In wrapping up my refutation of J.T.’s critique of Christianity and arguments for God’s existence, a large amount of material will be covered. Because of this, the installment you’re about to delve into will be the lengthiest of the three. So, although no topic will be completely exhausted, patience and attentiveness will serve you well. Now then, let’s proceed.
Discussing whether or not science is a matter of faith, J.T. talks a bit about the consistency demonstrable in the natural world and uses examples such as stones falling, satellites being launched into orbit with extreme precision, and hot stoves (16:30). J.T., I believe correctly, states that religious people also operate on the assumption that the universe is consistent. For the moment, we won’t cover why this is not problematic on a Christian worldview, so I’ll simply refer you, the reader, to Teleological arguments (also known as Fine-Tuning arguments) for God’s existence. Expounding in the hot stove example, J.T. says, “If you walk by a hot stove one week and burn your hand on it, you’re not going to put your hand on the stove next week because you expect the universe to be consistent” (16:55). He then finishes his thought by saying, “All we’re asking of the religious people in terms of science and in terms of their own beliefs is that they stay consistent” (17:12). As we’ve seen previously (and will discuss further throughout Part Three), J.T. has a hard time remaining consistent himself, so charging others with remaining consistent in their views feels a lot like the pot calling the kettle black. Lost on J.T., however, is that there is nothing inherently inconsistent with a Christian holding the view that the universe operates consistently according to natural laws and that God is capable of supernatural intervention in human history. The only reason this appears inconsistent to J.T. is that he presupposes atheism is true and that the supernatural is impossible. It would be no different if I asserted that J.T.’s position is inconsistent because his worldview does not match mine. This leads directly to a stalemate in the debate and its use within his presentation hardly represents a legitimate critique.