Robin McGraw and the Women of Faith Conference

In the last post, I worked through how a Christian might be discerning of Dr. Phil. Amazingly, there has been very little research done from a conservative Evangelical approach on the influence of Dr. Phil in spite of the fact that millions of people listen intently to him everyday. I recently learned that Dr. Phil’s wife, Robin, who rivals him in popularity, is also winning the hearts of conservative Christians.

In June 2005, Bible and inspirational book publisher, Thomas Nelson, announced that they would be publishing Robin’s upcoming book, slated for 2006. Reading the press release is somewhat sickening, for it reveals an underlying desire for profit rather than doctrinal purity. Thomas Nelson also owns and operates the Women of Faith Conferences that are held all across the United States. According to a recent Women of Faith Discussion Board conversation, Robin McGraw has been invited to speak at the 2006 National Conference in Ft. Laurderdale and she will be introduced by her husband, Dr. Phil.

I wonder if Dr. Phil and Robin could agree with the Women of Faith Statement of Faith (published openly on the WoF website). It reads like this:

[Women of Faith Believes…] God's creation of the world and humankind with humanity's rebellion and subsequent depravity…In the person and work of Jesus Christ, including His deity, His virgin birth, His sinless life, His true humanity, His miracles, His substitutionary death, His bodily resurrection, His ascension to heaven, and His personal return in power and glory…That for salvation of the lost, sinful man, regenerationby the Holy Spirit is absolutely essential. Salvation is by grace through faith in Christ as one's Savior…In the resurrection of both the saved and the lost -- the saved unto the resurrection of life and the lost unto the resurrection of damnation.

Just a couple of weeks ago, October 11-15, Robin McGraw was a keynote speaker at Robert Schuller’s Crystal Cathedral (2005 Women’s Conference on Possibility Thinking). Schuller is notorious for mixing up his own brand of positivisms laced with Christian themes. He reasons that traditional Christianity is flawed. He asks, “What is that basic flaw? I believe it is the failure to proclaim the gospel in a way that can satisfy every person's deepest need - one's spiritual hunger for glory. Rather than glorify God's highest creation - the human being - Christian liturgies, hymns, prayers, and scriptural interpretations have often insensitively and destructively offended the dignity of the person…” (Self-Esteem, p. 31). Robert Schuller does not present true biblical Christianity and must be labeled a heretic and a false teacher.

To be sure, as I clearly indicated in the last post, Dr. Phil and his wife Robin are certainly genuine about their desire to help people and they should be commended for this. They say many true things that often stem from biblical principles. However, they do not present the Word of God as truth (if they ever mention it at all), they do not speak of Christ or salvation through His sacrifice and resurrection, and they do not deal with humanity’s real problem of sin against a holy God.

Since that is the case, Robin McGraw should not be allowed to address Christian women at a Christian conference nor should a Christian publishing company publish her books. The church, simply put, does not need pop-psychology. We have the Word of God which is “useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work” (II Timothy 3:17).

It is certainly true that like all people, believers in Jesus Christ need counseling and help – we are not above it. We are broken and fractured and hurt and misguided like the rest of the world. But we are constrained to go to the Scriptures to find the help we need. There are many pastors and counselors who offer advice that is just as effective as the McGraw’s, that is unashamedly based on the truth of God’s Word. Unless Dr. Phil and Robin come out in substantial agreement with the Women of Faith Statement of Faith, confessing belief in the depravity of mankind, total faith in Jesus Christ as the only way of salvation and the Bible as God’s complete Word, then they should not be allowed a voice in the Christian community.

I urge women who love and support the Women of Faith Conferences to call the leadership (1-888-49-FAITH) and let them know that you do not need pop-psychology, but that you need someone who will present the pure Word of God.

Discerning Dr. Phil

Dr. Phil McGraw is currently the recognized popular authority on all issues related to life. His entrance into fame, via the aid of Oprah Winfrey, led to a spark among Americans to find peace and the good life through following the advice of a smart, likable and tough-minded psychologist. Even many Christians have embraced Dr. Phil as a powerful authority on life.

“Get Real” With Some Biblical Principles

Dr. Phil made the “Top 50 Most Influential Christians” list, just barely, at #50 (thechurchreport.com). On one of his shows, he has stated that God is his “Higher Power,” and that he is a Christian. Furthermore, the principles that he postulates are quite often similar to the principles that we find scattered throughout the Bible. For example, Dr. Phil believes and teaches that people must take personal responsibility for their actions and quit playing “the role of victim” (Dr. Phil’s Ten Life Laws, #2). We find this same principle many times in the Bible, stated in the form of a warning that we must answer to the Lord for the choices we make. “But in accordance with your hardness and your impenitent heart you are treasuring up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, who ‘will render to each one according to his deeds’” (Romans 2:5-6).

However, Dr. Phil never refers to the Bible as an authority on life. In fact, he rarely if ever refers to any higher authority at all. His advice comes from himself, as he sees and interprets life. This does not make his points untrue, for it is clear that Dr. Phil often speaks truth and often helps people, but his points are not linked to another source of authority that we can test.

It is also clear that Dr. Phil carries much New Age baggage. This becomes apparent when he speaks about “defining your authentic self.” Instead of promoting prayer, Dr. Phil suggests “eliminating your negative internal dialogue,” which he describes as something that “powerfully programs and shapes your self-concept.” In order to eliminate the negative internal dialogue, a person should go through several exercises during the course of a chosen day, ending with self-focused questions like, “You’re the one who talks to you, all day, every day. What kind of friend are you?” So instead of looking upward to God for help, Dr. Phil teaches that we should look inward and help ourselves.

Overall, the advice that Dr. Phil offers is a surface level, loose collection of fortune cookie pop-psychology, finding its source in some unmentioned biblical principles and some New Age principles.

What Should a Christian Do?

Dr. Phil has been truly helpful to Christians and non-Christians alike, helping people take a look at life and make real steps to correct problems in relationships, finances, health, parenting, and many other areas. For this, he must be commended. As a believer, I have personally benefited from listening to his advice and following many of the steps he postulates. But as believers we must be heavily discerning. It is easy to substitute a daily dose of Dr. Phil for regular Bible reading and prayer. Dr. Phil may offer helpful advice, but he has never offered anyone the answers they really need – how to be saved from the wrath of an angry God, how to recognize our rebellion against God, or how to walk closer to Jesus Christ each day. A Christian who listens to Dr. Phil must be wise enough to know if a certain piece of advice corresponds to a biblical principle (and how) or if the advice is based on self-focused, New Age principles, which never bring glory to God.

I could never recommend to anyone that they listen to Dr. Phil. There are plenty of strong pastors who can be found at a local church, on the radio, or via internet ministries who offer equally strong advice anchored totally in the Word of God. These spiritual leaders are not ashamed to state where they receive their information and they do not mix it with New Age spirituality. Furthermore, I would advise weaker Christians who are dodging Scripture and prayer and trusting in Dr. Phil instead (some may be addicted to him) to stop watching him altogether. Stronger Christians who can discern truth from error might find some of his words helpful in a limited sense.

The bottom line is Dr. Phil is dangerous for the soul. He offers enough truth and insight and goodness that Christians are enticed to listen, but he mixes enough self-focused, error-laden, pop-psychology to lead a soul away from Christ into self-dependence and into ruin.

The Moral Argument for God's Existence

A few weeks ago, I presented an argument for God's existence, namely, the kalam cosmological argument. Now I present another argument, one that may have a bit more rhetorical bite and persuasive power. It's called the moral argument for God's existence.

The moral argument seeks to show that objective moral values depend for their existence upon the existence of God. That is, the only way that we can make sense of morality is by accepting the proposition that God exists. The moral argument may be summarized as follows:

1. If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist.
2. Objective moral values exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.

Are There Objective Moral Values?
What about premise (2)? It simply affirms that there are objective moral values. There really is such a thing as right and wrong. We may not be able to give a knock-down argument to prove this to any and all people. Nevertheless, I believe that we know it's true. We know it intuitively. We can just see that some things are right and some things are wrong. And if some odd person claims that they can’t see it, that is no reason to doubt the existence of these values any more than the fact that a color blind person cannot see the colors we see gives us reason to doubt those colors exist.

The Bible confirms our belief that human beings have an innate awareness of objective moral principles. In Romans 2:14-15, Pauls says, "Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them." So, both the Scriptures and conscience confirm the existence of objective moral values.

Moreover, we can defend the existence of objective morality by pointing out the unacceptable implications of the contrary. Moral relativism, the view that morality is a matter of personal or culture preference, implies that we could not say that Hitler did anything wrong. It means that moral progress (e.g., our getting better as a society when we abolished slavery) is a myth. It means that moral reformers like Martin Luther King, who buck the moral consensus of a society, would be immoral by definition. So, we have very good reason to believe that objective moral values exist.

Does Morality Depend on God?
It is worth noting at the outset that premise (1) of the moral argument has been widely accepted in the course of history by both theist and atheist alike. The great Russian novelist and philosopher Fyodor Dostoyevsky, who was himself a Christian, once wrote, "If there is no God, everything is permitted." And J.L. Mackie, one of the most prominent atheist philosophers of the 20th century agreed. He said, "Moral properties constitute so odd a cluster of qualities and relations that they are most unlikely to have arisen in the ordinary course of events without an all-powerful god to create them."

Let’s look at it this way: given that there are objective moral values, how do we best explain their existence? Which worldview—naturalism or theism—best explains objective morality?

Naturalism cannot explain the existence of objective moral values. According to atheistic, evolutionary naturalism, the universe sprang into existence by pure accident, for no rhyme or reason. And human beings are the result of blind, evolutionary forces--natural selection. there is no reason of purpose for our being here. We are here because we happened to be luckier than other now-extinct species.

Given this picture of the world, what basis is there for affirming the existence of objective moral values? In order to attribute objective, moral value to anything, whether it be human beings or dandelions, we have to have some reason to believe that something has intrinsic value—that something is valuable for its own sake. That is, if we are going to be able to say that it is wrong to take human life without a just cause, then we have to have some reason to believe that human beings are special—that there is something intrinsically valuable about human beings that sets them apart from dirt or dandelions or cockroaches (things that we see no moral prohibition against killing or destroying). But, on what basis may we affirm that some action is right and another is wrong? It seems there is no such basis given naturalism.

So, in an atheistic universe, there is no basis for objective moral values. Theism, however, does provide such a basis. On theism, the world is no accident. It was created by intelligent design for a purpose. And human beings were created by God with intrinsic value, with purpose and meaning. In a theistic universe, life, especially human life, is sacred. Theism posits the existence of a personal, omnibenevolent, all-wise law-giver whose very character grounds the existence of obejctive moral laws and principles.

So, we have reason to believe our first premise as well. If God does not exist, then there are no objective moral values. But, as we have seen, there are objective moral values. Hence, God exists.

Infinity and the Universe

In a recent post I argued for the existence of God in part by arguing that the universe had to have a beginning. My main argument for that thesis involved making a case that the universe cannot be infinitely old because an actual infinite number of past events is impossible. That post generated a lot of response, much of which I counter-responded to earlier. One response I received was a bit lengthier than others and deserves somewhat more detailed comment. Here goes. . .

the gnu said. . .
The argument assumes a premiss that is metaphysically disputable and that our best physical theories deny, namely that time proceeds successively and does not just appear to do so for us. The most popular view of time is that it is simply another dimension of spacetime similar to the other dimensions of space. Consequently, the past can be already infinite and settled as well as the future and be an actual infinite. Strictly speaking, time does not literally start at the begining and finish at the end (or finsih up 'til now). Time already exists in toto as an aspect of the Paramidean material singularity called spacetime.

You are right that time is viewed today as part of the space-time nexus. However, it is far from being any kind of consensus that time is not linear or that time is given to us all at once or that time is simply a psychological illusion as your above comments suggest. Perhaps some scientists think about time this way, but this is not a universal part of our "best theories." More to the point, however, my argument was not really about time in any case. The argument was about past events. I argued that there cannot be an actually infinite number of past events. No doubt, events take place in time, but that is beside the point. Regardless of what time is like, regardless of which direction it moves, regardless of of whether it is somehow given all at once, there can only be a finite number of past events. The example of the so-called "infinite library" that I gave makes this point. There cannot be a real library with
an infinite number of rooms. Likewise, there cannot be a universe with an infinite number of events.

Further, any singular material object the matter of which is continuous is potentially infinitely divisible and this is all we mean by assuming the universe is "actually infinite".

If this is all we mean by "infinite" then there is no dispute, and I win--the universe is only finitely old. I readily admit that there are potential infinites--sets which can potentially increase in number forever through successive addition, but which at any given point are actually finite. What I am arguing against is the existence of an actual infinite in concrete reality.

The appearance of the flow of time is epiphenomenal to the dynamics of matter and is simply a systematic mistake that our brains make on the level of classical perception.I'm not arguing that this view is true but that its a possible view with motivations based on science. Since the argument rightly concludes that if we take something like a common sense view of time seriously we have to pose an ultimate first cause. Since the scientistic already is suspicious of a common sense view of time, he won't find the argument from Craig cogent.

Of course, the idea that time is unreal and merely a psychological illusion is possible. But, as you admit, we don't know this, and it is contrary to common sense. And, again, not all scientists find the common sense view of time suspicious--I dare say that most scientist don't find it suspicious at all! If I'm wrong about this, then I am willing to be enlightened. In any case, if all scientists thought that time was unreal, that would give us little reason to reject the common sense view of time. Rather, it would give us reason to doubt the theories of the scientists.

On The Seventh Day, America Went to Court

The following is an interaction between yours truly and journalist Paul Harris. His part comes from selected portions of an article on a UK news website. The original can be found by following the link above. Paul's remarks are in italics, mine are not.

A bitter struggle is unfolding in the US about the most basic of issues: the origins of life. Scientists are rallying to the banner of Darwin - but their foes are growing in confidence.

Notice from the start that the author separates the scientists from their "foes." This reveals an ignorance as to who is bringing Intelligent Design to light - namely, a group of scientists. This debate is not between the scientists and the common folks (or preachers or theologians or whatever), but it is actually a debate between scientists.

Paul Harris reports from Pennsylvania Sunday October 2, 2005 The Observer.

This is the author of the article and a link to the website.

The American Museum of Natural History in New York will open the most far-reaching exhibition in its history on Charles Darwin, the father of evolution, next month. In most countries such a display by one of the world's top museums would not be the stuff of heated controversy.

But not in America. Not in 2005.

The author seems to think that America is backwards and slow compared to other nations. This seems ridiculous compared to the amount of solid science and invention that streams regularly from the USA. I think this is actually an admission that in "most countries" there is a closed-minded, threatened stance on a theory that has many holes at best.

As the rest of the world looks on in amazement at a debate that seemed to have been settled long ago, America is now gripped by a raging battle between evolution and creationism. The museum's Darwin exhibition will be just the latest battle in the continuing fight.

At the centre of it is the concept of intelligent design, which critics call 'creationism lite'. This theory holds that evolution is not a proven fact and nature is so complex that it betrays the existence of 'a designer'. Without being explicit there is little doubt the designer is intended to be God.

No, the debate was not at all settled long ago. And no, the debate is not between evolution and creationism. This reveals a deep ignorance of what is being debated. Creationism BEGINS with God. That is not in any court room. Intelligent Design BEGINS with observations and collections of data and postulates from a scientific standpoint that it appears many natural phenomenon were in fact designed. The last sentence of this paragraph is a rude assumption. It is putting words into the mouths of the scientists who hold to ID. No, indeed, they do not (within the realms of their scientific discipline) postulate that the designer is intended to be God. They simply posulate the probability of a designer, who's nature is past the bounds of the purpose of science.

The exhibition will tackle this theory head on by trying to point out the difference between science and religion. Intelligent design will be explicitly mentioned. 'We expect that in some corners the show will be controversial. We are prepared for that,' said Michael Novacek, provost of the museum.

People who I have heard trying to "point out the difference between science and religion" seemed to misunderstand one or the other or both. This is clear based on their definitions. They seem to believe that religion is based on faith that requires no evidence, which is incorrect. And they assume science cannot possible gather data that existence outside the closed natural realm, a definition of science that actually kills true scientific research, given the possibility that such supernatural phenomenon might exist. Actually, it is clear to anyone with their eyes opened, that Darwinists are committed to their position as an assumption apart from evidence, and that is why they will not even allow the ID theory to be called science. If they were so sure they were right, however, they would welcome the challenge and debate, knowing they would win.

Promoting evolution to the American public, however, is not always easy, even in the 21st century. Religious think-tanks and other bodies are seeking to push intelligent design into American public life. In particular they want it taught in school science classes. Advocates of the theory say they do not want to stop evolution being taught - they just want other theories mentioned too. Critics say this approach gives the illusion of a scientific debate between evolution and rival theories when in reality there is no genuine argument left to have.

He uses the word "push" as if Darwinians did not do the same thing. By the way, an interesting point that I have not heard made in this debate is that ID is not necessarily opposed to evolution per se. By this, I mean, ID scientists do not say that evolution did not occur, they are simply saying that much data points to a designer, whether it evolved or not. I am sure that ID scientists disagree about evolution and to what extent it might have actually happened. So again, this writer is revealing a profound ignorance of the debate (as most in the mainstream media do). It is not about whether species evolved or not, but rather whether they began by accident or by design. Speaking now of ID in the Dover classroom, Paul says...

...That appalled many scientists and civil liberties lawyers who thought the decision fundamentally undermined one of the central tenets of modern science.

Across the world Darwin's theories of the development of life have stood up to more than a century of scientific examination and now form the bedrock of all the biological sciences.
The critics say intelligent design is fundamentally untestable and unprovable, as it relies on inserting a supernatural force - called God or a designer - into a scientific theory. For them, those pushing for intelligent design to be taught in science classes, rather than in religious studies lessons, are taking America back into the Middle Ages.

Here Paul is basically admitting to the underlying naturalistic presupposition of so-called "mainstream scientists." They hold to this "bedrock" and thus they are blind to the evidence of a designer (or any contrary evidence for that matter). It is amazing how blind we can be when we except something as true at a prior time. By the way, anybody who is reading the literature of the ID scientists knows that, again, the "critics" mentioned here are speaking in total ignorance when he says ID is "fundamentally untestable and unprovable." Sure there are many difficulties in the testing process, but no more than Darwinists themselves face, that is for sure. As to the last sentence in this paragraph, let us remember that ID is a scientific theory based upon scientific evidence. In my Sunday School class we teach Genesis 1-2 Creationism as the truth - which it is. ID is a push forward, not backward. It is an accepting of the evidence as it stands instead of a prior commitment to Naturalism.

'They want a theistic science. If they are successful in this project it would turn us back to an earlier era, a pre-Enlightenment era,' said Robert Pennock, a professor of philosophy and science at Michigan State University.

Intelligent design advocates, such as scientists at the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, reply that they are not pushing God into science and that detecting the presence of 'intelligence' in nature is a scientific method.

'The scientific theory of intelligent design does not attempt to address religious belief questions such as the nature and identity of the designer, and thus it avoids untestable assertions,' said the institute's Casey Luskin, who runs a scheme to encourage students to set up clubs to 'investigate evolution' at schools and colleges.

As you begin to read this section, you might say, wow, at least and at long last, the author of the article is going to let the ID scientists speak for themselves. But then he makes a biased judgment of the work of one such ID institution and calls it a "scheme" as if Darwinists and Planned Parenthood advocates have not engage in many similar tactics to get the word out on their positions.

Creationism may be scientific nonsense, but it is certainly popular. Proponents of intelligent design and more extreme creationists, such as those who believe in the literal account of the Bible, reflect majority opinion in America. Surveys repeatedly show that most Americans do indeed prefer creationist versions of the development of life rather than scientific ones. Several 'creationist' museums have been built with displays of humans existing with dinosaurs and exhibits depicting Noah and the flood.

Really, is this person saying that America, the best educated, most prolific society in the world is somehow lacking the intelligence to understand the truth of this matter? I think the reason the "majority" of American hold to Creationism over Naturalism is because it makes much better sense of the data.

The echoes of the first Victorian-era reaction to Darwin's theories may seem surreal but it is a powerful political force. President Bush has even weighed in, saying he believes intelligent design should be taught as part of science. 'I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought,' Bush said.

Such comments horrify the scientific establishment but they are good politics. Behind much of the push to get intelligent design taught in schools is a powerful movement of Christian conservatives who make up much of the Republican party base. It was their immense organisational abilities and large turnout as voters that helped propel Bush to win a second term in the White House last November.

I cannot believe that they are "horrified." Really, if they think their position is sound, they should simply be content with that, work to promote it as "truth", and relax. I am not horrified at their position, even though I see how deeply in error they are. I have no reason to be horrified, because whether my view becomes mainstream or not, I have good reason to believe that it is true. Their horror betrays their lack of confidence in their position, in my opinion. To use an analogy, they believe that the sun rotates around the earth (and not vice versa) according to their theory, and no matter what new evidence comes to bear, they are not going to change their position. Face it, Darwinism is outdated. This is the truth, not politics.

However, away from the politics and the religion, American scientists are left baffled by having even to address the theory. 'With our show we are not posing it as a debate,' said Novacek, of the Natural History Museum. 'I don't see it as a debate in my own mind since Darwin is so fundamental to modern science.'

Again, we see the presupposition that Darwin, not observed data, must be right at all costs. Darwinian scientists are killing the scientific enterprise by their biases.

That was repeated again and again by scientists appearing in the witness box in Harrisburg last week. 'Every single scientific society in the United States that has taken a position on this issue has taken a position against intelligent design and for evolutionary theory,' said Professor Kenneth Miller, a biologist at Brown University, Rhode Island.

Milions of Nazi loyalists believed Hitler was right. Neither he nor they were correct. A large number and a strong consensus does not make a position right. What does the evidence say? That is the question to ask and answer, not who holds to which position.

And for the record, well over 400 credintialed and respected scientists have made a stance on ID. People who graduated from Yale and Harvard and other major instiutions make up that list. What follows now is a list of poll numbers meant to imply that Americans are stupid.

The American world view
64 per cent of people questioned for a recent poll said they were open to the idea of teaching creationism in addition to evolution in schools, while 38 per cent favoured replacing evolution with creationism.

40 per cent of Americans believe God will eventually intervene in human affairs and bring about an end to life on Earth, according to a survey carried out in 2002. Of those believers, almost half thought this would occur in their lifetime with a return of Jesus from heaven.

1 adult American in five believes that the Sun revolves around Earth, according to one study carried out last summer.

80 per cent of Americans surveyed by the CNN TV news network believe that their government is hiding evidence of the existence of space aliens.

70 per cent believe it likely that Saddam Hussein was involved personally in the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

I am not sure where Paul got these numbers or the accuracy of them since he does not cite his source (except on the CNN survey) and since surveys are so often twisted to make the point of the author. But upon close examination, I do not believe these numbers prove Americans to be stupid or behind the times. Obviously, as I have shown, the desire to teach ID (not necessarily Creationism) is not stupid, but rather is wise considering the evidence. About God and the coming of Jesus, many people believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, which can be proven to be a rational belief (see Alvin Plantiga), thus this does not betray a lack of intelligence. I can't believe that 1 out of 5 Americans believe the sun rotates around the earth, but if those numbers are accurate, that is only 20% (a minority) and furthermore (if those numbers are accurate), I bet other countries have a comparible number here (especially among the uneduated peoples of each nation). I make the same comment about the CNN survey. About Hussein, the average person makes connections between all terroists groups in his or her mind. The experts and news folks undertand many of the distinctions between various terroists organizations and governments, but the average working American sees Hussein as connected with the "bad guys." Again, that survey does not prove that Americans are dumb or behind the times.

I hope you learned something by working through these issues with me. My summary: Many in the media are painting a grossly inaccuarate picture of the nature and goal of Intelligent Design. Lets be sure we hold the media accountable to get the story right!