes to the use of our time and minds as it is with the use of our money. RD: That is also true. A lot of time when we think about what we are called to give to the Lord we think primarily in terms of our money. Or sometimes we may think of our time – whether we volunteer at church, or a homeless shelter, or at a crisis pregnancy center. All of those are certainly important. But when we apply ourselves to studying our faith there is a sense in which we are giving to the Lord in a more personal and intimate way. It takes a minute or two to write a check or do an online donation. Serving at church or a parachurch ministry takes more time but it may not engage our minds. I can mow the church lawn or help with the bake sale and not fully engage my mind. And I certainly don’t want to diminish the importance of doing any of that. But when I sit down to study the Bible, the background and meaning of the texts, and especially when I prepare myself to be a better witness to my friends and neighbors – that can be hard, really hard. VK: So, the people who do it are truly showing where their priorities lie. And studying not only what they believe but why they believe it demonstrates they are placing a very high priority on the things of God. So, how are we going to help the listeners do that today? In our last couple of episodes we’ve spent a lot of our time talking about truth. We did that because we insist that the Bible is true. But that insistence would be meaningless if truth didn’t exist in the first place. RD: Well, let’s start out by briefly reviewing some of the progress we’ve made so far. Truth is what corresponds to the facts, i.e., it corresponds to reality. Truth is absolute, and the absoluteness of it cannot be denied without using thoughts and words and arguments form others that are meant to be understood by us as absolutely true. Absolute truth is objective, i.e., it corresponds to the object to which it refers. It is not dependent on our opinions, observations, calculations, emotions, attitudes, or knowledge in any way – it simply “is what is.” VK: So, those are positive or affirmative statements about truth. But not all people agree with those affirmations. In our last episode of Anchored by Truth we covered some of the philosophies that deny those affirmations. Why don’t you briefly review some of those? RD: I’d be glad to. Agnosticism says that absolute truth cannot be known, or, at least it says that we can know appearances of things, but we can’t know the thing in itself, i.e., we can’t know the essence of the thing. Skepticism says that we should doubt all claims of absolute truth. Relativism affirms that there is no absolute truth; and post-modernism refuses to admit to any absolute truth, or to even allow truth claims to be made. VK: But none of those philosophies hold up under scrutiny do they? In effect, each of these four philosophies self-destructs under the weight of its own affirmations. This is very similar to a point that recurred during our “Lord of Logic” series. The classic example of a statement that is self-refuting is that there is no such thing as absolute truth. We should ask anyone who agrees with that statement whether the statement they say they agree with is absolutely true. So, this points out a concept that all thinking Christians must master. The first test we should always apply to a premise is the premise itself. If we would learn to do that we would quickly realize that much of what passes for sophisticated philosophy is actually nonsense. RD: I agree. Let’s take a just a minute and see how each of these philosophies fails its own premise or test. Agnosticism has two forms. The strong form of agnosticism affirms that all truth is unknowable. The soft form of agnosticism says that at least we can’t know reality even if we can know appearances. If the agnostic is correct in his belief then he – and we – can’t even know the truth of his own statement. Skepticism affirms that we should doubt everything – except, of course, the statement that we should doubt all truth claims. VK: Said slightly differently skeptics do not instruct us to doubt their claims – only the claims of others including those who say that absolute truth exists. All that really needs to be asked to the skeptic is, “are you sure, or should we both doubt what you are saying?” RD: Correct. Relativism straightforwardly denies absolute truth and simply says that the best we can do is compare things to one another. So, the reply we make to the relativist is “should I take what you are saying as absolute truth, or is it also a ‘relative truth’?” Post modernism affirms the rule of “deconstructionism” which is to say that all statements except for the statement that all statements should be deconstructed. Post modernism changes the rules of communication to say that the meaning a statement contains is determined by listener not the speaker. Post-modernism permits the listener to “deconstruct” language such as changing the meaning of words to anything that suits the listener’s preferred worldview. So we would say to the post-modernist, “do you want me to understand what you are saying, or would you rather I understood it in the way that best suits my situation?” VK: So, each one of these four philosophies denies that absolute truth exists but then goes on to uses absolute statements to define its own belief system. So each philosophy actually affirms that there is, after all, some absolute truth because if they always describe their own statements of belief as if they were absolutely true. RD: Exactly. VK: And just a reminder to our audience we addressed similar points in our “Lord of Logic” series which is available through most major podcasting apps. But part of the reason we’re going over all this now is to reinforce the point that there are certain concepts that are fundamental to all correct thinking and logic. And it’s becoming more and more essential that Christians become familiar with those concepts isn’t it? RD: Yes, primarily as a way of enabling Christians to stand firm in their faith as so many criticisms are hurled at them. Some of these criticisms come from people who are seemingly well-educated and sophisticated, but as we’ve been describing when you examine what the actually believe, it’s just nonsense. So, one principle Christians should keep in mind when they encounter objections to our faith is to test the objection using its own criteria. As you mentioned, the first test we should always apply to a premise is the premise itself. Doing so is a relatively straightforward application of some of the basic laws of logic. Many commentators will recognize that, in logic, there are three fundamental laws, or some people call them principles, of all rational thought. They are: • The law of identity (A is A). • The law of non-contradiction (A is not non-A at the same time in the same relationship). • The law of the excluded middle (either A or non-A). VK: Well, those sound simple and obvious enough but let’s go over them individually just to be sure we’re all singing out of the same hymnal. RD: The law of identity simply says that something is, and must be, itself. Now I know that sounds so simple that some people would wonder what the point is in stating such a law or principle. But the need for the law identity will become far more clear as we begin to consider questions about the legitimacy of faith or belief systems. For instance, one claim that is often made in contemporary culture is that all religious systems are equally valid – so it’s ok to believe whatever you want as long as you’re sincere. This claim obliterates the very considerable differences in religious systems. Some religions are monotheistic (belief in one God). Others are polytheistic (belief in many gods). Well, such differing claims are irreconcilably different. As such, if one is true the others are false. And the process of establishing this very important distinction begins by simply recognizing that a thing, a person, a belief system, is and must be itself. So, when you combine the law of identity with the law of non-contradiction you have the beginning of the logical process by which such distinctions are shown to be undeniably true. VK: Formally stated the law of non-contradiction says that “A cannot be both A and non-A at the same time and in the same relationship.” The classic example is a woman who may be both a mother and a daughter at the same time but not in the same relationship. Mary cannot be the child of the same children to whom she is the mother. RD: Right. Again, the law of non-contradiction is so obvious that it hardly seems necessary to state it, but all too often today it is necessary. There are belief systems and philosophies that say that it is possible to accept two contradictory things at the same time as being true. The statement that all religions are valid is in essence this kind of a claim. But again this is nonsense. The law of non-contradiction guards us from that nonsense and like all of these basic laws, or first principles, the law of non-contradiction cannot be denied without using it. If someone contends that the law of non-contradiction isn’t valid they are contending that the opposite premise must be true. Anyone who says that “opposites can both be true” does not give you the option of believing the opposite of that statement. VK: So, like other first principles, the law of non-contradiction is undeniable. Norman Geisler says, “The direct basis for the law of non-contradiction is its self-evident nature. And the indirect proof is shown by the fact that any attempt to deny it implies it. That is, it is a necessary condition for all rational thought.” So, what about the law of the excluded middle (either A or non-A)? RD: This, again, is an obvious but necessary observation. A good example would be the statement “I am sitting in a chair.” Now, if I am truly sitting in a chair, then all other possibilities for the position of my body are excluded. I am not standing, lying, or sitting in a sofa or bathtub. VK: I, for one, am glad about the bathtub thing. RD: So am I. It’s chilly in the studio this morning. At any rate, there are many conditions that are important to demonstrate the existence of God where it must be one way or another. VK: I think we’re going to need an example of what you’re thinking about. RD: We spoke in one of earlier episodes about the fact that it is important to have an absolutely firm starting point for proving that God exists. One such starting point is demonstrating that we exist. And we said that one way we can demonstrate our own existence is through Descartes famous maxim “I think therefore I am.” Something must be something before it can do anything. Thinking is doing so I must be in existence before I could think. So, a slightly different way of stating the possible choices that we’re choosing between is “being or non-being.” VK: In other words something can, and I’m not quoting Shakespeare though it sounds like it, something can “be or not be.” There is no third possibility. Nothing can hide in the cracks between being and non-being. We either exist or we don’t. But if we do exist, which we do because we all think, then we are then off on a search to explain our existence. But that would be getting ahead of where we are in our line of reasoning. RD: It’s a little ahead but not by much because one of ideas we’re combatting – and we’ve sort of alluded to this – is the idea that religious pluralism is valid. VK: Religious pluralism is the belief that every religion is true. Religious pluralism says that each religion provides a genuine encounter with the Ultimate, whoever or whatever that is. Religious pluralism says one may be better than the others, but all religions are adequate. In this view all roads lead to “God,” all sincere belief systems are valid, and each religion is only an incomplete view of the whole picture. Some people who support religious pluralism like to use the parable of three blind men and the elephant. One felt the leg and said, “it’s a tree;” one felt the tail and said, “it’s a rope;” one felt the side and said, “it’s a wall.” They then compare notes on what they felt, and learn they are in complete disagreement. The story is used to indicate that reality may be viewed differently depending upon one's perspective, suggesting that what seems an absolute truth may be relative due to the deceptive nature of half-truths – that people tend to understand only a tiny portion of reality and then extrapolate all manner of dogmas from that, each claiming that only his understanding is correct. This parable is used to refute the idea of absolute truth by implying that they are all right. RD: Yes. Religious pluralism is a very popular idea in our contemporary culture and even some so-called mainline Christian denominations have accepted some form of it. And the parable you cited is a common way religious pluralism is defended. But let’s take a second look at the parable. Far from it proving that all belief systems are equally valid, in fact, it does the opposite. Look at the facts: all any of the men perceived was an elephant! And their sincerity in what they believed did not change that fact. Plus, the men are blind! They can’t see what’s in front of them. Their visual impairment does not confer on to them the power of sound judgment. Rather than all of them being right, they are all wrong! So, the absolute truth, i.e., what corresponds to the way things really are, is that 1) the animal they felt is an elephant, and 2) they are absolutely wrong. What can we gain from this? Our goal should be to test for and determine the truth. Sincerity is not a test for truth – correspondence is. VK: Religious pluralism evaluates Christianity this way: “Christianity is exclusive; it claims to be the one and only true religion. This places Christians at odds with the modern movements to study comparative religion and work at interfaith communing. One Christian apologist, Alister McGrath, put is this way. “How can Christianity’s claims to truth be taken seriously when there are so many rival alternatives and when truth itself has become a devalued notion? No one can lay claim to possession of the truth. It is all a question of perspective. All claims to truth are equally valid. There is no universal or privileged vantage point that allows anyone to decide what is right and what is wrong.” That’s from his book, Challenge of Pluralism, page 365. RD: So, religious pluralism is one belief system that we can evaluate using the laws of logic that we were discussing. And when we do we find out that religious pluralism violates the law of non-contradiction and the law of the excluded middle. If we are to take religious pluralism seriously we find out that it requires that we simultaneously embrace contradictory propositions. Let’s go back to monotheism vs polytheism. Monotheism says there is one and only one God. Polytheism says there are many gods. If monotheism is true then polytheism is false. If polytheism is true then monotheism is false. The two different basic religious premises cannot be true and there is no third possibility. So, we are forced to make a choice between the two. And logic and reason tell us that the truth must be found in the premise that corresponds to reality. VK: What you’re saying is that Logic tells us that there must be a real set of facts somewhere – even if we don’t know them – that answers our most basic questions of whether or not a “god” exists, and, if so, which god. That’s one of the two basic points that is essential to good Christian apologetics. At this point we’ve learned enough to be absolutely certain of at least one thing: a religion that does not correspond to the facts is a false religion – because truth corresponds to reality in religion as well as everything else. And that brings us to the step number two in the process of proving not only the existence of God, but of the truth that there is One and Only One God and that God is the God of the Bible. RD: Right. In our process of proving those two main points we’ve now finished the process of demonstrating that truth is absolute and it is knowable. And we’ve shown that the laws of logic enable us to not only know that truth is absolute and knowable but also that they enable us to move forward in evaluating the various claims made by competing religious systems. Now in encounters with atheists, skeptics, relativists, family members, co-workers, people who knock on your door, or people who may be sitting beside you in the pew, this brief discussion of absolute truth may be all you need to convince someone that they are on the wrong track and need to get over to the truth side. But if a person cannot accept that truth is “telling it like it really is,” we’re going to have a tough time leading them to believe the Absolute Truth of Jesus Christ. VK: But that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t try to help them. For some people just realizing that some of the current myths and popular belief systems lead to irreconcilable contradictions may be enough to put them on the road to truth. But for others we may have to provide more help in the same way it’s important to distinguish between real and counterfeit money. A twenty dollar bill and a counterfeit twenty dollar bill have many things in common, and, in fact, appear to have more similarities than differences: they are the same shape, color, and design, and they have the same words and pictures. But one is real and the other is not. How do we tell which is the counterfeit and which is real? The answer is by close examination and study in order to thoroughly know the real one. The same principle applies to our study of Christianity. Logic tells us that there must be a real set of facts somewhere – even if we don’t know them – that answers our most basic questions of whether or not a “god” exists, and, if so, which god. RD: So, here’s where we are in our overall process of proving that there is a God and that that God is the God of the Bible. The claim that God exists is itself a truth claim. Well, we’ve shown that truth is absolute and knowable though we have to tackle the particular truth claim that God exists. But at least we know that absolute truth exists. And we’ve seen that the philosophies that disagree with the existence of absolute truth are all self-refuting. They all fail the test that is established by their central premise. VK: For instance, if a skeptic says we must doubt everything we may ask the skeptic whether we’re allowed to doubt their demand that we doubt everything. If a relativist says all truth is relative we ask the relativist whether their claim about all truth being relative is an absolute or relative truth. RD: Yes. And today we’ve seen that there are basic, self-evident, and irrefutable laws of logic which affirm that truth is knowable and absolute – and also affirm the self-defeating nature of the objections to the existence of absolute truth. These laws of logic, which are sometimes termed “first principles” cannot be refuted because their truth must be assumed in any attempted refutation. For instance anyone who contends that the law of non-contradiction doesn’t apply is contending there is an opposite principle that does apply. But they certainly don’t mean that their contention and the opposite are both equally applicable. VK: Now we know that all of this can produce some head scratching and even some headaches. But once Christians master these principles it produces a Christian who can encounter the barrage of criticism aimed today at the Christian faith and emerge unscathed. And as important as that is for adults it’s even more important for our kids and grandkids. Apologetics, as an area of study, isn’t first and foremost a way to win arguments. It’s a way to protect immature believers as well as hopefully rescue some others from the fire. Well, sounds like a great time to pray. Today let’s listen to a prayer for restoration of the worship of the one true God to our communities and nation since it is only through that restoration that our unsaved friends and neighbors have the hope for salvation. ---- PRAYER FOR ILLUMINATION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT VK: We’d like to remind our audience that a lot of our radio episodes are linked together in series of topics so if they missed any episodes or if they just want to hear one again, all of these episodes are available on your favorite podcast app. To find them just search on “Anchored by Truth by Crystal Sea Books.” If you’d like to hear more, try out crystalseabooks.com where “We’re not famous but our Boss is!” (Bible Quote from the English Standard Version) Isaiah, Chapter 1, verse 18, English Standard Version

Episode 143 – Truth and Proof – Part 3 – Objections to Knowing Truth Welcome to Anchored by Truth brought to you by Crystal Sea Books. In John 14:6, Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life.” The goal of Anchored by Truth is to encourage everyone to grow in the Christian faith by anchoring themselves to the secure truth found in the inspired, inerrant, and infallible word of God. Script: The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans, Chapter 1, verses 18 through 20 ******** VK: Hello! I’m Victoria K. Welcome to Anchored by Truth brought to you by Crystal Sea Books. We’re excited to be with you as we continue with our recently started series on Anchored by Truth that we’re calling “Truth and Proof.” As we mentioned in our first couple of episodes this series was inspired by a teaching series that Dr. Gregg Alexander did for his Sunday school class a few years ago. And I’m pleased to announce that today we are joined by Dr. Alexander to help us push deeper into why Christians can be so confident that the Christian faith has a firm basis in reason and evidence. Dr. Alexander was a practicing physician for more than xx years but more importantly he has taught an adult Sunday school class for more than 25 years. Dr. Alexander, would you like to introduce yourself to the Anchored by Truth audience? Gregg: It’s a pleasure to be with you today. I really admire the fact that Anchored by Truth has devoted itself to supporting and demonstrating the inspiration and infallibility of scripture. I am also grateful that you decided to do this series on “Truth and Proof.” As you mentioned several years ago I wanted to help my Sunday school students begin to understand that Christianity is a faith that is not only supported by logic and reason but also that logic and reason properly applied can help lead people into a deeper relationship with Jesus. VK: We agree. In our first couple of episodes we’ve also mentioned that the primary reason we think apologetics is an important area of study for Christians is because apologetics can be used to support evangelism. And this particularly true in today’s culture when it seems as though we’ve lost some of the common touchpoints about truth and faith that used to be accepted without question. Gregg: I think that’s true. Years ago, if you said to someone in our nation that such-and-such a principle was important because it was in the Bible, no one thought anything about your statement. But today, if you encounter a non-believer and fall back on the authority of the Bible the other person is likely to say, “well, I don’t believe in the Bible and I don’t accept its authority.” So, then the believer is faced with the question of where do you go from there? Questions like that are why studying apologetics can be very useful for people like us, and be for the eternal benefit of others. If you know why the Bible is authoritative for all persons – not just for believers – and if the other person is a sincere seeker who will listen to you, then there is a chance that that person may be saved – and that is the purpose of apologetics, evangelism, and a big part of the Christian life. Christianity is a faith that is “other-directed.” 1st Chronicles 28:9 says, “for the Lord searches every heart and understands every motive behind the thoughts. If you seek him, he will be found by you . . .” In my series I set out to prove the truth of that verse. VK: So, in this series on Anchored by Truth we began in the same place as your Sunday school series - with the building blocks of apologetics. We started with the things that everyone can understand regardless of what they already know, or think they know, about religion in general, and Christianity in particular. And last time we spent a lot of our time talking about truth. After all, we want people to understand that the Bible is true and accurate in matters pertaining to fact and history. But emphasizing that the Bible is true would be meaningless if truth didn’t exist in the first place. Gregg: That’s a very important point for people to understand. Too often today you hear people say something like “you have your truth and that’s fine for you but that’s not my truth.” When people say that, they have committed the sin or equivocation. They have used the word “truth” as an improper substitute for the word “opinion” or “preference.” Real truth is always absolute. It is not subject to whims, opinions, or individual or group preferences. You wouldn’t think that would be a controversial concept but today is often is. One of the most important services the church can provide society today is the simple reminder that truth exists, is knowable, and absolute. People who reject this basic concept not only create peril for language and communication. They are in grave peril for their souls. The Bible clearly teaches the correspondence view of truth. The ninth commandment is, “you shall not give false testimony about your neighbor” (Exodus 2:16), i.e., tell it like it is. Deuteronomy 18:21-22 – “You may say to yourselves, ‘How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the Lord?’ 22 If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken.” I know you covered some of this last time. VK: We did. So, today we want to continue from where we left off last time. As you’ve mentioned today there are objections to the existence of absolute truth. I know you covered those in your Sunday school class. Why don’t we get into some of what you covered? Gregg: Well, one frequent objection to the existence of absolute truth is that we can have only probabilities, not certainties. In other words, someone might contend that we can never attain the degree of certainty in our minds that we can be sure anything is true. The response to this objection can be found in that there are certain truths that cannot be reasonably denied. For instance, neither I nor anyone else can deny that I exist. If someone tried to deny that I exist the immediate question would be “what’s the point of making the denial?” Similarly, you cannot reasonably deny that there are no square circles or four-sided triangles. Those things are true formally by definition. Furthermore, something can be absolutely true even if there is not enough evidence to prove it. Evidence, or the lack of it, doesn’t change a fact. VK: We addressed some similar points in our “Lord of Logic” series which is available through most major podcasting apps. But I think this is a good reminder that the concepts we are discussing now are fundamental to all correct thinking and logic. What are some other objections people use to object to the existence of truth? Gregg: Another frequent objection to the existence of absolute truth is that comparisons show that truth is relative, i.e., comparisons change depending on what things are being compared. The response to this objection is relative comparisons are absolutely true insofar as they are accurate. In other words the moment you try to state the results of the comparison you are now stating a conclusion you believe to be true, not merely comparatively true. A third objection people make about truth is that we “grow in truth.” The idea here is that truth is not absolute but rather always partial and incomplete. They will often say something like “science proves that the truth is always changing.” VK: And I will bet that you have an answer to this third objection as well. Gregg: Well, the response is that our understanding of truth will certainly change but not the truth itself. We learn more from science daily and not just science but from many other intellectual disciplines. But it is not the truth that is changing but our improving awareness of the truths that always existed. We discover truth with science, but we don’t change it. We change from error to truth. When Sir Isaac Newton first stated certain truths about the nature of gravity nothing about gravity changed. Gravity didn’t start behaving differently just because Newton presented a better description of its behavior and relevance within the physical universe. Newton helped us understand the truth about gravity’s effects better the truth about gravity didn’t change in any way. So, again this objection fails as a meaningful critique of the existence of absolute truth. VK: I’ve heard some people say that the conception that absolute truths exist is unnecessarily constricting. I guess they might say that absolute truth is too narrow an intellectual premise to be, well, true. Gregg: Like the responses to the first three objections, the response to this objection is straightforward when you think about it. Let’s look at a simple example. What is the correct answer to the math question of 2 + 2? 2 + 2 equals 4 for all people all the time. It always has. It always will. That’s about as “narrow” as it gets, but it’s also true. And the same thing is true for all statements of fact whether they are physical, historical, mathematical, etc. True statements are not just narrow. They’re unique. George Washington was the first president of the United States and no matter how many presidents follow him he will always be the first – the one and only first. And our embrace of the narrowness of truth is not only important. It is also essential to a livable world. The builder who adds 2 + 2 and gets 3 and then proceeds to put a beam in a building that’s too short will very quickly get a reminder of the consequences of ignoring the absolute nature of truth. VK: What would you say then to people who claim that absolute truth claims are too dogmatic to be acceptable to most people? Today’s society seems to embrace “tolerance” above just about everything else. Gregg: The first thing we should do is define what it means to be dogmatic. A common definition of dogmatic might be “characterized by or given to the expression of opinions very strongly or positively held as if they were facts.” So, I would say “yes, absolute truth claims are dogmatic, because a true claim is a fact. So, we should treat it as a fact. An objective fact is going to be a fact regardless of subjective feeling about the fact. I want to distinguish, however, between the truth claim, the fact itself, and the truth claimer – the person holding on to the truth. The truth claim itself is “dogmatic” because it is a fact but that doesn’t mean “truth claimers” must be unpleasant in doggedly proclaiming the truth. We can and should be humble and respectful when we hold in a determined way to the truth. Still, the truth is truth even if expressed in the wrong manner; error is error even if expressed humbly. VK: I think that’s a great distinction. We Christians are called to proclaim the truth with love and concern for others. It’s sometimes said that Christians must be “winsome” as we engage the world. Winsome is an old word that’s hardly ever used anymore. It means charming, cheerful, pleasant, and even joy-creating. So, it’s possible for us to be determined and persistent – dogmatic if you will – in our proclamation of the truth while not having to be unpleasant as we go about it. So, what else do the Anchored by Truth listeners need to know about objections that are raised against the existence of absolute truth? Gregg: I taught my Sunday school class that in addition to specific objections about the existence of absolute truth, there are also various views and philosophies that deny the absoluteness of truth. VK: Can you give us an example of what you’re thinking about? Gregg: A particularly common philosophy or attitude in our day and age that denies the absoluteness of truth is skepticism. Skepticism claims that we should suspend judgment on everything, that we should doubt all truth claims. Anyone who listens to news or so called “educational” programming will quickly realize that skepticism about historic, orthodox Christianity and traditional values and views abounds, though there is certainly plenty of dogmatism on anything that challenges those values. That observation aside, skeptics will assert philosophically that reason demands that we simply must doubt any and all truth claims. VK: But of course you don’t agree with this claim and neither should any thinking Christian? Gregg: No, of course not. Skepticism is self-refuting. If we are to doubt every truth claim we must doubt skepticism. Skepticism says we must doubt all truth claims but then tries to exempt itself from its own standard. So, the skeptic wants to claim that skepticism is the only knowable truth yet provides no reasoned basis for supporting its exemption from the standard it establishes. VK: That does seem to be a real problem. What other philosophies deny the absoluteness of truth? Gregg: Agnosticism is another philosophy that denies that absolute truth exists. There are two forms of agnosticism. The strong form of agnosticism affirms that all truth is unknowable. The soft form of agnosticism says that at least we can’t know reality even if we can know appearances. I would respond to agnosticism in this way. The “father of modern agnosticism” is Immanuel Kant. All of philosophy was shaken by his success in convincing many others that we can’t know the truth about reality. His philosophy is fascinating, but it is self-defeating. Kant claims as a truth that we cannot know absolute truth. If he is correct in his belief then he – and we – can’t even know the truth of his own statement; and if he is wrong we have no reason to even care about his philosophy. VK: That was a point that we made many times in our “Lord of Logic” series. The statement “There is no such thing as absolute truth” is self-refuting. Just as you observed about skepticism it fails the very standard it tries to establish. Gregg: A good rule for Christians to master is: “every negative presupposes a positive.” Let me restate that to make sure our audience gets a chance to absorb it. “Every negative presupposes a positive.” You can’t doubt something, the negative, without there first being the thing you’re doubting, the positive. One obvious example of this is that someone who says, “there is no truth,” presupposes the truth of his own statement. Another very common philosophy that makes a jumbled mess out of truth and the absolute character of truth is pluralism. Of course, pluralism is rampant all around us today. VK: I think that most people would say that’s a good thing. At least the word “pluralism” sounds like something we ought to support – just about like tolerance. Gregg: There’s an old saying that “it’s good to keep an open mind but don’t let your mind be so open that your brains fall out.” That’s what happens with pluralism. Pluralism affirms all so-called “truths” – even opposites. This is typical of many Eastern religions as well as many prevailing cultural and politically trendy views. But it is inescapable that the opposite of true is false. The pluralist view often degenerates to the position that whatever is sincerely believed is said to be true, but sincerity is not a test for truth. As Norman Geisler says, “A member of the Flat Earth Society may be sincere, but he is sincerely wrong.” VK: Pluralism is one of those tricky words. It has a tendency to shift shapes depending on whose using it. Plural simply means “multiple” or “having more than one.” So, in many areas of life, like ice cream flavors, plural choices are a good thing. The problem arises when you add the “ism” to the plural. Accepted literally, “pluralism” means that someone could claim to hold onto views that are directly contradictory. That turns thinking and communication into a meaningless hash of ideas from which neither truth or sense would ever emerge. What’s next? Gregg: Relativism denies absolute truth. The philosopher Alfred North Whitehead held the view that reality has no unchanging forms. This was the opposite of Plato. Whitehead also said that all truth is in the process of changing and is never found because that to which a truth claim is made is always changing, i.e., the essence of reality is change. Whitehead’s philosophy is the source of Process Theology – which is very common in some liberal seminary thinking, and championed by theologians like John Cobb. VK: And like pluralism, relativism is all around us today not only in religious discussions but also in political and cultural ones. Gregg: And it is equally hazardous to your mental health and fitness in all of its manifestations. Like the other critiques which we have been making, relativism either affirms that relativism is absolutely true – in which case it is self-defeating – or else its claim is just another relative statement for which there is no reason to believe it or accept it. As you said relativism reduces attempts to think clearly and form a coherent worldview into an impossible hash of irreconcilable claims and concepts. Well, a final philosophy that rejects the absolute nature of truth that we should discuss is post-modernism. Post-modernism avoids all truth claims and makes no truth claims. This is a radical extreme of relativism and pluralism. The idea of post-modernism – which is seen in literature, philosophy, and even architecture – is seen in the atheist Jacques Derrida, the father of “deconstructionism,” i.e., meaning anything expressed by one person can be, and should be, deconstructed by the hearer and reconstructed to meet his needs. Therefore, language is understood in the context of the hearer, not the speaker, and there is no objective meaning. VK: Yikes. The dangers of stripping the objective meaning from words – or saying that words only mean what the hearer says they mean – pretty much does away with responsible conversation. Anything anyone says can be misconstrued or misinterpreted if the hearer simply wants to. That will certainly have a chilling effect on people being able to have meaningful dialogues on any subjects other than trivial ones. Gregg: That’s absolutely correct. With Derrida simple conversations can have disastrous implications for any and all speakers. Moreover, any meaningful philosophy comes to an end, for his philosophy self-destructs as it deconstructs. Post-modernism fails because it either makes a truth claim – which would be contradictory and self-defeating – or it makes no truth claim, and is not, therefore, in the game of truth. By its own keywords – “whatever,” “so what” – it mocks truth and falls apart. Ideas have consequences, and we use language to express ideas. Communication and conversation are essential to learning and growth so when only one side controls the conversation progress and learning stop. Listen to these words: “Let me control the textbooks, and I will control the state . . . when an opponent declares ‘I will not come over to your side,’ I will calmly say, ‘What are you? You will pass on. Your descendents, however, stand in the new camp.’” Who made that statement? Answer: Adolph Hitler. The rise of post-modernism is a truly ominous turn in the spread of truth including Biblical and gospel truth. VK: That’s unbelievably sad and unbelievably dangerous. If, as you said, post-modernism constricts or stops the spread of truth ultimately it stops the spread of knowledge. Yet, the spread of knowledge, scientific and otherwise, is what produced a modern world where we enjoy so many benefits of the advancements in technology and science. Gregg: I told my Sunday school class to give some thought for a few minutes to the times of the Old Testament - to go back to some of the things in recorded history that most people agree on. Secular history tells us that there were civilizations in Egypt and Babylon and China and Canaan and the Mediterranean area we call Greece around the timeframe of 2500-2200 BC. Abraham was born around 2000 BC. The Exodus was around 1500-1450 BC; the Law given to Moses was probably around 1450 BC; David becomes king around 1000 BC; the last book of the OT, Malachi, around 400 BC. And then God was “quiet” for 400 years. In the time frame of the Old Testament there were the Empires of Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, and Persia. In the 400 “quiet years,” i.e., the “Intertestamental Years,” there emerged the Empires of Greece and Rome. Obviously, a lot was going on in the world. The Parthenon was built in 442 BC; the Great Wall of China was built between 263-233 BC. My point is this: people knew how to think in those days. There was nothing backward about their intellectual capacity. They didn’t have the technology that we do but they built impressive empires and structures. And a large part of the reason we have the technology that we do is because we “stand on the shoulders of giants” who have come before us. They people of those times knew that truth existed and despite a lack of the technology that we have today they still had accomplishments that cause us to marvel today. VK: That’s a great point. Despite our technological sophistication our generation doesn’t have a monopoly on the ability to reason and make accurate observations about the created order. We may be able to send messages around the world in an instant whereas it took the ancients days or weeks. But that doesn’t mean the content of our messages necessarily makes more sense. Transmitting nonsense or error more quickly doesn’t mean error becomes truth or nonsense makes sense. We have improved technological abilities today but that does not mean we have improved reasoning skills. Nor, sadly does it mean that people have become more virtuous or godly. Thankfully, there are many, many people being saved around the world every day but those believers are not more saved than those that Jesus preached to. And the lost today are going to be just as lost. That’s the primary reason we do these Anchored by Truth episodes. We want to save as many as people as possible and they only way to do that is to point them to the real “Anchor of Truth.” Gregg: Of course those of us who do present the gospel are well aware that we can never be the reason anyone is saved – that’s God’s job. But we can introduce one of the parties – the unbelieving one – to the other One. Jesus said, “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him” (John 6:44); and He said, “But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself” (John 12:32). That’s the good news. The sobering news is what was included in the scripture you used in the opening. Certainly, some of the most sobering verses in the entire Bible are what Paul said in Romans 1:20 – “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.” That part about unbelievers having no excuse should motivate us to increase our efforts in evangelism and motivate those who haven’t accepted Christ as their Savior to think very carefully about that choice. VK: Well, sounds like a great time to pray. Today let’s listen to a prayer for restoration of the worship of the one true God to our communities and nation since it is only through that restoration that our unsaved friends and neighbors have the hope for salvation. ---- PRAYER FOR RESTORATION OF THE WORSHIP OF THE ONE TRUE GOD VK: We’d like to remind our audience that a lot of our radio episodes are linked together in series of topics so if they missed any episodes or if they just want to hear one again, all of these episodes are available on your favorite podcast app. To find them just search on “Anchored by Truth by Crystal Sea Books.” If you’d like to hear more, try out crystalseabooks.com where “We’re not famous but our Boss is!” (Bible Quotes from the New International Version) Romans, Chapter 1, verses 18 through 20

Episode 142 – Truth and Proof – Part 2 – The Starting Point Welcome to Anchored by Truth brought to you by Crystal Sea Books. In John 14:6, Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life.” The goal of Anchored by Truth is to encourage everyone to grow in the Christian faith by anchoring themselves to the secure truth found in the inspired, inerrant, and infallible word of God. Script: All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. Second Timothy, Chapter 3, verses 16 and 17, New International Version ******** VK: Hello! I’m Victoria K. Welcome to Anchored by Truth brought to you by Crystal Sea Books. We’re excited to be with you as we continue with our recently started series on Anchored by Truth that we’re calling “Truth and Proof.” As we mentioned last time this series was inspired by a teaching series that Dr. Gregg Alexander did for his Sunday school class and a few years ago. As just about everyone knows, the Christian faith in America has been subjected to more challenges in the last decade than probably in the first two centuries of the country’s existence. So, we wanted to follow Dr. Alexander’s lead and do a series on what is often called “apologetics” – in essence the defense of the Christian faith. Apologetics helps us demonstrate that the Christian faith has a firm basis in reason and evidence. To help us explore this very important topic today in the studio we have RD Fierro, author and founder of Crystal Sea Books, in the studio today. RD, would you like to remind everyone why you felt that it was so important for us to do this series? RD: Well, as we mentioned last time on Anchored by Truth, we live in an age where our historical cultural consensus has shifted. Some commentators have said that we are now living in a “post-Christian” world. For people who are not believers this means that they live in a world that has gone “beyond” the constraints and “narrowness” of Christianity. Mainline churches are experiencing declines not only in membership, but in influence on society, government, education, family, and the culture as a whole. And as we look around us we see that young people are far more consumed by what’s happening with popular celebrities than what happened with Jesus when He ministered on this earth. We also see that more people are more concerned about temporary pleasures than their eternal destiny. It seems that everywhere our societies are all about money, entertainment, free expression, anything goes – everywhere it’s Babylon: the city of Satan, where it’s “all about me.” This is obviously is dangerous to individual destinies but it is also dangerous to the destiny of our communities and nation. That’s why it’s so important for the church to remind everyone around us that this kind of cultural calculus is not only dangerous, it’s unsustainable. But we in the church need to remember that our primary mission is one of reconciliation – reconciliation between men and God. So we don’t want to lose sight of the need to marry our intellectual defense of Christianity with our intentional concern for the welfare of our neighbors. VK: That’s a great point. At the close of our last episode we mentioned that we cannot help people understand the basis for our faith without reminding ourselves of the importance of both head knowledge and heart concerns. There’s an old saying that “people don’t care how much you know until they know how much you care.” Or, as Dr. Alexander put it in one of his lessons, knowing what is in our heads is not as important as the One Who is in our hearts. We will never assist the Holy Spirit in drawing anyone to Christ if we rely only on the objective and academic facts of Christianity. Christians called to the ministry of reconciliation, i.e., bridging the gap between Christ and those in need of knowing Him, and pulling the one who is unwilling toward the One who is always willing. And we must do these things as the apostles taught us – with patience, diligence, and love. RD: I think that’s always an important reminder. The primary reason apologetics is an important area of study is because of its relevance to salvation. And, unfortunately, that’s never been truer than in this day and time. We live in an age where our historical cultural consensus has shifted. In this “post-Christian” world many people who are not believers don’t see the relevance of Christianity to their daily lives. They think that they make whatever choices they make and their will never be a day of reckoning. Unfortunately, they are completely unaware of Jesus’ warning in Matthew, chapter 7, verses 13 and 14 which says we need to “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.” VK: But it doesn’t have to be this way, does it? The power of the gospel is to change the destiny of individuals and the trajectory of societies. Now, I know that Dr. Alexander is quite of a fan of Norman Geisler who was one of the premier apologists of the last 50 years and you share much of his admiration for Geisler don’t you? And both of you particularly like Geisler’s views on why apologetics is important to the church. Why don’t you share a little of that with our audience? RD: According to Geisler we study apologetics for three reasons: First, God commands it in the Bible. 1st Peter 3:15 is probably the most frequently cited verse on why we need to arm ourselves with why, as the verse puts it, “we have a hope that lies within us.” But another verse is 2nd Corinthians 10:5 – “We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.” There’s also Philippians 1:16 – “. . . I am put here for the defense of the gospel.” And Jude 3 – “I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints.” And these are just a sample of verses that command us to be prepared to give reasons our faith in the gospel. VK: And not only does God command us to be able to defend our faith – because that’s the basic purpose of apologetics – but Geisler says our human ability to reason also make apologetics necessary. RD: That’s correct. Geisler says, that the second purpose for apologetics is that reason demands that we do it and this is demonstrated in scripture. Isaiah 1:18 – “‘Come now, let us reason together,’ says the Lord.” We must discern right from wrong, as we see in 1st John 4:6 – “We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood.” Again from Geisler: “Socrates said, ‘The unexamined life is not worth living.’ He surely would have been willing to add that the unexamined belief is not worth believing. Therefore, it is incumbent upon Christians to give a reason for their hope. This is part of the great command to love God with all our mind, as well as our heart and soul (Matt. 22:36–37).” VK: So, the first reason we pursue apologetics is because the Bible commands it. And the second reason is because reason, really nothing more than good common sense, compels us to do so. It’s hard for human beings to place their trust in something that goes against that common sense. The human facility for logic and reason means that if something doesn’t make good sense most people are far more likely to reject it than accept it. RD: That’s also correct. And, that feeds directly into the third reason Geisler says we do apologetics: “the world needs it.” People rightly refuse to believe without evidence. Since God created humans as rational beings, he expects them to live rationally, to look before they leap. This does not mean there is no room for faith. But God wants us to take a step of faith in the light of evidence, rather than to leap in the dark. VK: And we often point out on Anchored by Truth that the belief that there is a “great divide” between faith and reason is a myth. And you agree with that don’t you? RD: Absolutely. As Dr. Alexander noted, reason can be defined as “all the subjective and personal acts of our mind by which we discover, understand, or seek to demonstrate truth.” If faith is in that which is true, and if reason is the product of the human mind to discover truth, shouldn’t they agree? Aren’t they both ending at the same place? The answer is “Yes,” even for things that the human mind cannot discover, e.g., the Trinity. In that case, faith is not contradictory to reason, but is over and above reason. And in many cases it is reason that precedes faith, for Christianity is based on the actual historic Christ being the actual Christ of the Bible, and, therefore, we do not have “blind faith,” but faith which is supported by reasoning and reasons. We study the Bible in order to understand (reason) what we believe (faith). Reason doesn’t necessarily cause faith, but faith is not opposed to reason. VK: I think that’s such an important point. The world, meaning the secular world, does not have a monopoly on reason. In fact some of the greatest thinkers and scientists of all time were devout Christians. So where do you want to start for today? RD: Well, with a seemingly simple point: truth is knowable. Now, I know that seems simplistic but in our time not only is Christianity frequently under attack but so is the basic concept that truth is absolute and knowable. But, if our ultimate goal is to establish the truth of Christianity, we better start by talking about what truth is, and what we can know about it. VK: And the fact that truth is absolute and knowable is not just exclusive to Christianity, is it? Even non-Christian philosophers have recognized the importance of truth in securing knowledge, haven’t they? RD: Absolutely. One of those philosophers was Aristotle who was born in that Intertestamental Period in the year 384 BC. I mention him because he taught us how to think properly about reality, and, therefore, about the question of God’s existence. Aristotle discovered principles that are the undeniable principles of reality – principles that are referred to as the first principles of knowledge. Using these principles he formalized a system of correct thinking that we call logic. Logic is an instrument of human knowledge; it is a skillful use of the principles that govern how the mind works – and how God’s mind works. Logic imitates God’s mind, and from it we can not only learn about what we are, but what we should be. Aristotle tells us “Wisdom is knowledge about certain principles and causes,” and “Truth is what is, and is not what is not.” This is the starting point for the correspondence theory of truth, i.e., truth is absolute and corresponds to what is real. VK: And you have said that Aristotle’s influence on Christian apologetics is immensely important. He entered Plato’s academy in about 367 BC and stayed there until Plato’s death in 347 BC. He was the personal teacher of Alexander the Great beginning in about 342 BC. And because Aristotle was so influential on Alexander the Great as Alexander’s influence spread so did Aristotle’s, Aristotle’s teaching on the physical sciences, psychology, philosophy, and logic spread along with the Greek language and culture throughout the known world. In Anchored by Truth’s series on the Intertestamental period we pointed out how God used the spread of the Greek language and culture as part of His preparation for Jesus’ arrival into the world. RD: I agree. And one way in which Aristotle’s influence was felt on apologetics was Aristotle’s influence on Thomas Aquinas. But let’s back up for just a second. Aristotle’s view of God came from his view of the nature of reality, called metaphysics, but his view of “god(s)” certainly was not that of the Creator as understood by the Jews. Aristotle didn’t have at his disposal the personal revelation of God as it had been given to the Jews. Therefore, he understood God in the Romans 1:19-20 sense as being a logical necessity in order to explain the cosmos. Aristotle did not understand the God of love and concern for creation – he simply saw “God” as necessary, and he felt very comfortable proving it. And, for Aristotle, “god” was Pure Thought, Pure Intelligence. VK: So, how does Aristotle tie into Aquinas? RD: Because Aristotle’s work – much of which was lost for centuries – ended up being the launching pad for the philosophy – not the theology – of Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas (1225-1274) considered himself indebted to Aristotle for the principles of his philosophy, but Aquinas was not a “Christianized Aristotle.” He did not hesitate to criticize Aristotle when the revealed Truth of Christianity required it. Aristotle was concerned with what the world is and how it functions. Aquinas was more concerned to explain why it exists. And one advantage Aquinas had that Aristotle did not was access to the Old Testament. Aquinas undoubtedly refuted Aristotelianism for at least one reason: the proclamation by God of His Name in Exodus 3:14 – “I AM WHO I AM.” VK: As a reminder to our audience, God’s proclamation “I am who I am” was a direct response to Moses asking God for His name. Moses was concerned that if went down into Egypt to say to the Israelites that God had told him to bring freedom to them they would want to know who exactly had sent him to them. So, God answered Moses with what is one of the most famous verses in the Bible: “I am who I am.” In Hebrew this conveyed by the word “Yahweh” and in Greek it’s “Jehovah.” But in addition to Yahweh being God’s name, the term actually tells us something very important. “I am who I am” is a way of God identifying Himself by His unique quality of self-existence. God is the only Being anywhere who is self-existent. All other Beings are dependent on God for their lives and existence including the angels, Satan and his minions, and mankind. But God is not dependent on anyone or anything for His existence. God made that point forcefully to Moses and the Israelites by His declaration at the burning bush. And what you’re saying is that Aquinas knew about that declaration and it’s quite likely that Aristotle did not? RD: Exactly. Aristotle was not in any way influenced by the writings of some old dead Jew, and he died 322 years before Christ was born. But that didn’t stop Aristotle from being able to arrive at a correct understanding of the nature of truth. Just by using logic and reason Aristotle was able to develop an understanding of truth – that truth is that it is what really is, and it isn’t what really is not. Or said differently, truth is that which corresponds to reality. Truth is not defined by individual opinion – it is what is even if we can’t accept it, or understand it, or don’t have enough evidence to prove it. VK: But we can know truth can’t we? And a simple way know that we can know the truth is to begin by following the line of reasoning developed by the French mathematician, Rene’ Descartes [DAY-CART]. Descartes wanted an absolutely rock-solid starting place to begin his understanding of the universe around him. So, simply put Descartes said that he could be sure that he at least existed because if he didn’t he couldn’t be asking the question or answering it. Now, someone might ask, “But what if this thing we call ‘existence’ is just an illusion?” We could reply in the same way that Ravi Zacharias did when he was asked that question. Ravi answered the question with his own question. “And just who is it that is experiencing this illusion?” Descartes put it this way, “I am thinking, therefore I am.” Descartes’ reasoning was that there must be something in existence before that something can do anything. Thinking is doing something. So, Descartes said if I can think then I can be sure that I exist. And that was his starting point to begin establishing a wider understanding of the universe, creation, and existence. RD: Yes. Descartes was able to find an irrefutable truth to being his reasoning process. And so, like Descartes, by knowing that at least one thing is true we can begin our search for other truths. Geisler puts it this way. “The nature of truth is crucial to the Christian faith. Not only does Christianity claim there is absolute truth (truth for everyone, everywhere, at all times), but it insists that truth about the world (reality) is that which corresponds to the way things really are. For example, the statement “God exists” means that there really is a God . . . Likewise, the claim that “God raised Christ from the dead” means that the dead corpse of Jesus of Nazareth supernaturally vacated its tomb alive a few days after its burial. . . Christian truth claims really correspond to the state of affairs about which they claim . . . Truth can be understood both from what it is and from what it is not. VK: So, we can know that truth exists but that’s not enough, is it. Geisler also noted that there are many inadequate views of the nature of truth. For instance, truth is not ‘what works.’ That was a popular theory advocated by a well-known pragmatist, William James. James and his followers said that truth is what works. According to James, “Truth is the expedient in the way of knowing. A statement is known to be true if it brings the right results. It is the expedient as confirmed by future experience and effect.” Of course, this doesn’t seem to be how truth is understood in court where an expedient testimony may be perjury. It’s possible to still wonder whether a statement corresponded to the facts. In a court, if a statement does not correspond to the facts, it was not true regardless of whether it’s expedient. RD: Exactly right. Geisler noted that truth is also not ‘that which coheres.’ Some scholars have suggested that truth is what is internally consistent, i.e., it is coherent. But this is also an inadequate definition. Empty statements hang together, even though they are devoid of truth content. ‘All wives are married women’ is internally consistent, but it is empty. It tells us nothing about reality. The statement would be true, even if there were no wives. It really means, ‘If there is a wife, then she must be married.’ But it does not inform us that there is a wife anywhere in the universe. A set of false statements also can be internally consistent. If several witnesses conspire to misrepresent the facts, their story may cohere better than if they were honestly trying to reconstruct the truth. But it still is a lie. At best, coherence is a negative test of truth. Statements are wrong if they are inconsistent, but not necessarily true if they are. VK: So, to sum up, “Truth about reality is what corresponds to the way things really are: ‘telling it like it is.’ This correspondence applies to abstract realities as well as actual ones. There are mathematical truths. There are also truths about ideas. In each case there is a reality, and truth accurately expresses it. Falsehood, then, is what does not correspond to the way things really are.” This means that if it lacks proper correspondence, it is false.” RD: Yes. And another important point about this correspondence view of truth is that it cannot be denied without using it. In other words, as we put it in our “Lord of Logic” series the correspondence view of truth is affirmed in dissent. In other words the premise must be true because an argument that attempts to rebut the premise must presume the truth of the premise in the attempted rebuttal. VK: I think we’re going to need an example of what you’re thinking about. RD: Here’s an example of a statement that cannot be rationally denied. “Human beings use language to communicate.” If someone were to try to deny that statement they would have to use some kind of language to present their denial. As soon as they did so they are proving the statement is true. So, there is literally no way the statement can be reasonably or rationally denied. The same thing is true of the correspondence view of truth. Anyone who tried to deny it assumes their view corresponds to reality, i.e., those who deny it in theory, use it in practice. One may say, “but that’s just your view of truth.” Your response could be, “does that statement correspond to reality?” VK: So, absolute truth means it is true for all people, all places, all the time. The term “relative truth” isn’t truth at all, for it claims that something is true for some people, but not all people; or true in some places, but not all places; or some time, but not all the time. Truth is not “what works;” what is cohesive, consistent, or coherent Truth must have these qualities, but these things do not make something true. Truth is not what is comprehensive; not what feels good; not what the majority think or want. Truth is not what is sincere, for it is possible to be sincerely wrong. RD: Yes. And one final important point is that there are biblical arguments for the correspondence view of truth. The ninth commandment is, “you shall not give false testimony about your neighbor” (Exodus 2:16), i.e., tell it like it is. Deuteronomy 18:21-22 – “You may say to yourselves, ‘How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the Lord?’ If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken.” So, the Bible clearly affirms that truth is not only corresponds to reality but that it is possible to know the truth. VK: Not only that but we rely on the fact that truth is what corresponds to reality every day of our lives. In our daily conversation, we might say “check out the facts.” And in courtrooms all over the country the existence and knowability of truth is affirmed every time someone swears to “tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. We use correspondence as the rule for truth in our daily lives and we use it all the time. RD: Right. Now at this point I’d like to note that anyone who would like to investigate this topic of truth and its role in apologetics might want to check out The Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics which was written by Norman Geisler. I have a copy in my library and I know Dr. Alexander does as well. And before we close I’d like to recognize that some of the material we’re discussing in this series can sound pretty esoteric but today Christians who want to have an impact on their families, much less the culture, need to be able to provide intelligent answers to skeptics because they’re all about us. VK: So, in essence, our goal is to help listeners understand how to contend for their faith with certainty and confidence. We’re making no assumptions whatsoever of what anyone may, or may not, already know. We want to show that any thinking person can prove the existence of God. This is the central truth of Romans, chapter 1, verse 18-20. “The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.” This sounds like a great time to pray. Today let’s listen to a prayer of praise of Adoration for the Creator God who set the cosmos into motion and established a home on the earth for His people as He prepares them for an eternity with Him in heaven. ---- PRAYER FOR THE SPIRITUALLY LOST VK: We’d like to remind our audience that a lot of our radio episodes are linked together in series of topics so if they missed any episodes or if they just want to hear one again, all of these episodes are available on your favorite podcast app. To find them just search on “Anchored by Truth by Crystal Sea Books.” If you’d like to hear more, try out crystalseabooks.com where “We’re not famous but our Boss is!” (Bible Quotes from the New International Version) Second Timothy, Chapter 3, verses 16 and 17, New International Version

Episode 141 – Truth and Proof – Part 1 – Defending the Faith Welcome to Anchored by Truth brought to you by Crystal Sea Books. In John 14:6, Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life.” The goal of Anchored by Truth is to encourage everyone to grow in the Christian faith by anchoring themselves to the secure truth found in the inspired, inerrant, and infallible word of God. Script: While Paul was waiting for them in Athens, he was greatly distressed to see that the city was full of idols. So he reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and the God-fearing Greeks, as well as in the marketplace day by day with those who happened to be there. Acts, Chapter 17, verses 16 and 17, New International Version ******** VK: Hello and Happy New Year! I’m Victoria K. Welcome to Anchored by Truth brought to you by Crystal Sea Books. We’re excited to be with you at the start of this New Year and we pray that this year will bring joy and blessings to all our listeners, especially the joy of having a closer fellowship with our Lord Christ Jesus. Today on Anchored by Truth we’re going to start the new year with a new – and frankly challenging – series of discussions. As just about everyone knows, the Christian faith in America has been subjected to more challenges in the last decade than probably in the first two centuries of the country’s existence. So, as we open up this New Year we want to tackle a subject that has particular relevance in our day and time –being able to demonstrate that the Christian faith has a firm basis in reason and evidence. To help us get started on addressing this very important topic we have RD Fierro, author and founder of Crystal Sea Books, in the studio today. RD, why are we undertaking this series? RD: We live in an age where our historical cultural consensus has shifted. Some commentators have said that we are now living in a “post-Christian” world. For people who are not believers this means that they live in a world that has gone “beyond” the constraints and “narrowness” of Christianity. Fewer people, as a percentage of the population, belong to churches than in generations past, and many of the mainline churches are experiencing declines not only in membership, but in influence on society, government, education, family, and the culture as a whole. As we look around us we see that young people are far more consumed by the death of an entertainer than the death and resurrection of Jesus. We also see that more people are consumed by concern for temporary pleasures than their eternal destiny. It seems that everywhere our societies are all about money, entertainment, personal freedom, free expression, anything goes – everywhere it’s Babylon: the city of Satan, where it’s “all about me.” This is obviously is dangerous to individual destinies but it is also dangerous to the destiny of our communities and nation. VK: And this danger has been recognized for quite a while now, hasn’t it? In their 1994 book, Handbook of Christian Apologetics, Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli, who are both professors of the philosophy of religion at Boston College, said the following: “Western civilization is for the first time in its history in danger of dying. The reason is spiritual. It is losing its life, its soul; that soul was the Christian faith. The infection killing it is not multiculturalism – other faiths – but the monoculturalism of secularism – no faith, no soul. Our century has been marked by genocide, sexual chaos and money-worship. Unless all the prophets are liars, we are doomed unless we repent. . .The church of Christ will never die, but our civilization will. If the gates of hell will not prevail against the church, this world certainly won’t. We do apologetics not to save the church, but to save the world.” RD: Exactly. People within the church have been warning of the danger we’re facing for decades. So, we’ve titled this series “Truth and Proof” because in it we want to point people back to the eternal truth that there is a God and that God has a plan not only for people but for communities, nations, and the world. But we don’t want to just proclaim the truth, though that is obviously where we must start. We also want to explain the evidence and reasons behind our belief. That’s the “proof” part of the series. It’s not uncommon to hear people say in this day and age something like, “you trust in faith, but I trust in logic, reason, and science.” In doing so they are trying to trying to set logic, reason, and science in opposition to faith. As we’ve said many times on Anchored by Truth, that is a false dichotomy that tries to say that if you are a Christian and you believe in the Bible you have abandoned a reliance upon logic, reason, and evidence. Nothing, of course, could be further from the truth. Some of the greatest thinkers of the last two millennia and some of the greatest scientists of all time have been devout Christians. VK: Well, before we go too much farther we want to acknowledge the person who originally inspired this particular series, Dr. Gregg Alexander. Dr. Alexander practiced medicine in Tallahassee, Florida for over 4 decades but more importantly for us, he led a Sunday school class in his church for more than 25 years. Dr. Alexander is extremely thoughtful and insightful. We are indebted to him for giving us much of the information we’re going to bring to listeners during this series. RD: And Dr. Alexander will be joining us on several of the episodes during this series. As you said, he is thoughtful and insightful and even beyond that he is one of the clearest thinkers that I know. He has framed a mature, intelligent, and coherent Christian world view and in that regard I believe he sets an example that all believers would do well to emulate. VK: So, where do you want to start? It sounds like we have a lot of material to discuss. So, let’s get to it. RD: Well, I always think a good place to start is with defining some terms. So, earlier when you mentioned the book title, you used the word “apologetics,” and that’s a broad umbrella term for what we’re talking about. Apologetics can broadly be defined as “a defense for our faith.” Apologetics comes from a compound Greek word. Greek, like English, has compound words made of two or more other words. In this case the Greek words are apo, primarily used to mean “from;” and logos, primarily meaning, in its most generic sense, “word.” Logos is also commonly used in an expanded way to mean “reason, the mental faculty of thinking, meditating, reasoning, and calculating.” The Greek philosopher Heraclitus first used the term Logos around 600 B.C. to designate the divine reason or plan which coordinates a changing universe. The Apostle John’s used that same word in John 1:1. VK: – The Gospel of John, chapter 1, verse 1 says, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Apologetics means “from the mind,” and, in the sense of John 1:1 it means “from the mind of God.” We now use the term “apologetics” to mean the defense of the Christian faith. RD: Right. But the simplicity of the definition masks the complexity of the problem of fully defining apologetics. It turns out that a diversity of approaches to defending the Christian faith that might be classified in some way as apologetics. There is no universal way of doing apologetics. And the approaches seem to be determined by the perspectives of individuals or groups. But there are some generally understood terms we can use to identify apologetic “categories.” Many scholars will recognize four basic approaches to apologetics: classical apologetics, evidential apologetics, pre-suppositional apologetics, and fideist apologetics. Each has a particular focus, and each has its champions. During this series we’re going to focus on the classical and evidential approaches because we think they are the approaches that people will connect with most easily. VK: Our goal on Anchored by Truth is to help ordinary Christian believers develop a more mature Christian faith and especially to give them tools to help their children and grandchildren do so also. We know that our listeners are serious about their Christian faith and serious about wanting to understand the Bible better. But we also know that most listeners have very busy lives and may not have the time to sort through volumes of information that they might like to. So, what we try to do is take areas that pertain to Christianity and sift information for them and for you. We are not professional Christian apologists and we’re not going to become them. We suspect most of our listeners are the same. But that doesn’t mean that we can’t all learn enough to provide intelligent answers to reasonable questions that might come our way. Fifty years ago, and possibly 25 years ago if you told someone that you are a Christian, people didn’t think there was anything unusual about that. But a lot of has changed. Now it’s often not enough to simply know what you believe but you must know why you believe it. RD: That is unfortunately true. Some commentators say that we are living in a post-Christian society. But I’m not interested in trying to characterize our society as much as I am in trying to change it. That’s what the gospel has always done. While overt unbelief is certainly more common today, in a certain sense every society throughout history has had plenty of unbelievers. That was certainly true in the early church but that didn’t stop the Apostles and first disciples from carrying the gospel to the ends of the earth. VK: In fact, in Acts, chapter 19, verses 23 through 41 there is a description of a riot that occurred in the City of Ephesus. Many of the tradespeople in Ephesus were upset because of the increasing influence of the Christianity in their city because of the Apostle Paul’s ministry. Verses 23 through 26 tell us, “About that time there arose a great disturbance about the [Christianity]. A silversmith named Demetrius, who made silver shrines of Artemis, brought in a lot of business for the craftsmen there. He called them together, along with the workers in related trades, and said: “You know, my friends, that we receive a good income from this business. And you see and hear how this fellow Paul has convinced and led astray large numbers of people here in Ephesus and in practically the whole province of Asia. He says that gods made by human hands are no gods at all.” RD: And earlier in that same chapter the book of Acts says “This went on for two years, so that all the Jews and Greeks who lived in the province of Asia heard the word of the Lord.” So, Paul’s ministry was so effective that in less than two years just about everybody in the Roman province of Asia had heard the gospel. Asia was a very large Roman province, the equivalent of one of our largest states. Yet, Paul accomplished that in a society that was openly hostile to Christianity. Paul did that because he knew not only what he believed but also why he believed it. As we heard in our opening scripture, Paul regularly reasoned with the people he encountered. We must be willing to do so today. So, as important as proclamation of the gospel is, explanation of the foundation for our belief in the gospel is now almost as important. That’s where apologetics steps in. VK: Apologetics, as an area of study, can help us add the “why we believe” to the “what we believe.” A lot of people who hear the word “apologetics” may think that the whole idea of studying it might be intimidating. But you don’t believe that apologetics has to be intimidating. You strongly believe that a good understanding of some of the major apologetic ideas is available to all believers. You certainly don’t believe anyone has to go to a seminary or attend formal classes to obtain a basic understanding of apologetics, do you? RD: No, I don’t. But that’s one of the reasons that as we are doing this “Truth and Proof” series that I don’t intend to spend much time on presuppositional apologetics. Presuppositional apologetics makes the presupposition of the authority of the Bible and the existence of God. It essentially argues that the starting point for demonstrating the existence of God is the presupposition that God exists and the Bible is authoritative. VK: That sounds like a bit of a circular argument – an argument that assumes the truth of the proposition the argument intends to prove. RD: Well, I think that’s one of the major problems for most people using presuppositional apologetics in witnessing to people. Just about any person who has even a basic understanding of logic will immediately point out that it sure looks like a circular argument. So, then the first thing the presuppositional apologist must do is show why it’s not circular. Now, I’ve heard skilled, professional presuppositional apologists do that, but frankly the way they go about it makes me believe most of us would never understand the argument well enough to present it effectively. Presuppositionalists try to show that worldviews that do not acknowledge the existence of God cannot be internally coherent. VK: Which is a point that we made in our “Lord of Logic” series on Anchored by Truth. RD: Yes. So, I don’t mean to dismiss presuppositional apologetics entirely. I think there are some interesting and valuable points that are contained within the line of reasoning. But I just don’t think it’s as helpful or easy to use as, for instance, what is sometimes termed “classical apologetics.” VK: Classical apologetics places emphasis on reasoning and on the rational. It makes use of philosophy and science, and all forms of evidence. The key word is “reason” for it is rational. Historically, it was the form of apologetics used by Anselm of Canterbury and Thomas Aquinas. In the 20th century C.S. Lewis and Norman Geisler [GUY-SLUR] are two very well-known classical apologists. This is the approach that will mostly be using during this series. RD: Yes. And we may do a little bit of evidential apologetics and historical apologetics. Evidential apologetics seeks evidence as its name indicates. The evidence can be historical, scientific, archaeologic, or even prophetic. The key word is “fact” because it is empirical. Historical apologetics can be seen as a specialized form of evidential apologetics. Historical apologetics stresses historical fact and evidence as the basis for demonstrating the truth of the Christian faith. We make use of this approach frequently on Anchored by Truth when we use of extra-Biblical or archeological evidence to demonstrate the historicity of the Bible. But we don’t confine ourselves to just historic evidence. For instance when we did our “Truth in Genesis” series we used an abundance of scientific evidence to show that the creation account contained in Genesis can be reasonably accepted as literal history. VK: You also said that you don’t intend to do much with fideistic [FEE-DAY-IS-TIK] apologetics during this series. RD: No. Fideist apologetics is based in sola fide which means “by faith alone.” The key word is, of course, “faith” for it is intuitive. Karl Barth was a 20th century apologist along these lines, and one who has had tremendous influence in some seminaries. Barth held that the Bible was a record of revelation, but not revelation in itself. Barth did not acknowledge the infallibility of scripture although he did claim scripture was a “gateway” to God. Norman Geisler says this about Barth and about fideism in general: “Fideism is unfounded. To argue that there are no rational supports for the Christian faith is self-destructive. It is an argument in support of a religious position claiming that arguments cannot be given in support of religious positions. Further, fideism may be internally consistent, but there is no indication of where it touches reality, so it is impossible to distinguish from falsehood.” VK: And so the head scratching and headaches begin. What you’re saying is that a lot of different people have come up with different approaches to prove that God exists. But during this series we are not going to attempt to tackle all the different approaches. You want to confine yourself to just one or two of the approaches. Right? RD: Right. And even the apologetic approaches we’re going to tackle we’re only going to be able to touch on the key points. There are people who spend their entire lives just on one of the approaches and there have been thousands of books written about them. But as we touched on earlier our goal on Anchored by Truth is to present discussions of these important topics that can assist everyday believers to have a more effective witness to a world that right now is wandering far from God. VK: I guess you could say our approach to discussing the Christian faith is like the person who wants to be able to prepare a nice meal for their family. You can prepare tasty and nutritious dishes every day without attending culinary school. In fact many of us had mothers or grandmothers who made dishes we all remember and would happily eat again but who didn’t know the chemical difference between proteins and carbohydrates. But they knew what they needed to know to take care of their families and a lot of kids grew up “big and strong” based on those meals. And they knew how to make things that were not only good for you but tasted good. That’s what we want to do. We want people to understand that Christianity and a Christian worldview make sense. Sure, you don’t need to grasp apologetics thoroughly to be a devoted Christian. But in this day and age you need to know enough to provide some protection for your family. RD: Yes. Seminary president Alex McFarland tells the story of a 40-something year old university professor who had a reputation of denying the existence of God, ridiculing Christianity, intimidating his students, and tying up others in philosophical knots. Alex tells it like this: “The professor ignored the offer of a handshake and then looked me over, sizing me up. ‘Give me a couple of hours and I can turn any Christian into an atheist. Even you.’ In 15 years of teaching the Bible and speaking hundreds of times throughout America, I had never met someone so openly angry and rude. I smiled at the professor and said, ‘Well, you and the devil are in the same business.’ I let that sink in, then added, ‘He’s just faster.’ ‘What do you mean?’ ‘In the Garden of Eden, Satan convinced Adam and Eve to doubt God,’ I explained. ‘Satan turned them into doubters and agnostics, but it took him only a couple of minutes.’ For the next couple of hours we sat in his home office and talked. Regardless of the conversation topic, the professor kept knocking down Christianity and its followers, calling them ignorant, uninformed, simpleminded believers. With just as much determination I kept reminding the professor about the reality of Jesus and of Jesus’ love for him personally. At one point, I leaned across the desk looking him directly in the eyes [and] said, ‘you are obviously very intelligent, and highly educated, and you say you’re an atheist. So doesn’t it strike you as odd that for two hours I’ve listened to you talk about someone who doesn’t exist? VK: And the point that Alex’s story ended with is that this particular person – opposed as he was to Christianity, and openly hostile to it – was not ignorant of the arguments for God’s existence. He had given the “God-thing” some consideration, but he had rejected the appeals from the Holy Spirit to accept Christ into his life. RD: Well, the story did have an unusual twist – one that is especially pertinent for us as we begin this particular series – and it went like this: “The professor said some things that have stuck with me: ‘In a way, I’m envious of people who can have faith. But what I can’t understand are these Christians who never learn anything about what they say they believe. If I ever did convert, I would learn everything possible about God.’” This professor – and everyone else – has to make a decision at some time in life concerning Jesus. Every one of us will develop some type of system to answer the questions inherent in all of us: Where did I come from? Why am I here – what is my purpose? And what happens when I die? VK: So, in essence, our goal is to help listeners understand how to contend for their faith with certainty and confidence. We’re going to make no assumptions whatsoever of what anyone may, or may not, already know. We’re planning to start at the place where all knowledge starts – at the point of the absoluteness and the knowability of truth. We’ll be using the basic building blocks of knowledge and logic – called “first principles” – to lay a firm foundation on which we will erect a spiritual skyscraper. We want to show that any thinking person can prove the existence of God. This is the central truth of Romans, chapter 1, verse 18-20. “The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.” RD: Well said. So, I think we should close with two thoughts. First, as we have often said on Anchored by Truth one of the reasons we want people to develop a stronger understanding of not only what they believe but why they believe it is because the world has become unbelievably dangerous for kids raised in Christian homes. Many surveys have reiterated the finding that up to 75% of the kids raised in Christian homes will lose their faith when they go off to college or out into the world. To prevent that from continuing we must do a better job of preparing our kids for what they encounter when the world says silly things like “you have faith, but I have science.” The second thought is that we cannot achieve the objective of helping people understand the basis for our faith without reminding ourselves that we can only accomplish our objective knowing that what is in our heads is not as important as the One Who is in our hearts. We will never assist the Holy Spirit in drawing anyone to Christ if we rely only on the objective and academic facts of Christianity. We are Christians called to the ministry of reconciliation, i.e., bridging the gap between Christ and those in need of knowing Him, and pulling the one who is unwilling toward the One who is always willing. And we must do these things as the apostles taught us – with patience, diligence, and love. VK: Well, sounds like we’re in for quite a thought-provoking journey. Hopefully, not too many headaches. This sounds like a great time to pray. Today let’s listen to a prayer of praise of Adoration for the Creator God who set the cosmos into motion and established a home on the earth for His people as He prepares them for an eternity with Him in heaven. ---- PRAYER OF Adoration for the Creator VK: We’d like to remind our audience that a lot of our radio episodes are linked together in series of topics so if they missed any episodes or if they just want to hear one again, all of these episodes are available on your favorite podcast app. To find them just search on “Anchored by Truth by Crystal Sea Books.” If you’d like to hear more, try out crystalseabooks.com where “We’re not famous but our Boss is!” (Bible Quotes from the New International Version) Acts, Chapter 17, verses 16 and 17, New International Version

Summer 1999.The End of the Century beckons.As we prepared to send the clocks back to zero, millennium bugs threatened our very existence. David Bowie foretold us (well Jeremy Paxman, at least) that we were on the cusp of something exhilarating and terrifying and what this new Internet was going to do was unimaginable.Party over, oops out of time..?Not a bit of it, as the team at NOW That's What I Call Music activate their latest release and it's a hot one! The Popworld was in overdrive and the key word everywhere was Positivity. The kaleidoscope that was the ‘fin de siecle' UK charts was encompassing something for everyone - Boybands!, Girlgroups! Solo stars from Girl groups! Superstar DJs! Even Hollywood film directors providing us with lifestyle coaching!NOW43 had it all! Whilst the future pop masterminds such as Max Martin and Gregg Alexander plotted world domination for the next decade, pop fans revelled in this millennial musical feast! We were definitely at the end of something and whatever was coming next, NOW! was going to take us all the way!Join writer, DJ, music consultant and millennial pop generalist Daryl Easlea as we relive the hits, misses and memories of this unforgettable last summer of the 20th century. As we unashamedly wallow in the ‘optimistic daftness of pop', find out which track always saves a middle-age spread dance floor, who were 'the choppy haired trip hop darlings of '99', which act on the LP we are now calling the ‘Fisher Price Beta Band' and why Cilla Black and Petula Clark have more to do with the pop stars on this LP than you may think!And discover why Mel B (G?) and Cartoons probably won't be returning our calls.As The Chemical Brothers (euphorically said) HERE WE GO! See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Artists are a funny bunch. They think very highly of themselves, have logic that does NOT cut both ways, and often times have poor recollections and understandings of their past statements and their own work. Join us for Season 1 Episode 3 as the boys break down New Radicals, their song "You Get What You Give", and unpack Gregg Alexander's hubris-laden and distorted interpretation of his own lyrical content. Let us know your thoughts: Instagram: @badbandgreatsong Facebook: @badbandgreatsong Twitter: @bbgsshow Disagreement is encouraged! Article featuring Beck & Gregg Alexander grocery store story: https://web.archive.org/web/20110809102951/http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/style/article539297.ece

Week 7 The New Radicals' "You Get What You Give" vs. Semisonic's "Closing Time". Recorded March 2nd, 2021. Mix Tape Time Machine is a sonic journey through pop musics biggest years 2 songs at a time with Matt Collins (@ImMattMan), John Norris (@jnorris123), and Ggreg Chaille (@gregchaille).    Audio Clips used in this episode -  Song - Closing Time, Artist - Semisonic, Writers - Dan Wilson.  Licensed to YouTube by UMG (on behalf of Geffen); ASCAP, CMRRA, PEDL, UNIAO BRASILEIRA DE EDITORAS DE MUSICA - UBEM, LatinAutor - Warner Chappell, UMPG Publishing, LatinAutorPerf, and 14 Music Rights Societies Song - YOU GET WHAT YOU GIVE, Artist - NEW RADICALS, Writers - Rick Nowels, Gregg Alexander.  Licensed to YouTube by Abramus Digital, AMRA, Global Music Rights LLC, Spirit Music Publishing, BMG Rights Management (US), LLC, CMRRA, ARESA, LatinAutor, LatinAutor - PeerMusic, LatinAutorPerf, and 17 Music Rights Societies Gregg Alexander Much Music Interview 1998 - Available on YouTube.com - https://www.youtube.co/watch?v=sZVIVsGS_eklist=RDsZVIVsGS_ekstart_radio=1&t=0

Actor/Comedian Alex Denney (ABC's The Rookie, Island Life with Alex Denny Podcast) joins ONEDERS to gush over the revived 1999 hit "You Get What You Give" by New Radicals. Discussion includes its inclusion in Joe Biden's inauguration, running into Beck at the supermarket, attempting to sing happy birthday over Zoom, and of course, Gregg Alexander's trademark bucket hat. Social Media Plugs Alex Denney Island Life with Alex Denney Podcast Oneders Podcast Ian Zandi References Mentioned: Joe Biden's Inauguration Performance You Get What You Give wiki You Get What You Give Music Video You Get What You Give Performance On Nickelodeon's "All That" Ian Zandi's Chillax Playlist Jon Foreman/Mandy Moore's Cover of "Someday We'll Know" Oneders Theme Song created by Christian B Schmidt --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app

After Joe Biden's inauguration led to a rare performance from New Radicals, music journalist and Gregg Alexander biographer Steven Horowitz joins the bad boys to discuss the project and rank the top moments in "You Get What You Give." 

Ahí queda eso. Tema-río. Once minutos. Cuando iban por los seis pensó Stuart que no estaba del todo desarrollada la pieza y que se necesitaba algo más y remata su comentario sobre la pieza diciendo que no pensaba que ese viaje resultara tan largo. El nuevo avance de "Distractions" de Tindersticks sucede a la versión de TV Personalities que también formará parte del disco etiqueta City Slang que sale el 19 de febrero. Y de ahí retrocedemos al pasado para escuchar un himno que ha vuelto a ser actualidad porque Gregg Alexander creyó oportuno resucitar a los New Radicals para celebrar la llegada de Joe Biden a la presidencia de los EEUU en el guateque de celebración de la toma de posesión. También es noticia del día que muestran unos segundos de lo que será el siguiente single de Royal Blood. Novedades internacionales son que el puertoriqueño/belgas Gabriel Ríos recibe el apoyo de Devendra Banhart para su "Flore"; también hay apoyo externo (de Jenny Lee de Warpaint) en un tema de Deep Vally. Novedad de aquí, entre Madrid y Bilbao, lo nuevo de Madbil de su segundo disco y entre aquí y fuera son un avance de O´Donnier, francés residente en Córdoba y que Victor García López ficha a una nativa de Pensilvania para la pieza flamante de Velvet Violets. Además, recordamos una de las últimas producciones (Starsailor) de Phil Spector. Si alguien tenía entradas ya para ver en Madrid a Exfan la cita ha quedado aplazada para mejor ocasión. Escuchar audio

En Música de Contrabando, revista diaria de música en Onda Regional de Murcia (orm.es, 00,00h).Weezer ha compartido detalles sobre el lanzamiento de su nuevo álbum “OK Human”, que verá la luz la próxima semana. Será el decimocuarto album del grupo, y lo crearon durante 2019, junto con “Van Weezer”, otro álbum que publicarán en mayo de 2021. New Radicals se volverán a reunir más de veinte años después. Lo harán en la ceremonia de investidura presidencial de Joe Biden recuperando el hit “You Get What You Give”, que les hizo famosos y que convirtió a su líder Gregg Alexander en uno de los compositores más activos de Estados Unidos. Hace una década en 2010, Tom Jones publicó “Praise & Blame” – una reveladora colección que dejaba al descubierto sus raíces musicales largamente ancladas en el góspel y blues. Ahora a los 80, Tom presenta con orgullo su última aventura, Surrounded By Time con lanzamiento el 23 de Abril . @THE YELLOW MELODIES presentan el videoclip "La magia de aquellas noches", extraída del nuevo EP 'Sunshine Pop Ep2' . La realización corre a cargo de José Alberto Beltrán, fundador de los inefables Estudios Gratix, y batería de Vacaciones. Motoharu Okamura (ex-AUTOMATICS) publican segundo single, 'Combate contra mi", de adelanto de su álbum de debut.Tras 34 años descatalogado, se reedita de nuevo en formato vinilo una de las obras más buscadas por los coleccionistas: la colaboración que realizaron Nacho Cano (Mecano), y Germán Coppini (Golpes Bajos) en 1986 y que dio lugar a éste maxi single hoy recuperado, " Dame un chupito de amor ". Tigre y Diamante ultiman la grabación de un nuevo álbum, y entretanto el grupo ha querido regrabar y actualizar una de las canciones de su primer disco, contando en esta ocasión con la colaboración de Nacho Vegas en las voces. "Parques nacionales españoles" es el segundo álbum de @Alexanderplatz . Dos años después de la publicación de "Muera usted mañana", Alejandro Martínez retoma con espíritu más sosegado la aventura de coleccionar once canciones excepcionales, que desde ya lo convierten en uno de los discos destacables de 2021. De dudas y certezas hablamos con Alejandro y estrenamos algunas canciones Virtudes Morgan

The guys welcome back Scott Terry of Red Wanting Blue to talk about New Radicals “Maybe You’ve Been Brainwashed Too.” Plenty of other discussion including The Peppermint Sessions, Toad, some listener questions for Scott, Cub Scouts, Wayne’s dog Jett, Sarnia Canada, Gregg Alexander and his howl, best opening line of any record EVER, other music from 97-98, finishing lyrics in the liner notes, Young Marble Giants, Hall & Oates, how to pronounce Spokane, drug songs, some love songs and more drug songs. Check out Red Wanting Blue at: https://www.redwantingblue.com/ Check out other episodes at RecordsRevisitedPodcast.com, Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, Castbox, iHeartMedia, Google Podcasts and Spotify. Additional content is found at: Facebook.com/recordsrevisitedpodcast or twitter @podcastrecords or IG at instagram.com/recordsrevisitedpodcast/

Go follow Matt on Twitter to keep up with all the latest songs and happenings of world's most prolific songwriter.Subscribe to us on YouTube to see our video podcasts, including this episode!Follow MDCShow on Twitter and Instagram to keep up with your favorite amateur music critics and hear what we have to say about pop music and stuff!Leave a comment and rate and let us know what you want to hear next on Music Discovery Club. Love you guys.

We're talking about one of the most feel good songs of all time to help deal with the quarantine blues! Find out how much Gregg Alexander hates capitalism as we analyze New Radical's "You Get What You Give." Stick around for our bonus segment to hear about organs! Covers by: Timo Räisänen, Pickin' On, Panda Transport, Charming Horse ft. Grace Grundy, Harriet, Beacon Street, Scary Pockets Spotify playlist here

In this episode of Across The Margin : The Podcast we find host Michael Shields in conversation with Grammy-nominated singer, songwriter, producer, and visual artist JT Daly. Daly previously fronted the Nashville-based band Paper Route and more recently co-produced K. Flay's wildly successful album Every Where Is Some Where, including the hit single "Blood in the Cut" (for which Daly received Grammy nominations for Best Rock Song and Best Engineered Album). Daly is onto his next project, a new band called The Voodoo Children who are releasing their debut album this spring entitled Instant Nostalgia. The Voodoo Children could be looked at as a collective, a team of talents that JT has worked with throughout his career. The phenomenally talented lineup includes his partner Jo Meredith (Sad Penny), Daniel Tashian (producer and co-writer with Kacey Musgraves), K.Flay, Bantug, Abby Wright, Angela Plake (Bandit), Oran Thornton, Josh Lippi, his longtime engineer Josh Lovell, and Gregg Alexander of the New Radicals. While The Voodoo Children certainly persist as the main focus of the interview, Michael and JT embark on a career spanning interview where they expound upon JT’s early influences, his solo album entitled Memory, the soundtrack he composed for ESPN’s 30 for 30 documentary film Chuck & Tito, and much, much more. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

In October of 1998, shortly after we signed Channel 103.1 on the air, a band called New Radicals released its one and only album, Maybe You've Been Brainwashed Too. It quickly became my favorite album of the year, with “You Get What You Give” my personal theme song. Although the album was recorded under the New Radicals moniker, it was really a Gregg Alexander project. He wrote and produced all the songs and played most of the instruments. After YGWYG took off, Gregg shunned the spotlight, realizing he really hated the “rigamarole” that goes along with promoting a hit record. He joined me in Studio C for a rare live interview and solo performance. Within a month, he had disbanded New Radicals and said he was leaving the business. Thankfully, Gregg Alexander continues writing and producing, preferring to keep his genius more behind the scenes than out front. I'm grateful that I had this moment with him. From May 3, 1999, my interview with New Radicals' Gregg Alexander.

Gregg Alexander (Gregory Aiuto, 4 de mayo de 1970, Grosse Pointe, Michigan, EE. UU.) es un productor y cantautor, más conocido por haber sido el líder de la banda New Radicals, que tuvo su mayor éxito internacional con la canción You Get What You Give en 1998.

Gregg Alexander (Gregory Aiuto, 4 de mayo de 1970, Grosse Pointe, Michigan, EE. UU.) es un productor y cantautor, más conocido por haber sido el líder de la banda New Radicals, que tuvo su mayor éxito internacional con la canción You Get What You Give en 1998.

On our fourth episode, James Webster, Trevor's good friend and doppelgänger, drops by to offer his hot takes on New Radicals' turn-of-the-millennium anthem "You Get What You Give", and to learn about the saga of secret hit songwriter Gregg Alexander.

On our first late episode, James Webster, Trevor's favorite doppelgänger, drops by to offer his hot takes on New Radicals' turn-of-the-millennium anthem "You Get What You Give", and to learn about the saga of secret hit songwriter Gregg Alexander. @1hitwondercast onehitwondercast@gmail.com James Webster: @indefinitejest

Bizarro noises, 14 year-olds down on their knees, wanton destruction...and a political message, I guess(?). Were these guys a band? We also get into Gregg Alexanders motivation, which is mostly fueled by jealousy over other musicians fame. Its not that bad, but it IS that trite.

Today's the day that the House of Representatives will vote on Trade Promotion Authority, better known as Fast Track. It all comes down to this! We'll keep an eye on the vote and break in to see what our elected representatives do as it happens, and chat with Democracy for America chair Jim Dean about the letter they sent to members of Congress this morning, urging a NO vote. Our resident Republican, John LeBoutilliler, weighs in on some of the GOP presidential hopefuls. And for Flashback Friday, it's my rare interview with New Radicals' Gregg Alexander from May of 1999.

Attack of the Killer Soundtrack #22 - Attack of the Oscar Nominees This episode, we listen to some of the musical Oscar nominees... and discuss. In the way, only “Movie Meltdown” can do. And as we learn what roller coaster enthusiasts call SBNO, we also discuss… that Miniature toy quality, eyes with legs and they just walk around, Interstellar, the Keira Knightley/Anne Hathaway debate, I hate it when I do something and I don’t get credit for it, European melancholy, you just really like ukuleles, War Horse, The Imitation Game, everything else is very Oscar-y, Adam Levine, #fuckthoseguys, Fitzcarraldo, I would freak out… but for very different reasons, Turn off the Dark, stop airbrushing me, Shawn Patterson, why don’t they give Oscars to video games, Jaws, Memento meets Pi, are the lyrics the same, is that why they call it casting, Bend It like Beckham, Nabokov says…, The Social Network, that’s what I’m here for, he’s all about that neck, a gorilla with a robot head, Gary Yershon, Al Pacino has the final say, her neck scares me, Anne Hathaway, English rules the world, makes me want to buy a phone, Gregg Alexander and Danielle Brisebois, the ambience of a blanket fort is like no other, a Playskool xylophone, getting high and crazy, The Cardigans, crazy Tony Scott, Alexandre Desplat , it’s so obvious what they’re trying to do and it’s manipulative, Frente!, I’m already uncomfortable with this conversation, is she the one who fights wolves or robots or somethin’…. and they made like nine of them, that’s what I’m here for… I’m here to validate people’s hatred of film and dancers with things that attach to them. “You go deep… I like it.”

更多信息请关注我们今天的微信：搜索英语环球 NEWSPlusTo recognise a chick flick requires two simple steps. First you look at the colour of the pictures, if the images scream of loud, warm and dreamy colours, you can be 80 percent sure. Then you look at the story, if it deals with heartbreaks or unrequited love, it is no doubt a chick flick.However there are distinctions within the genre should you care to look closer. If the characters quote a dead poet or a dead writer, or try to speak like one, you are watching a Woody Allen film; but if someone fiddles with a musical instrument, most likely it is a John Carney production.In 2006, John Carney's musical "Once" received wide acclaim from the critics and audience members, particularly for its original score and the actors' spontaneous performances. Seven years later, the Irish director presented the world with another low-budget movie "Begin Again", with an equally pleasant soundtrack and originality.Starring Keira Knightley, Mark Ruffalo and Maroon 5 frontman Adam Levine, the story centres on a talented young girl who suffers a setback in a cherished relationship. She meets a middle-aged man, who is undergoing a bit of crisis of his own, but happens to be a gifted music producer. The man recognises her musical talent, and convinces her to record an album.By now most of you would have figured out the ending of the film. Yes, yes, the recording process helps the troubled characters walk out of the shadow to begin a new chapter of their lives. That's what chick flicks do, they try to highlight the positive side of life and make viewers feel good.But despite the stereotypical storyline, "Begin Again" is not without pleasant surprises. The secret lies in the way the album is recorded. While enjoying the Oscar-worthy, original scores by Danielle Brisebois and New Radicals frontman Gregg Alexander, viewers are also given a tour of the streets of New York City. And if Kiera Knightley's presentable voice isn't enough to impress you, Adam Levine certain deserves extra credit. Woody Allen likes to show off his literary learning, while John Carney believes in the magic of music. Carney may not as productive as the old man, but he nonetheless shares the same sincerity in his obsession.

To recognise a chick flick requires two simple steps. First you look at the colour of the pictures, if the images scream of loud, warm and dreamy colours, you can be 80 percent sure. Then you look at the story, if it deals with heartbreaks or unrequited love, it is no doubt a chick flick.However there are distinctions within the genre should you care to look closer. If the characters quote a dead poet or a dead writer, or try to speak like one, you are watching a Woody Allen film; but if someone fiddles with a musical instrument, most likely it is a John Carney production.In 2006, John Carney's musical "Once" received wide acclaim from the critics and audience members, particularly for its original score and the actors' spontaneous performances. Seven years later, the Irish director presented the world with another low-budget movie "Begin Again", with the same originality and an equally pleasant soundtrack.Starring Keira Knightley, Mark Ruffalo and Maroon 5 frontman Adam Levine, the story centres on a talented young girl who suffers a setback in a cherished relationship. She meets a middle-aged man, who is undergoing a bit of crisis of his own, but happens to be a gifted music producer. The man recognises her musical talent, and convinces her to record an album.By now most of you would have figured out the ending of the film. Yes, yes, the recording process helps the troubled characters walk out of the shadow to begin a new chapter of their lives. That's what chick flicks do, they try to highlight the positive side of life and make viewers feel good.But despite the stereotypical storyline, "Begin Again" is not without pleasant surprises. The secret lies in the way the album is recorded. While enjoying the Oscar-worthy, original scores by Danielle Brisebois and New Radicals frontman Gregg Alexander, viewers are also given a tour of the streets of New York City. And if Kiera Knightley's presentable voice isn't enough to impress you, Adam Levine certainly deserves extra credit.Woody Allen likes to show off his literary learning, while John Carney believes in the magic of music. Carney may not be as productive as the old man, but he nonetheless shares the same sincerity in his obsession. His quest to save people’s lives with music has only just begun.

Nicole welcomes the weekend after one of the worse weeks ever. She'll elaborate on the torture report and a sickening budget bill that will mark the end of the 113th Congress. Peter Hecht joins in to talk about his new book, "Weed Land". And the week ends with Flashback Friday, today featuring The Wallflowers from 1996 and New Radicals' Gregg Alexander from 1999.