Truth Unites - Why I Wrote a Book on Whether God Exists

Episode Date: November 24, 2021

In this video I share about my new book, Why God Makes Sense in a World that Doesn't: The Beauty of Christian Theism.   You can order the book here: https://www.amazon.com/Makes-Sense-World-That-Doesnt-ebook/dp/B08XLT3HP7 Truth Unites is a mixture of apologetics and theology, with an irenic focus. Gavin Ortlund (PhD, Fuller Theological Seminary) serves as senior pastor of First Baptist Church of Ojai. SUPPORT: Become a patron: https://www.patreon.com/truthunites One time donation: https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/truthunites FOLLOW: Twitter: https://twitter.com/gavinortlund Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TruthUnitesPage/ Website: https://gavinortlund.com/

What's up everybody? This video is going to be about my new book that just came out last week called Why God Makes Sense in a world that doesn't, the beauty of Christian Theism. So Truth Unites is my YouTube channel. This is a place for theology and apologetics. This is a book on apologetics, and I'm really excited to share it with everybody. So I'm going to take this video and talk about a brief intro to the book, basically what kind of book is it. And then I'm going to share why I wrote it. And then I'm going to talk about each of the chapters, just a little bit, just to give an overview. I'm really excited about this book. I really poured my heart into it. I think the first sentence of the preface is something along those lines that this book comes from my heart. It is an academic book.

So I kind of have that feeling you always have when someone with the best of intentions says they're going to read your book or order your book and you're afraid you want them to understand what they're getting into. So it is academic. So I want people to understand that. It's published by Baker Academic. but I would say on the spectrum of, you know, popular level to like really obscure monograph. It's kind of in between academic and popular or like a trade book.

It's meant to be accessible. I wrote it so that my thought kind of is that any thoughtful person who's really wrestled a little bit with kind of the arguments for the existence of God, the counter arguments, you know, if all of that stuff is totally new, And it's probably not a good starter book. But if you have some background in that, some interest, in other words, it's not just for academic context. I really wrote it hoping that it would be accessible and fun to read for thoughtful readers. I really labored hard to make it enjoyable to read.

I've got journal entries from three different journal entries from college where I'm trying to walk through. Like, here's how I was struggling personally with this particular argument. or whatever, and then I share how I broke through or whatever. And so it's definitely a personal book as well as academic, and I hope that it's accessible. I really intended it to be that way, as much as an academic book can be. So let me just talk about it a little bit. It's basically, it's an argument for the existence of God. Why write a book about the existence of God? Well, I'll come to that in just a second. Let me just canvas the basic idea of the book. I go through four classical, theistic proofs in the four chapters of the book. The first chapter is about the

cosmological argument. That's the argument for God as the first cause. The second chapter is about the teleological argument or the argument from design. The third chapter is about the moral argument and the fourth chapter is about what I just summatively call a Christological argument. really that means two things. The Lord Liar Lunatic argument that C.S. Lewis popularized, though I expand that to Lord Liar Lunatic Legend, and I interface with Bart Ehrman, and then the argument from Christ's resurrection. And then there's a brief conclusion where I really, people will find it to be a modest book, because all the way to the conclusion, all I've argued for is the probability that God exists. So then I address the question of, well, what do you do with mere probability? Probability isn't enough

to get you to the certainty and decisiveness of faith. And I agonized over that. That's one of the journal entries there at the end. So there I address that. But I take a different approach on these arguments. I cast them in a narrative frame. So the whole book is framed as kind of like, what if Hamlet was looking for Shakespeare, that kind of way.

And then I basically am just looking at two alternatives. Christian Theism, to belief in the Christian. and God and naturalism. So I admit right at front, this is not a comprehensive book. I'm not looking at like Eastern worldviews and other options like that. And I say various reasons why I limit the scope like that. So then in a narrative frame, each of these arguments becomes one of the four building blocks that makes for a story. The author of the story, the meaning of the story, the conflict of the story, and the hope of the story. So the moral argument is about the conflict of the story, the teleological, what the meaning, the crystallological about the hope, et cetera. Hope, or I call it the denouement,

or the kind of happy ending to the story. So that's one way it's different. The other way it's different is I'm deliberately looking at not just whether the arguments establish something true, though I am looking at that, but I'm also looking at whether they establish something beautiful. So the whole book is framed in terms of the transcendentals, the good, the true, the beautiful. And I'm arguing that right now, and I spend several pages in the introduction, explaining why right now in particular, I think it's important to make an appeal to both the head and the heart and the imagination. So we have to show that the gospel is not just true, but it's also good and beautiful. And I go on at some length explaining why I think the outrage,

the distraction, the disillusionment, all these different characteristics of the world in the early 21st century, especially the Western world, make it fitting to do what I argue is the classical way that Christians have tended to do it, and that is commend the gospel as not just the true, but as the beautiful and the good as well. And I talk about that from, especially from Hansers von Balthazar, who was a Catholic theologian who's had a lot to say about theological beauty. So each chapter then, so like chapter one, I say it's more plausible to believe that there is a first cause that is outside of spacetime, a necessary being that explains contingent beings. But then I spend like the last portion of that chapter saying it's also more interesting. It leads to a bigger view of reality.

Chapter two, I say it's more plausible to believe in a transcendent meaning to the universe. but I also say it's more elegant. And I argue for that as well. Chapter 3 I say it's more plausible to believe that there's objectivity to moral values and duties, but then I also say it dignifies human beings and the human struggle and it's a more desirable worldview in many ways. And it can ground moral hope. So that's another aspect of chapter 3 that's a little different from most moral arguments as I talk a lot about not just the objectivity of moral values and duties, but also the satisfaction of moral hope, which is a huge point of contrast between naturalism and Christian theism. I mean, you think about it for 10 seconds and you realize, wow, this makes

all the difference in the world if there's a happy ending coming as every story. And I talk a lot about movies and why and Tolkien and his idea of sub-creation, that something of the image of God can be seen in the way we tell stories. And I say, why does every story we tell have the same narrative shape? It takes on a moral dimension of good versus evil and almost always good wins in the end. What is this revealing about our heart and about reality? So I spent a lot of time like that. And then same thing. You know, with the last chapter, I argue the resurrection is more plausible, but then I argue it's a happier, more hopeful worldview. In other words, what I'm trying to say is, as a both end, Christian Theism is not just more plausible than naturalism. It's just a better story.

It's a way better story. And I find it helpful. Again, it all comes from my heart. I just found that so useful myself. Blaze Pascal is the one who's influenced this book the most. I read through his Ponce or thoughts very carefully before. This all comes out of a huge project of mine of my interest in philosophy and apologetics, which has been a turn in my thinking over the last two years. I've just just a new intellectual project. So Pascal has, what is it, he's got one of his thoughts where he says, basically, and I start off the whole book like this, people are afraid that religion, by which he means Christianity, might be true. And what we have to do in light of that is show that first it's respectable, second, it's desirable, and third, it's true.

And I just start off by saying, there's a lot of psychological insight about that strategy. You can't just start off like so much of apologetics does, blasting away a truth if people's defenses are up. They'll find a way to evade the argument. Showing that it's respectable and desirable is so important. And the respectable part is something that so many people like Tim Keller and others have done so well, kind of starting the conversation with where people are already at. I'm really interested in that second stage in this book. I'm trying to show that the gospel, if you move from naturalism to Christian theism, it's like waking up on Christmas morning as a little boy. Or it's like the first moment when you realize the person you love actually loves you back. It's infinitely happy. So that's my interest in this book. And I do think that's helpful right now because there's so much cynicism and despair. So let me speak to that. Oh, the other characteristic is I use abductive arguments, which is just a That means a different form of logical inference than deductive or inductive arguments.

So basically, instead of working from premises to the conclusion, you're working from a present set of conditions and then inferring to the most likely explanation. So if the entire book is successful, all you get is probability. And I'm okay with that. For my purposes in this book, I think that's sufficient for what I'm trying to do here. But that's another distinctive of my approach. I actually sometimes think abductive arguments can be more convincing for certain people. But I take an open-minded view on there's room for all kinds of different approaches for different people.

So I'm not saying my approach is the way others have to do it. Let me say why I wrote the book. This will be brief. I've had many friends who have deconstructed their faith over recent years. I'm also aware that there is so much despair and disintegration and deconstruction and the loss of friendship, the loss of trust. So many things in our world right now feel like they're splintering and fragmenting. Gosh, I really feel this on a regular basis. And I think many people personally are asking questions and they're wrestling with things.

In the midst of all of that, I really desire for Truth Unites to be a reconstructive voice. I hope my YouTube channel is a safe and friendly place to, you know, as people are falling, they can grab something to hold on to. For people who are falling to stop falling, to grab something and not fall any further down. And I just think there's such a place right now for reconstructing, starting from the basics and building out. And so my book is trying to argue for God and the resurrection of Christ. Those are really the two things. And I would say that is those are two great rocks to build your life on. Those are two great points for a solid foundation from which to start rebuilding.

If you're questioning everything, if like you grew up in the church, but you're just not sure, you know, like I'm not sure if I believe the same things politically anymore. I'm not sure if I trust the same people. The reason I say all this is a lot of people are cynical about politics right now more than ever. I get it. A lot of people are hurt by the church. I get that too. A lot of people have been wounded by a minister who's let them down. There's so many fallen ministers.

People are really, a lot of people are rethinking everything. So in the process of that, I want to offer, and having been through some of those things myself, I found such usefulness in apologetics, and I found these arguments are really solid and compelling. I mean, gosh, you go back just like I try to do in this book and you rethink things like, okay, why do I believe in God? Actually, it makes so much sense out of our world. Christian Theism in particular is such a powerful explanatory framework for kind of making sense of our world. So anyway, this book comes out of that. It comes out of my desire to be helpful to people who are questioning, struggling.

It's for Christians who are questioning their faith, struggling with their faith. it's for non-Christians who are open to considering the claims of Christianity, and it's for Christians who know people in either of those categories and want to be helpful to them. So I really pray that it will be useful for people, that it will be both fun to read. I really wrote it, hoping it'd be fun to read. Chapter 1 is the one that's a little bit abstract because the content, you're talking about the Big Bang and all, you know, I spent a lot of time on Lawrence Krause's book, A Universe for Nothing, Well, that's pretty heady stuff.

So that one might be a bit of a slog. People can skip it, but for the most part, I hope it's really fun to read. Okay, let me just say a little bit more about some of the contents. I just wanted to share a few little details of kind of what, you know, people might find as they pick up the book. As I say, the introduction kind of just frames what kind of book it is. And then I share a little bit of my own experience. And I have a lengthy quotation from PuddleGlum at the end of the introduction, which summarizes the spirit and approach of the book.

Puddlegum is a character in the Narnia books. He, I think it's the silver chair, and there's this famous scene where he's underground, and this sorceress is trying to convince him and his friends that there's no overworld. The son, Aslan, who's the Christ figure himself, all of that they've just imagined. It's not really real.

And at one point he just says, to summarize and simplify, probably simplify too much. Basically, if that's true, then the world we've made up beats the pants off the real world. And he gets to a point where he says, I reject your proposal, even on its own terms. And he says, I'm going, even if Aslan wasn't real, I'd still be looking for him. Now, there's nuances there. I qualify things a lot. Puddleglem is not just saying a wishful thinking kind of thing. He's not just saying, well,

you know, this alternative is more beautiful, therefore it must be true. It's not saying that. So I qualify that a lot. It's actually a profound thing. I actually think what that passage in Narnia, S. Louis was so great at articulating these profound ideas and little sound bites in a children's book. He calls that an ontological argument in one of his letters, which is interesting. So that's very summative of the whole book. Chapter 1, as I mentioned, spends a lot of time responding to some of the common objections to the cosmological argument, like, well, if everything needs a cause, what caused God? That is the most kind of stock and trade response. I canvass how that's used in Richard Dawkins and Bertrand Russell, all the other new atheists, Lawrence Krauss himself. So I just, one of the things I did in this book, or for my research, is just to read through all these books.

Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, a lot of Stephen Pinker, people like this, Lawrence Krauss, Bertrand Russell. Try to read some of these influential atheist perspectives. So I, and I spent a lot of time responding to that. I spent a lot of time responding to Krause's proposal in particular. I go through all these non-standard cosmologies, and I basically just show how the origins of our universe makes so, has so much resonance with the idea of creation from nothing, Christian doctrine of creation from nothing. And I say, all that's an abductive argument. So all I'm trying to do is show,

in fact, I put it very modestly. I say, chapter one, all I'm trying to do is put a foot in the door against naturalism. Just open up the metaphysical possibilities. It's like, look, look at the world we live in. Look where it came from. We can't be 100% sure, especially non-specialists like me. We get into the literature on this and it's really abstruse. It's really difficult. but it sure looks like it came from nothing. That seems to be it at least creates the possibilities of being open-minded, you know. So then chapter two, I go through, I spend a good amount of time just going through kind of a typical argument from design, but then I say, I want to get beyond that into specifics.

I want to look at specific features of our world that look like they suggest a transcendent meaning. And specifically, I look at three things, math, music, and love. This is the funnest part of the book to write. I spent a lot of time and a lot of work on both the math and music arguments. I was very skeptical that you could ever do this. I never thought you'd be able to prove the existence of God from either of these things. Again, they're abductive arguments, but I actually think the nature of math and the nature of music and the nature of love. And then I also talk more quickly. I just gesture toward other possible features of human experience like rationality, consciousness, free will, all of which make more sense in a theistic framework.

And the way I summarize it is we're able to live within our humanity more comfortably on a theistic framework. Naturalism actually vitiates so much of our humanity because so much of our humanity assumes meaning. It assumes that our lives are meaningful. And so many things we experience seem to suggest meaning, such as math and music and so forth. I won't get into the particulars here. I've actually made videos on some of those things a long time ago when I was first starting my channel. I'll make another one sometime. I love those arguments. They're so interesting to get into. And what's so amazing is how many of the professional mathematicians agree. And they're not, they are some kind of platonist or supernaturalist in some sense.

Anyway, chapter three is on the moral argument. I start this chapter talking about that hideous strength and a scene in this book where the character Mark Studdock experiences morality. He's an atheist, but he's being basically kind of psychologically tortured. I know this sounds really weird, but if you've read the book, you know what I'm talking about. In the context of that, so he's put in this room that I call the crooked room. In the crooked room, there's his tormentors are trying to mess with his mind. So there's like dots on the floor that almost correspond to the dots on the ceiling, but not quite. There's all these paintings that have little aberrations.

There's a painting of The Last Supper with a bunch of beetles under the floor. There's other paintings that are just bizarre. He's made to do these seemingly meaningless tasks, like just go over and touch something and come back. All these, and then there's grosser things he has to do. And in the context, I know this sounds kind of intense. but it's such a, it's so well stated. In the context of that, he discovers what he calls the normal. Capital N, the normal.

Elsewhere, he calls it the straight, as opposed to the crooked. And he's not, and I use that passage as a way to get into the nature of morality. And I spent a long time just talking about our experience of morality, of good and evil. And the way, the way that feels, okay? I'm not saying what it means yet, just the way it feels, just describing how to, feels. And there's so much about that passage that is so interesting we could get into, but I'll just to cut to the chase. And then I basically just say, okay, on naturalism and on Christian theism, which of these narratives gives you a better framework to understand those feelings?

And I talk about, I give a comparison between the old atheists and the new atheists. The old atheists I canvass are Nietzsche, Jean-Paul Sartre, and the character Yvonne Karamazov in Dostoevsky's novel, The Brothers Karamatov. And I talk about how they were more honest, because they saw through the implications of atheism for morality. Then I compare that with the new atheists, especially Sam Harris, and I say, they're borrowing all these Christian elements. They believe in things like rationality and science and benevolence and charity and hospitals and things. Where do you get all these values? And I say, the older atheists were more honest in facing the implications. And I give the argument, if you are a naturalist, your mechanism to

explain those moral feelings is reducible to evolutionary psychology. The way, the reason morality, good and evil, feel the way they do. It's illusory and arbitrary. In other words, it's elusive. There's the feeling of transcendence that comes with it has no objective referent and it's arbitrary in that it could have been different. We could have evolved differently. These are called Darwinian counterfactuals. We could have evolved like the animal kingdom does such that killing would our sterile daughters would be moral. It would be more, it would feel morally right if the evolutionary process had gone that way. And I give all these other Darwinian counterfactuals like that. I won't go into them here because some of them are

pretty dark and make us some pretty terrible things happen in the end. animal kingdom. So all of that is to say Christian Theism is a better explanatory framework for morality and for the way we all function in real life. Not even the old atheists, let alone the new atheists, can actually live with Nietzsche was the one who went the farthest in trying to live it out consistently. And I argue in the book that even he couldn't seem to handle it. because it's so dark. We know that whether you torture someone or help them matters. We know that that matters.

And in some sense, it isn't just an illusion that's fobbed off on us because it helped our animal ancestors survive. We know there's more to it than that. We can't live with that. So I argue for that. I also talk about happy endings. I talk about movies.

I talk a lot about the 2011 movie The Grey with Liam Neeson. Talk a lot about when there isn't a happy ending, how does that affect us? And I suggest this is a little clue. And because on Christian theism, you're able to look at the entirety of reality as a story that's going to have a happy ending. On naturalism, no way. You know, the story just kind of slowly fades out. And then, of course, in the last chapter, I talked about Jesus.

I engage especially with Bart Ehrman. I also talk a lot about religion in general. And I respond to Stephen Pinker's criticisms of religion. I spent a lot of time on, I worked really hard on chat. chapter four, because that's not my natural tendency. That's more historical apologetics, other than philosophical apologetics. So I worked really hard. I read a lot of the good scholarship in this area. There's some amazing scholars out there. I can't think of, there's one that I'm, I'm going to look it up because I really want to make sure I get this right. Baccham, Richard Baccham.

Spent a lot of time with people like Richard Baccham, which is great scholars. And then in the conclusion, I say, okay, this all gets you to probability, but what do you do with probability? and I talk about my own struggle with that. And this feeling in the existentialist literature of kind of were hurled into existence and we're supposed to make decisions, but how do we know what to do? And probability really isn't enough to base everything on. And that's where I get it all in the final page I worked really hard on. It's about Pascal's Wager and it's the idea.

What do we do? We've got to make a choice. We've got to make the best choice we can with the information we do have. And I won't say anything more about how the book ends because I hope you'll read it for yourself. Hopefully you can tell. I'm really passionate about this. I hope that this book will help people.

Oh, last thing. I'm going to give away three free audio copies. Three days from the release of this video, I will look to the comments that have the most number of likes. And I will contact those people and give three free audio copies of this book to those people. So like the video and then leave a comment in order to be eligible for that contest. I should have said that at the front.

This is a test to see if you're paying attention to the end. So, hey, thank you for watching this. I hope this book will be helpful for people. And my next video will be back on to other topics, kind of some of the same things I've been working on. I have a video on purgatory coming out, a Protestant critique of purgatory. I have a video on the Lord's Supper, particularly what I'm learning from this wonderful book by Thomas Watson, calling Protestants to have a richer and deeper view of the Lord's Supper. And I've got other stuff.

I'll tell you more about it later. God bless you. Thanks for watching.