Convincing Proof

In this episode, Adam discusses how recent years have shown a comeback for Christianity in the field of philosophy and how this has affected the world today. This shift can be seen through the rising prominence of influential Christian philosophers from the latter half of the twentieth century such as Alvin Plantinga, Alasdair MacIntyre, John Hare, Robert Merrihew Adams, and others.

Art is more than just pretty paintings and catchy music. Art is often used as a medium for the communication of ideas about life, meaning, and morality. Artists are often influenced by movements in philosophy that advance various ideas. There have been three main movements in the history of philosophy: the premodern, modern, and postmodern eras. Art movements have also tracked with these philosophical movements, echoing their ideas and communicating their thoughts. In this video, Adam explores this history of philosophy influencing art, and a special guest, artist Jeremy Goodding (‪@jeremygoodding268‬) joins to discuss his work.To see more about Jeremy Goodding and his work, see here: https://jeremygoodding.com/

In this episode of the podcast, Adam discusses a chapter that he contributed to a recent book that is going to be published by Oxford University Press about the moral argument. Adam's chapter covers his Divine Love Theory and explains how it is very useful to incorporate the Trinity into the moral argument. Adam gives four reasons why he includes the Trinity when he argues for God based on morality.

In this episode, Adam interviews Clark Moghadam, a student at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln who is studying biology and philosophy. Clark is helping out at Convincing Proof this summer and loves studying topics in the fields of theology, history, and philosophy. You can watch a talk Clark gave earlier this year here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mo7fq61nJzM

Is it true that we only believe in Christianity because we were raised in a Christian culture? This argument claims that if our religious beliefs are only relative to the arbitrary place in which we were born, then we can’t trust them to be true. However, this is a poor argument. To see why, we can ask this: Why limit this to just our religious beliefs? What about our political, moral, scientific, or philosophical beliefs? Are those simply fixed by where we were born? Should that cause us to discount them?

Ayn Rand was an influential thinker who lived during the 20th century, and many conservatives and libertarians have appreciated her ideas, particularly her championing of freedom of speech, capitalism, and individual rights. However, Ayn Rand was an outspoken atheist who did not like religion or Christianity. So how should we, as Christians, approach the ideas of Ayn Rand?

Have you ever seen claims like this floating around social media? “There have been thousands of religions, so how do you know yours is true?” “You don’t believe in thousands of gods; we just believe in one less.” Statements like this make faulty assumptions about how our religious beliefs work. Just because people have slightly different descriptions of the supreme being that doesn’t mean these ideas are all drastically different. In fact, they are mostly similar, and shows that the vast majority of people and cultures have concluded that there is, in fact, a supreme being – God.

Have you ever noticed how the moral argument for God is somewhat like the first-cause (or cosmological) argument for God? At the core of the first-cause argument is the idea that, if we notice a sequence of causes, then there must be either an infinite regress of causes or there was an ultimate first cause. However, the moral argument functions much in the same way. G. E. Moore introduced the idea of the “open question”: if we say that something is good, then the following question can always be asked: “What makes that thing good?” Any answer you give to that question can also have the same question asked of it: “Well, then that makes that thing good?” This causes an infinite regress unless, of course, there is one thing that is just ultimately good.

Are traditional methods of apologetics outdated? Does giving arguments for God or providing evidence that Jesus rose from the dead actually convince anyone? Should we instead only use apologetic methods that "work"? Some try to disparage traditional apologetic methods, claiming that they really don't convince anyone, and that other things like personal stories or emotional appeals are what really convince people to change their minds. But is simply making Christianity more “attractive” or “desirable” a better approach for apologetics?

Sometimes Christians are accused of trying to "legislate morality." What does that mean? Is it wrong to bring our moral values to the table when making legislation? This objection is often made with hot-button issues like abortion, but what about rape or murder? Is it "legislating morality" to outlaw those actions? We all have certain beliefs about reality, but are these beliefs moral beliefs? philosophical beliefs? religious beliefs? scientific beliefs? It can be hard to label or classify our beliefs, and thus oftentimes the objection against "legislating morality" is simply an appeal to rhetoric rather than substance.

What does it mean to say that the Bible is "self-authenticating"? If something is self-authenticating, that means that you don't need anything else to authenticate it or show that it real. In terms of the Bible, if it is self-authenticating, that means that the Bible itself shows that it really is the Word of God. However, some who say that the Bible is self-authenticating use that idea to imply that doing apologetics is wrong or unbiblical, that we shouldn't need to give evidence to support the Bible's truthfulness. But is that really what the Bible being self-authenticating means?

On July 13, 2024, there was an assassination attempt against former President Donald Trump while he was speaking at a political rally. In this podcast, Adam talks about how our frequently heated political rhetoric can lead to situations like this and discusses various ways that we, as Christians, can avoid being taken in by this rhetoric and becoming fearful, frustrated, angry, and hateful. We can disagree with someone’s political positions without using exaggerated statements or being a jerk, and we can refuse to engage in spreading this type of rhetoric.

The #1 movie on Netflix right now is a movie called "Hit Man." It's a film about a psychology and philosophy professor named Gary who gets away with two murders. Adam discusses this movie and shows how films like this that glamorize evil actions and portray the characters as suffering no negative consequences for their evil choices present a false picture that can actually encourage evil actions in the real world.

Greg Welty recently wrote a book on Alvin Plantinga in the "Great Thinkers" series. Alvin Plantinga is a renowned Christian philosopher whom you should be familiar with. He was at the forefront of a Christian renaissance in academic philosophy in the latter half of the 20th century. Welty's book is a great short introduction to Plantinga's work. One place where Adam disagrees with Plantinga is on the idea of "Reformed Epistemology." Some descriptions of Reformed Epistemology seem to look down too much on human reason. While we certainly don't want to downplay or dismiss the vital work of the Holy Spirit, we don't want to settle for basing everything on feelings or intuitions either. In his book Warranted Christian Belief, Plantinga seems to dismiss the idea that philosophy can be useful in determining if Christianity is true, and Adam thinks he is incorrect to do that.

It may be surprising to hear that postmodernism and presuppositionalism could be similar. Postmodernism is a philosophy that, among other things, is very committed to the idea that truth is relative in some sense. Presuppositionalism is the idea that we should start doing apologetics by assuming (or presupposing) that God exists and the Bible is His Word. So, how could these two ideas be related? Both postmodernism and presuppositionalism were overreactions to philosophical modernism. Both movements tended to downplay the importance of using reason in forming our beliefs and instead focused on other means, such as our inner feelings (postmodernism) or blind faith (presuppositionalism). James K. A. Smith is an example of a presuppositionalist who has recognized and even promoted this connection.

Many Christians these days use the term "Christian worldview" to describe their beliefs. Having a "Christian worldview" is usually deemed very important in many Christian circles. But is the term "worldview" a word that Christians should use to describe their beliefs? This term actually came out of postmodern philosophy and has a history of framing all truth claims as merely subjective statements rather than objective facts about the world. In this context, someone's "worldview" was just the way that he or she preferred to view the world rather than a term describing beliefs that apply objectively to everybody, regardless of their subjective "view" or "worldview."

The film "Everything Everywhere All at Once" won several academy awards earlier this year, including one for Best Picture. Like many films and other works of art, this film communicates philosophical and cultural ideas. Namely, postmodern existentialism is front and center. The daughter in this movie has an existential crisis where she fears that there is no meaning and purpose in life and wants to end it all. Following from this, the message of the film is that you should find what gives you meaning and makes life subjectively meaningful to you, because that's seen as the only alternative to concluding that life has no meaning.

Adam’s new book “Divine Love Theory: How the Trinity is the Source and Foundation of Morality” just came out last month. In this podcast, Adam explains how the book came about and why he decided to write on topics such as morality, metaethics, and the moral argument for God’s existence. Adam also explains why much of the book is a critique of a moral theory proposed by Erik Wielenberg that doesn’t require God’s existence. Divine Love Theory is even endorsed by Erik Wielenberg himself along with other Christian philosophers and theologians such as William Lane Craig, J. P. Moreland, Robert Koons, David Baggett, Mark Linville, Corey Miller, Greg Welty, and Bryan Clark.

"I believe Christianity is true, but I could be wrong." Is this something a Christian should ever say? Adam has often said it, and Francis Schaeffer did as well, but what do they mean by it? In short, it's a way of communicating that our belief in Christianity is the type of thing that can be right or wrong. People need to understand that Christianity is a propositional belief system that can be objectively true or false. It's not just a subjective feeling or personal preference that's helpful or meaningful to me. In the end, Christianity either corresponds to reality or it does not.

Sometimes you'll hear people say that using reason and logic or presenting evidence for your beliefs is only a Western way of thinking. Adam Lloyd Johnson examines the postmodern roots of this idea and explains why he thinks that it is misguided. Using reason and logic and presenting evidence are simply good ways of thinking that are common to all human beings, regardless of where they're from.