Reasonable Faith

Our hearts resonate with beauty, the lifting feeling seems to point to something transcendent This argument for God’s existence isn’t so much based on ideas as it is on a nearly universal human experience: the compelling feeling of transcendence when we are moved by beauty. When we hear a powerful performance or a particularly beautiful piece of music, our hearts are stirred with a kind of yearning or longing and a poignant kind of joy. The feeling of wonder that beauty can illicit stirs us to believe that there is something “more.” When we are not in the state that beauty can provoke in us, it may not seem like a very powerful argument, because technically speaking, it isn’t an argument. It’s an experience. But when we are in a state of wonder, no argument can convince us that it isn’t happening, and no argument to believe in “something more” seems necessary. That there is “something more” is as obvious to us as our own existence. To explore this topic I did some footwork, I spoke to friends, professors, and of course, my Dad.  I spoke to Kacie Parks, my roommate who is an amazing painter studying painting and drawing in the South Carolina School of the Arts. I asked her if she had experience with this concept or experience. Robert Homer-Drummond, a theatre professor at Anderson University, shared his experience with beauty in his work. He has made a profession out of presenting beautiful stories to others, his goal is to make his audience feel something with what they see. I asked about his experience and how he has seen God in art and beautiful things. Finally, I spoke to my dad, Dr. Ethan Brown, to wrap up the argument. In undergrad he was a theatre major at Harding University so he has a good understanding of beauty. He helped me connect the dots between the feeling of beauty and the necessary existence it points to. When we have this experience it implies the existence of God. This argument has reaffirmed my belief in the necessity of a God. If this argument helped you too, let me know by leaving a 5-star review and share it with a friend you think needs to hear this podcast!

Everyone has the concept of something that is bad or something that is good. Everyone knows punching someone is bad, or cancer is bad, or Hitler was evil. There must be some objective truth outside of me, that there is some existence that is ultimately good, almost like a natural instinct. But where does that instinct come from? And what scale are we comparing these things on? To explore this topic I did some footwork, I spoke to friends, professors, and of course, my Dad.  First, I spoke to Anna Davis, my friend, to see if she knew about this idea. I asked her to explain the concept and give me examples.  Raymond Bruce Williams, a Christian Worldview professor at Anderson University, also spoke with me about this idea. He broadened my perspective outside of my local understanding and provided an understanding of different cultures and their values. Finally, I spoke to my dad, Dr. Ethan Brown, to wrap up the argument. He helped me understand that there must be a scale outside the human experience that we compare ourselves to. The natural instinct that all humans have implies the existence of a necessary moral being. Just as there is no darkness, but just the absence of light, this existence must be morally good. Therefore there must be an omnipotent God. This argument has reaffirmed my belief in the necessity of a God. If this argument helped you too, let me know by leaving a 5-star review and share it with a friend you think needs to hear this podcast!

Irreducible complexity, the idea that there are systems in biology that could not be developed randomly through natural selection, is part of the argument for design.  To explore this topic I did some footwork, I spoke to friends, professors, and of course, my Dad.  First, I spoke to Emily Stanton, an environmental science major at Anderson University, to see if she knew about this idea. I asked her to explain the concept and give me examples.  Dr. Joni McCullar Criswell, a biology professor at Anderson University, also spoke with me about this idea. She gave me a brief description of Irreducible complexity and how she has seen her work point towards the idea of a necessary creator. Finally, I spoke to my dad, Dr. Ethan Brown, to wrap up the argument. Once we had a firm grasp of the scientific idea of irreducible complexity, we built on this concept to tie it back to the idea of a necessary designer. God must have created the world to be how it is, and no less than what he has assembled could be possible This argument has reaffirmed my belief in the necessity of a God. If this argument helped you too, let me know by leaving a 5-star review and share it with a friend you think needs to hear this podcast!

The idea of God; the generation if the idea of a beneficial God, and the fact that the idea of God itself exists. Anselm of Canterbury was a philosopher in the 11th century, he is most famous for his book the “Proslogion.” In it, he wrote an ontological argument that has several parts, It is worded like a prayer in the Proslogion, but I’ll summarize it in simpler words here. First, he states that God can be defined as a supreme being, to have that idea in the mind. All people think of God in this way because it is the definition. Because the idea of God exists, and a concept that is in reality, is greater than that only in the mind, in order for God to truly be the greatest, He must exist. To explore this topic I did some footwork, I spoke to friends, professors, and of course, my Dad.  First, I spoke to Anna Elder, a friend from one of my classes. I asked her some silly questions about Santa Clause, but this was an example of the type of argument Khant did to attempt to combat Anselm's Ontological Argument.  The last time I spoke to Dr. James T. Turner, a philosophy professor at Anderson University, he told me this argument was his favorite. Although pretty confusing to read, Dr. Turner made this easier to understand with great examples Finally, I spoke to my dad, Dr. Ethan Brown, who introduced me to this argument. Although complicated, we worked together to solidify an understanding of this philosophy mind game. This argument has reaffirmed my belief in the necessity of a God. If this argument helped you too, let me know by leaving a 5-star review and share it with a friend you think needs to hear this podcast!

Things are constantly moving and changing; but why, what does it mean, and who is causing it. Thomas Aquinas penned the five ways, “the first way” discusses that nothing can happen without a cause.  Here is the full argument: 1. All bodies are either potentially in motion or actually in motion. 2. "But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality"  3. Nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect. 4. Therefore nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality with respect to motion 5. Therefore nothing can move itself; it must be put into motion by something else. 6. If there were no "first mover, moved by no other" there would be no motion. 7. But there is motion. 8. Therefore there is a first mover, God To explore this topic I did some footwork, I spoke to friends, professors, and of course, my Dad.  First, I spoke to Zoe Rodgers, my RA, about what change is. I asked her to explain the concept, give me examples, and asked her opinion on different kinds of change. But the argument from change doesn't seem to only mean the casual definition. Dr. James T. Turner, a philosophy professor at Anderson University, spoke with me about this idea. He walked me through Aquinas’s argument and helped me understand what he meant by change and motion.  Finally, I spoke to my dad, Dr. Ethan Brown, to make sure I completely understood this argument. He had recommended I look at this argument, and now I know why. This argument has reaffirmed my belief in the necessity of a God. If this argument helped you too, let me know by leaving a 5-star review and share it with a friend you think needs to hear this podcast!

Today in America, the fastest growing religious perspective in America today is something called The Nones. America hasn’t seen a sudden surge of women converting to Catholicism, taking vows of celibacy, and entering convents. Instead, America has seen a sudden surge of people who are walking away from religious faith altogether. According to Ryan Burge, a political scientist at Eastern Illinois University, and author of the new book, The Nones: Where They Came From, Who They Are, and Where They Are Going, in the 1970s, the Nones were just 5% of the population. Now, they are about 30% of the American population. Surprisingly rapidly, Americans are leaving their faith in God and choosing to adopt instead an unbelieving posture. The Nones are people who have chosen not to affiliate with any religious group. While some “Nones” do believe in God and are merely hostile to organized religion, a great many of the Nones don’t believe in God at all. This is particularly true of the rising generations. While the Nones make up 30% of the population of America as a whole, in Generation Z that number looks more like 40%. This is happening to America and it’s happening very fast. So many people are walking away from the faith, and the current trajectory of America has us quickly becoming a nation made up of mostly post-Christian people. But are they right? Or, is it possible that my generation is missing something? Is it possible that the idea of God is still one worth thinking about? The question “is there a God?” Is a really big question. Perhaps the most important question in all of human philosophy is because the implications of the answers are so very big. If there is a God, then all kinds of life priorities become clear, and others become insignificant. If God doesn’t exist, then the same things happen, but the priorities are entirely different. Apologetics is about making a case for a certain thing to be true. For instance, one of the most famous historical apologies is the Apology of Socrates. In that speech, Socrates is on trial for his life - he either makes the case that he’s not a villain or he dies. Socrates is not apologetic in the sense that he’s sorry at all. He is making an apology in the sense that he shouldn’t need to be sorry - he’s innocent of the crimes of which he’s accused. Socrates makes a case for his innocence and that’s called an apology. Christian apologetics is similar to that. We aren’t making an apology in the sense that we say we are sorry. We are making an apology in the sense that we are offering evidence for the truth and reality of our faith. Philosophical arguments are given in response to the idea that belief in God is wholly and entirely irrational. If a person doesn’t believe in God, then that person isn’t going to be persuaded by a Biblical argument, obviously. Why should they believe in a divinely inspired document if they don’t believe in divinity? A philosophical argument responds to the attack that belief in God is irrational and says, not necessarily. There are good reasons to believe in God. And that's what this podcast is all about.