Good morning, everyone.
There's probably no God, so now stop worrying and enjoy your life.
That's a statement that was a slogan that was put across as an advertising.
A number of years ago now, on the side of buses all through London,
mostly funded by the atheist Richard Dawkins.
Not to be outdone, German atheists did a similar thing,
where they put a similar statement, except they went one step further and said,
there is no God, therefore stop worrying and enjoy your life.
They rented their own bus, toured the country with it.
They also had a statement there of fulfilled life.
And as that bus toured throughout Germany,
German Christians got their own bus and put on the side of it,
what if he does exist?
The thing was that they toured together throughout Germany,
and often these buses were parked up overnight beside one another.
And so it was a great delight to the media in Germany to be able to take photos of this.
It went throughout social media.
The two opposing buses living side by side.
But from that moment, our culture has been fed the message that Christianity,
it's irrational and in some cases it's even immoral.
They're the underlying currents of a secular society that we are in at the moment.
Things we watch on TV, read online, even hear about over coffee at work or university
or those sorts of things, cause us to reject the faith,
or cause many people in fact to reject the faith that they've never understood in the first place.
They pick up little statements that are plausible.
And so then they reject what they don't even know in the first place.
That such is the power of the new atheist movement and its popularity
with little statements that are implausible in and of themselves,
but have a significant influence.
In fact, these messages are so strong and frequent
that many Christians, people who declare themselves to be Christian,
but who have not actually thought deeply about the faith that they have,
the Christian faith that they held is becoming less and less real for them
in their life, in their minds, their hearts,
as it appears that what they once held to is implausible.
It's not acceptable.
It's not even good in our day and age.
The prominent atheist Richard Dawkins,
his own view is that faith is an evil precisely because
it requires no justification and Brooks'
words, to be a person of faith means that you don't think.
That's his view.
Now, our vision series this year is about helping us see
that Christianity, that faith in Jesus Christ is...
It is good and it is, in fact, desirable.
And so, if you are a sceptic sitting here amongst us
or you're a sceptic tuning online in this series,
I welcome you in this series.
If you have not...
...the atheistic bus,
you might want to actually ask,
what kind of God is it
whose existence is deemed improbable?
That is, what kind of...
Have you thought deep enough about that?
The British bus campaign proudly informed us
that the Christian God, particularly,
is a God who's...
...associated with worry
and a lack of enjoyment in life.
What is ironic about that
is that one of Dawkins' own pin-up boys himself,
the atheist...
...probably the most prominent atheist of all time,
once said that atheism is a long, hard, cruel business.
Whereas the God of the Bible is about life.
Joy in life.
See, this vision series that we're doing this year,
it flows out of who we are as a church
and what we seek to achieve as a church here at St. Paul's.
We treasure Jesus together for the joy of all people.
That is, joy in Christ
is what we want for our neighbourhood
and that is to grow in God confidence.
That is totally reasonable to be a person of faith,
even in this day and age.
And so today I want to...
...that issue of whether it is reasonable to be Christian in this day and age,
whether it's reasonable to be a person of faith in this day and age.
And I'm going to tackle that by first addressing whether it's faith is reasonable,
God is reasonable,
and finally, is it reasonable to have faith in Jesus Christ?
So if you've got the St. Paul's app,
you can take some notes on there if you like
and follow along.
So is faith reasonable?
The St. Paul's app,
discovered that there was in fact a God.
You know, you die, you discover that God exists,
and you're fronted with God, what would you do?
And Dr. Russell's reply was very fast,
quite hubris.
He said,
God,
not enough evidence for you.
And at the other end of the spectrum,
you've got people like Elizabeth Anscombe,
possibly the greatest female philosopher ever,
and the greatest female philosopher that no one's ever heard of.
She looked at the...
...from atheism to Christianity.
And frankly,
you can come up with your own list of people,
you know,
the deconversion stories,
and all that sort of...
You can come up with your own list of people
who have gone in two different directions
by looking at the same information.
How do you account for the difference?
The common argument that's used in our society at the moment,
amongst our culture,
you solve that problem by saying
that religious people...
...on faith,
but secular people ground their life in fact,
logic, rationality, science.
Religious people have faith,
they have a bias towards...
...in some way,
have a bias towards religion,
they have an emotional need
to believe that there's something else in this world,
whereas secular people are just...
They've removed all of that tradition and culture.
...people are just unbiased.
Secular people are just looking at the world objectively
and looking at life rationally,
and they have no need to believe.
Now, the main thing I want to say about that view...
...is it's so untrue.
It's so untrue.
In his book, A Secular Age,
Charles Taylor calls this view
the subtraction story.
This is where a person might say,
well, you're not the supernatural,
but because of science and because of reason,
I've just subtracted God.
I don't need God.
And now I just see the world as it actually is.
Now,
what happens as a shock
to most non-believers
is the fact that
to move from belief to unbelief
is simply a shift from one...
...set of beliefs.
It's not a move from belief to unbelief.
It's a move from this set of beliefs
to this set of beliefs.
And one of the very first sets of beliefs
is what is called exclusive rationality.
It's the belief
that science is the only arbiter
of what is real
and factual
and that nothing should be believed
unless it's proven
with evidence and observation.
Now, I think science is fantastic.
I mean, I'm a type 1 diabetic.
50 years ago, that was a death sentence.
But because of science,
it's not anymore.
And so,
you look at a statement like that
and you go,
it sounds reasonable.
And yet it's a statement
that can't meet its own standards.
In other words,
what is the observed proof
that science is the only arbiter
of what is real and factual?
You can only use a circular argument.
You can only use science to prove science.
You can't go beyond it.
And so, it's a circular argument.
There's no other proof to it,
to that statement.
So, in other words,
it can't even stand up
to its own definition.
It's a long and complex.
But even reason and proof
must start with faith.
It must start with faith in reason
and belief in some concept of proof.
For example,
for the reason,
rationality,
depends on the faith
that our senses,
our ears,
our eyes,
our minds,
our memories,
are not actually tricking us.
test that
without using
and assuming
their reliability
in the first place.
Observation and scientific evidence
can neither prove
that there is a God
or prove
that there is a God.
All varieties
of secularism
are a set of beliefs.
It's a belief system.
It is not simply
the absence of faith.
Interviewed between comedian
Ricky Gervais
and US comedian
and talk show host
Stephen Colbert.
Gervais is a
agnostic
atheist,
which means he's not sure
whether he knows
he is or not.
Colbert
is a confused Catholic.
And Gervais was explaining
how in his life
he's not a person of faith,
he has no need for religion,
no need for faith whatsoever.
His whole life
is based on science,
on evidence,
on faith,
for the explanation
of all things
in the world.
He made it very clear
that he had no faith
whatsoever.
He then
made a comment
about how the universe,
he was just talking about
how the universe,
Colbert asked him,
so where's it all from?
He says,
well,
it's very simple.
It all started
from this freakish,
minuscule burst of light,
you know,
what we call the Big Bang.
It's this tiny,
minuscule thing,
this energy
just boom.
And Colbert,
rightly so,
very quickly
jumped in there
and said,
you can't prove that though.
There's no proof for that.
You are relying,
very rightly so,
you are relying
on the theory
of Stephen Hawking.
And
he then added
that particular view
that that's where
it all started
is a step of faith.
And Gervais
beautiful moment.
There was this
immediate tension.
It was all very humorous
and they were all like
engaging and friendly
and lovely with one another.
And there was this tension
where he's like,
yeah,
but,
and then Colbert
rescued him,
come in and
changed the subject
and moved on.
He had to acknowledge
at that point
he was a person of faith.
That his whole
system of belief
was faith.
The starting point
is faith
in something
that he can't
and then they moved
on to something else.
You see,
theism,
the existence of God,
the belief in the existence
of God,
and atheism,
the belief in the
non-existence of God,
cannot be 100%
proven by data.
systems of thinking
and believing
that need to be
compared
and contrasted
to determine
which makes
the most sense.
And so,
I say again,
if you're a skeptic
in the room
or online,
don't go down
the line
and be projecting
something that you
don't know.
Compare and contrast.
which makes
the most sense
of our experience
of things
that we know
and things
that we need
to explain.
Which one makes
the most sense
of our social experience
of the problems
that we face
in living together
and the world
in which we live
and which is
most cohesively,
logically consistent.
So that brings me
to my next point.
Is faith
in a God?
If all people
exercise faith
to some degree,
the Ricky Gervaises
and the Stephen Hawkins
and everyone
in this world
and myself,
if we all exercise
faith in this degree,
is it therefore
reasonable to believe
in God?
To have faith
in God?
Believers in God
have argued,
this is not just
Christians,
this is believers
in God
have argued
that God's existence
cannot be proven
empirically
as if he
as if this God
were a physical object
within the world
that you can
investigate.
Most religious
philosophers
have argued
that God's existence
can be logically
inferred.
Logically inferred.
Which is exactly
what
he's logically
inferring
that this is
most likely
the start
of the universe.
It's an inference,
that's all it is.
Many scientific theories,
especially those
have to do with
established
on inference,
not fact,
inference.
Theory X
is more reasonable
than theory Y
if it explains
the data
better than theory Y.
It's that kind
of an idea.
This is not
proof
of the kind
that can be
concluded
in a laboratory.
But believers
suggest
that there are
very significant
clues
that point
to the existence
of God.
In fact,
the Bible
tells us
that God
has put his
fingerprints
right through
the universe.
The heavens
declare the glory
of God,
the skies
proclaim
the work
of his
hands.
Day after
day,
they pour
forth speech.
Night after
night,
they reveal
knowledge.
They use
no words,
no sound
is heard
from these
fingerprints.
And yet,
their voice
goes out
to all the
earth,
their words
to the ends
of the world.
right
throughout
creation,
revealing
something of
who God
is or
that there
is a
God.
And the
clues are
many.
I'm going
to mention
just a
couple.
And again,
really
shortened
version of
these.
There's
the cosmic
wonder
clue.
There is
agreement
that modern
science is
completely
insufficient
to explain
the existence
of the
world.
Whatever
brought it
about,
whatever
brought it
about,
must have
been
something
extra
natural,
outside of
nature,
supernatural.
The
existence of
God is
inferred
from
existence
itself.
Nothing
is
something.
Everything
must come
from something
that already
has a
being.
This
means that
there must
be some
unique
being that
exists
and is
the source
of everything
else.
In his
book,
The Language
of God,
scientist
Richard Collins
puts it
like this.
We have
this very
solid
conclusion
that the
universe
had an
origin,
the Big
Bang.
15
bits
began
with an
unimaginably
bright flash
of energy
from an
infinitely
small
point.
That
implies
that before
that,
there was
nothing.
I cannot
imagine
how in
this case
the universe
could have
created
itself.
and the
very fact
that the
universe
had a
beginning
implies
that someone
was able
to begin
it.
It seems
to me
that had
to be
a
beginning.
Now,
that particular
argument,
the cosmic
wonder
argument,
the beginning
of everything,
is an
argument that
has drawn
atheists in
to try
and explain
it.
People like
Stephen Hawkins,
you're left
with people
like Richard
Dawkins
and others
who have
come up
with this
concept
of the
multiple
universes.
In other
words,
to explain
God
away,
they've
come up
with a
theory that
has got
no evidence
or proof
to it
at all.
massive
step of
faith.
And they
think they're
not biased
in it.
Of course,
the cosmic
wonder
argument is
not conclusive
proof for
God,
but it is
a strong
case that
something
beyond the
natural
world
has brought
this world
into existence
and which
even now
upholds
that
existence.
Another
clue for
God's
existence
has to
do with
the design,
the fine
tuned
design
of the
world.
You can
think of
this,
imagine a
bunch of
dials that
are all
set at
exactly the
point it
needs to
be,
all randomly,
not connected
to one
another at
all.
This is
not all
on a
big long
dial
platform,
they're
all
randomly,
not
connected
to one
another,
but all
the
right
point in
order for
life to
exist.
One of
those
dials is
gravitational
pull,
not related
to any
of the
other
dials,
but they're
all at
exactly the
right point.
And the
possibility
of those
dials
set at
exactly the
right spot
without a
purpose or
without a
cause is a
massive leap
of faith,
massive leap
of faith.
especially
for a
scientist
who works
on the
principle,
foundational
principle of
a scientist
is the
world is
orderly.
It can
be observed
and yet
their starting
principle is
randomness.
The secular
science.
So here's a
way to maybe
illustrate that.
imagine that
a man is
before a
firing squad,
poor person,
10 crack
marksmen,
brilliant
marksmen,
to doom
this poor
prisoner,
and they're
all standing
10 metres
away.
These guys
are that
good,
they can
shoot
something
a kilometre
away,
but they're
all standing
10 metres
away.
And
countdown
happens,
bang,
every single
one of
the misses.
He's still
alive,
he's like,
wow.
Could that
have been an
accident?
Well, I
mean, on one
level, you can
take each one
of the guys
and you
separate them
and you go,
well, this
guy coughed
at the wrong
time,
all at
exactly the
same time,
this guy
was completely
drunk,
this guy
momentarily
blind,
you know,
blah,
you know,
like you
could get
all 10 of
them and
go,
well,
there's a
logical
explanation
for all
10,
or you
could sit
back and
you could
look at
that and
go,
hang on
a bit,
something's
there is
someone back
here behind
these 10
people influencing
this decision
because they
don't want
that guy
shot.
There's a
conspiracy.
Believers
in God
suggest that
the fine
tuning of
physics makes
much more
sense in
a universe
in which
there is a
creator and
designer
standing behind
it all.
It's
improbable that
all the
physical
constants of
the universe
just happen
to be
perfectly
tuned for
life on
their own.
To quote
the scientist
Collins again,
if any one
of these
constants was
off by even
one part in
a million
million,
the universe
could not
have come to
the point
where we
see it.
Matter would
not have been
able to
coalesce,
there would
have been no
galaxy,
stars,
planets,
or people.
to conclude
it was
something
intended and
something
designed.
Is that
conclusive
proof?
No, it's
not.
Because it
suggests
that it's
more likely
that a
God,
then there
is not
a God,
it can't
be dismissed.
Because there's
not just
ten guys
lining up
here.
The
philosopher
Alvin
Plantinga
says that
there are
at least
thirty
very strong
similar
arguments
for the
existence
of God.
The
distinguished
physician
Lewis Thomas
wrote,
I cannot
make peace
with the
randomness
doctrine.
This is
an atheist.
I cannot
abide the
notion of
purposelessness
and blind
chance in
nature.
And yet,
I do not
know what
to put in
its place
for the
quieting of
my mind.
Now,
none of
these are
so strong
as to
force
belief.
But they
do make
it completely
rational to
believe
in the
existence
of God.
Completely
rational.
In fact,
these arguments
suggest
it's
rational
and takes
less of a
leap of faith
to believe
in God
than to
not believe
in God.
Ultimately,
non-belief in
God is an
act of
faith because
there is
reason for
the world
and all
that's
within it
with all
its deep
mathematical
orderliness
and matter
itself
all simply
exist on
its own
with no
source behind
it at all.
So,
yes,
it's
reasonable
to be
a person
of faith
because
everyone
is.
Yes,
it's
reasonable
to believe
in God
and lastly,
is it
reasonable
therefore to
believe in
Jesus Christ
which is
what we
want to
do as
a
Jesus.
Now,
the clues
for God,
all those
arguments
lined up,
not only
do not
prove
God's
existence
but at
best
they would,
you could
conclude
that
this is
just some
abstract
God,
nothing more
than the
Greek
philosopher
Aristotle's
unmoved
mover
who created
the world,
got it
moving but
completely
unaware that's
what he
did.
Christians
believe that
the main
way that
we know
specifics
about this
God is
through
self-revelation.
that is,
we don't
know God
first and
foremost
because he
has spoken.
He's
revealed
himself.
And
Christians
believe that
he has
done that
decisively
in the
person of
Jesus
Christ.
one is
referring to
Jesus
when it
makes that
claim that
Jesus
himself is
the final
and decisive
communication
of God
to his
universe.
In the
past,
God
could
through the
prophets
at many times
in various
ways,
but in
these last
days,
he has
spoken to
us by
his
son,
whom he
appointed
heir of
all things
and through
whom he
made the
universe.
It's the
radiance of
God's glory
and the
exact
representation
of his
being.
Hebrews
1,
what we see
in Hebrews
is very
clear,
it's talking
about Jesus,
that this
Jesus is
God the
son,
the exact
representation
of God
and he
has now
come to
dwell.
And so
therefore,
it's not
surprising
that the
man that
Christians
call Jesus
Christ is
the single
most influential
person in
their life.
And his
influence
continues to
grow today.
A greater
percentage of
the world's
population than
ever before is
Christian.
And
Christianity
adds to
50,000
people a
day or
just under
19 million
new
Christians a
year.
And
Christianity
is the
most
equally
distributed
of any
of the
major
religions.
Christian
faith.
That is,
the Christian
faith has
crossed the
cultural divisions
of humanity
and found a
place in
all kinds,
rich and
poor,
east and
west,
all kinds
across the
world.
Why has
Jesus had
such an
impact on
humanity in
the last
20
centuries?
Jesus,
the answer
is by
looking at
his life,
his words,
his actions.
Jesus,
you see the
quality we
would ordinarily
consider
incompatible in
the same
person.
Jesus combines
high majesty
with the
greatest humility.
He joins the
strongest commitment
to justice and
astonishing mercy
and grace.
movements of
justice in
this world,
very few of
them,
in fact,
all of them
have got
enemies in
some description,
people that
they want to
have justice
towards and
those who
they want to
tear down.
Very rarely
do you see
justice
working together
at the same
time.
He reveals a
transcendent
self-sufficiency
and yet an
entire trust in
and a reliance
upon his
heavenly father.
We are
surprised to
see tenderness
without any
weakness,
boldness,
humility,
without
uncertainty,
indeed
accompanied by
a towering
confidence.
His unbending
conviction,
but he's
completely
approachable.
His insistence
on truth,
but he's
always bathed
in love,
without
insensitivity,
his integrity,
without rigidity,
his passion,
without prejudice.
people who
have pondered
and read
Jesus'
words,
his deeds,
his life,
have groped
for good
ways
to explain
what it is
that they
see.
And many
have come
to realise
that the
remarkable
claims of
Jesus
may in
fact be
the only
way forward.
What he
says about
himself
is true.
is that
his claims
were so
self-centred,
but his
character,
his actions
were so
un-self-centred.
We never
see him
pompous,
you never
see him
offended,
we never
see him
he's
approachable
to the
weakest
and most
broken,
he's never
moody
or irritable.
there is
an
unsurpassed
moral
and
spiritual
beauty
about the
character
and the
team.
Houston
Smith in
his book
The World's
Religions
says that
only Buddha
and Jesus
so
impressed
their
contemporaries
that the
contemporaries
ask not
just who
are you
but what
are you?
What order
of being
do you
belong to?
What species
do you
represent?
Only
these two
figures in
history
had
characters
that
transcended
ordinary
human life
to the
degree
that that
question was
necessary for
them.
And
Buddha
of the
two
Buddha
asserted
with great
clarity
thank you
Rachel
asserted
with great
clarity
and
emphasized
over and
over again
that he
was not
a god
that he
was not
an angelic
being
that he
was not
a divine
being
in any
way.
God
said
to be
God
and
continually
claimed to
be the
God who
made all
things
the creator
of the
universe.
This
creates a
great
challenge.
Jesus
is one
of the
very few
people in
history
who founded
one of the
great world
religions.
I'm
talking
Scientology
or something.
I'm
talking the
big world
religions.
Millions and
millions of
adherences.
He belongs
to that
very,
very small
group of
people who
had a
very significant
impact on
him.
Because of
their brilliant
teaching but
also because
of their
admirable
lives and
characters.
The difference
between Jesus
and every
other one of
those in
that category,
that small
category,
he's the
only one who
claimed to
be God
himself.
Buddha
emphatically
said that he
was not
God.
And Muhammad
of course
would never
have ever
claimed to
be Allah.
Nor did
Confucius
claim to
be God.
Jesus is
also part of
a second
group of
people in
history.
And this
second group
of people
are the
people who
claim to
be God.
And what
makes Jesus
unique in
this group
of people,
this group
were never
able to
convince
anyone but
a very
small select
group of
people,
very small
group of
followers,
that they
were in
fact God.
In the
whole history
of humanity,
there is
only one
person who
not only
claimed to
be God
himself,
but also
got enormous
numbers of
people to
believe it
in his
own time.
And that's
Jesus Christ.
So why
did Jesus
succeed as
the only
person who
ever claimed
deity and
founded one
of the great
world religions,
indeed the
largest
faith on
the face
of the
earth.
Firstly,
his life
was exquisitely
beautiful.
It is
extraordinarily
difficult.
I'd
encourage you,
I'd
challenge you
this even
today.
difficult to
claim to
be perfect
and to
be God,
to be
divine,
and then to
get people
who live
with you
to believe
that.
My kids
don't believe
I'm God
at all.
They don't
believe I'm
perfect at
all.
The other
reason that
Jesus was
worshipped by
Jews as
God,
that in
itself is an
extraordinary
claim.
no Jew
ever believed
that God
would be
human.
So
sacrilegious.
And yet
many Jews
worshipped him
in the first
century.
How did that
happen?
The
resurrection.
The
historical
evidence for
the resurrection
of Jesus
is,
and there
are three
basic lines
of evidence
that converge
for the
resurrection.
The first
is the fact
that there
was an
empty
tomb.
Historians
see the
empty
tomb as
just a
given.
The
question is
what happened
to the
body?
The second
is the
testimony of
the hundreds
of eyewitnesses.
The Apostle
Paul can
say in a
public document
about 20
years after
the event,
while people
are still
in the
event,
that
hundreds
and
hundreds
and
hundreds
of
people
saw
Jesus
raised
from
the
dead.
It's
one thing
about
resurrection.
It's
another thing
to start
the rumour
while people
are still
living and
claiming that
those people
saw it.
The third
has to do
with the
impact of
the resurrection
of Jesus
followers.
Very few
marginal
people that
developed a
confidence and
a fearlessness
that enabled
them to
spread the
news of
Jesus
resurrected
gladly
throughout the
Roman Empire
and give
their lives
for them.
Some people
have claimed
that the
disciples stole
the body
and hid it.
you don't
die for a
hoax.
Something
extraordinary
must have
happened to
the
disciples
of the
normal
course.
And if we
try to find
an alternative
explanation for
the resurrection,
we may in
fact find
ourselves
making even
greater leaps
of faith
than if we
believed in
the
resurrection.
In Jesus
Christ is a
man who
claimed to
be God
and yet who
lived a
life so
great that
he became
the only
person in
the history
of humanity
to convince
people
that he
is in
fact God
and he's
still doing
it today.
Friends,
and particularly
if you're a
skeptic here,
you can't
be indifferent
to that
claim.
You can't
resolve the
issue by just
saying,
well,
he was just
a great
teacher.
He's able
to convince
people.
His
declarations
about
himself
don't
allow
that.
You can't
respond that
he'd ever
made such
great claims
about himself
because of
the historical
evidence for
those claims.
We can't
be content
with the
explanation
that he
was deranged,
that he
was a
fraud,
because of
the evident
of his
life on
his followers.
And because
of the
case of
the
resurrection.
This
leaves us
with the
final
possible
explanation,
namely
is,
that is,
that he
did what
he claimed
to have
done.
And as
the creator
of the
universe,
he still
makes those
claims on
our life.
Thomas,
in John
14,
still stands
today for
your life
and mine.
I am
the way.
I am
the truth.
I am
the life.
He is
it,
the source
of life.
the truth
about life,
the way
for life.
Except
through him.
As hard
as it is
to be a
person of
faith and
to believe
that Jesus
is God,
come to
earth,
it may
in fact be
just more
difficult not
to do so.
I want
to say
that it
is totally
reasonable
to be a
person of
faith,
to have
faith in
God,
to have
faith in
Jesus
Christ.
And in
the coming
weeks,
I want
us to see
just how
relevant that
faith is.