Renewed Vision for our Campus

As the Creative Events Coordinator for our humble planning team I was pleased to see the first promotional event go smoothly on Friday. Naturally, I plan to conduct more of these throughout next week to advertise for the largest event on Thursday night.
But something interesting happened in handing out fliers, running the silent debate and talking with my fellow students. I got a huge reality check. I saw first-hand how many different worldviews are represented here at Tech, but not only that; I saw how unhappy so many students are. I guess I had forgotten that on this lively campus at this highly regarded Institute of Technology there still exist people who not only have questions, but the majority of these people seem silently desperate for the answers.
A couple of interesting examples for you: In response to our silent debate question of "Is God a delusion?" one student emphatically scrawled "LIFE is a delusion." Other responses varied in their opinions and level of rationality, but none stood out to me as being so depressing or fatalistic as that one. What a terribly sad life that must be!
A female student saw our computer screen playing excerpts of the God Delusion debate and exclaimed, "Is that Richard Dawkins?! I LOVE HIM!!" Yet another student came by and asked if we were Christians and then laughed as he declared "...yall are gonna get HOSED!!" (citing, I presume, the mounting "preparations" being made by the Campus Atheists).

Things like this shock me in some ways, sadden me in others, but they serve to remind me of why it is the Veritas Forum is needed here. We must provide an atmosphere on this campus where discussion of these topics is comfortable, inviting and thought provoking. In a setting like that Christians should take on the role of befriending these students that don't have Truth and showing them that the real answers are found in Jesus Christ.

I pray that's exactly what happens. We'll create the events to raise these discussions; God will provide His children to show the love of Christ to these students. And somewhere between having their questions answered one by one and seeing the love of the true God someone may come to know and trust in Him.

Faith, and the Line of Despair

What is Faith?

Richard Dawkins, in his book The God Delusion defines it as:

"Blind trust, in the absence of evidence, even in the teeth of evidence"

The funny thing is, however, as Alister McGrath points out in his response The Dawkins Delusion is that, if a poll was taken of all the Christian Theologians throughout the ages, I don't think even a single one would agree with that definition. Alister cites W. H. Griffith - Thomas, an Anglican Theologian, who defined it this way:

"[Faith] affects the whole of Man's nature, It commences with the conviction of the mind based on adequate evidence; it continues in the confidence of the heart, or emotions based on conviction, and it is crowned in the consent of the will, by means of which the conviction and confidence are expressed in conduct."

But a question I've begun to ask is, how has the word "Faith" picked up such an irrational connotation? How did faith lose its connection to rationality?

For this answer, I think the answer might be found in the works of a man named Francis Schaeffer. In his book The God Who Is There, he introduces a concept he calls "The Line of Despair." In order to really get a good feel for the entirety of the idea, I would recommend Ch. 2 of The God Who Was There(Available online at Google Books), where it is explained in more detail, but long story short, he traces the development of Western Philosophical Thought through Kant, Hegel, Kierkegaard, Jaspers, Sarte, Heidegger, and on and on and on. In this process, primarily existential philosophers began to come to the conclusion that the things that we can know, like, that my laptop is black, that a day is 24 hours long, etc. are necessarily without meaning. However, things that do have meaning like love, family, purpose, etc. cannot be known, and can only be experienced or known by taking a "leap of faith," and it is in this direct quote from Kierkegaard that we can see the rationality and reason of faith were declared dead.

Religion, as a traditional source of all meaning in life, was viewed as inherently irrational, not because there was no evidence behind it, or good logical reasons for Faith in God didn't exist, but as a natural consequence of the fact that it falls in the category of "things with meaning"

This whole line of thinking in some sense leads to a form of "Secularized Mysticism," which is why my ENG 1102 Professor commented that one of the characteristic features of Postmodernism (where this line of thinking led) was an "openness to meaning from unexpected places"....This strikes me as a remarkably new-age idea, but something that I think permeates the Atheistic community. They are faced with a substantial problem.

If God is dead, and I will die, and the universe will end, what purpose is there in life? for what reason do I draw my next breath?

Dawkins, in an interview with Fox News, claimed that religion poisoned people's lives, and if they liberated themselves of it, they could take hold of their lives, and learn to love freely, to seek after things that really matter, etc, etc. (see also Christopher Hitchen's God is Not Great) What both Hitchens and Dawkins fail to realize, is what they, themselves are doing, is taking a Kierkegaardian "leap of faith" into "love," "family", and so on, in without regard to the fact that none of these things, in their world view can be known.

The question I will leave you on is this: Why should we kill God, for which there is an abundance of Apologetic material in support of, and replace it with ideas of "love", "family," etc. for which Atheiests themselves admit they cannot know?

A Common Sense Defense of Original Sin

If you went up to a random person on the street and asked them "Is man naturally inclined to good, or to evil?" you would probably get some very interesting responses. Some would say "evil," and you would instantly be able to explain the Christian idea of Depravity very easily, it would then be a mere question of "why is that" or, "what is the solution"

More interestingly, and probably more common, would be the response that "man is naturally inclined to good." This response naturally begs the question "Then why is there so much evil in the world?" I would imagine (and I am sorta guessing at this point) that you would get one of two responses, either A. "We get corrupted by society" or B. "Just some turds in the gene pool"

Answer B, of course, leads to another interesting line of thinking. Perhaps when you asked about "Evil," thoughts of Hitler, and Musollini, and Mogadishu flashed in their mind, but they think those people and places were largely isolated instances, but that the majority of the world is largely evil-free. But what if the standard of "Evil" is much lower? What if a simple lie is "Evil"? What if we define pride as "Evil"?

A person may object to this notion, saying that those things largely don't matter, but then the question is begged "Why do naturally good people have these tiny flaws?" Hopefully no one but the most staunch relativists would make the arguments that theft, and lies, and other such things are not morally wrong, but that still leaves us with the question of why we do these things.

This, of course, leads to the original Answer A. "We get corrupted by society." To which I would have this to say: "Isn't society composed of individuals who are, according to your theory "naturally good"? so, if individually they are good shouldn't society be also "naturally good"?"
or go even further and say, "If we are corrupted by society, and society simply consists of individuals who were on earth a few years more than us, would it be fair to say that we inherited this corruption from the previous generation?" and, if this is so, "Would it then be fair to say that at some point in the past, some naturally good human would have had to "invent" or "stumble" upon evil, and pass it on generation to generation to us?" to which I would answer in the affirmative.

We call this man Adam

Syllogisms

So, I was reading through Dr. Craig's book "Reasonable Faith" and in the first chapter, Dr. Craig has a brief discussion on the Syllogism. For those who don't know what a syllogism is, its a logical argument with this form

Major premise: All humans are mortal
Minor premise: Socrates is human
Conclusion: Socrates is mortal

Its a wonderful way of proving things, because the validity of a syllogism is so easy to check.
The first way to look for problems is to check the validity of the premises. For instance, if all men are not, in fact, mortal, then the Major premise is false, and therefore the conclusion is invalid (it may be true for other reasons, but that syllogism wouldn't prove it).

The second way to look for problems is to check that the Conclusion follows from the premises. For instance, a classic example of a flawed syllogism is:

Major premise: All cats are mortal
Minor premise: Socrates was mortal
Conclusion: Socrates was a cat

In this case, the linking term (i.e. mortality) is non-exclusive. There are things that are mortal that are not cats, so from the fact that Socrates was mortal the conclusion he was a cat does not follow.

The beauty of the syllogism is in the power and simplicity of the well-written syllogism, and its explanatory power. For instance, one of Dr. Craig's favorite syllogisms is one called the "Kalam Cosmological Argument" for the existence of God. It goes as follows:

Major premise: All things that have a beginning have a cause
Minor premise: The universe had a beginning
Conclusion: The universe had a cause

In fact, a syllogism does not need to stay in isolation, the conclusion of one may be a minor premise of another, for instance, the above syllogism only proves a "cause," not "God," but we can safely write this:

Major premise: Before the universe began, Time, matter, and space did not exist
Minor premise: The universe had a cause
Conclusion: The "Cause" exists outside of time, space, and matter.

At this point, we now have a "Transcendent" cause that exists outside the material world, we still have a long way to go to get to the God of the bible, but for many people, this is a huge step, and confirms a dualistic view of things (a material realm and a spiritual "transcendant" realm).

I was thinking recently about these ideas, and I've been able to start phrasing other things as syllogisms, and its been extremely helpful in seeing how things fit together. For instance, St. Augustine, in trying to figure out the Trinity, how One God can be Three persons, he came up with an argument based on the idea that "God is Love". He reasoned that if god is an eternal being, and he has always been love (i.e. He didnt start being "love" when he created the unvierse), he MUST have an equally eternal being to be the object of his love, His Son. In other words, the existence of a Loving God necessitates a co-eternal God to be loved, just as the existence of physics necessitates the existence of mathematics. I recently noticed that this line of thinking can be "syllogized" this way:

Major premise: Love Requires an Object to be Loved
Minor premise:God Is Love (1 John 4:16)
Conclusion: God must have an object of his Love

Major premise: God exists outside of space, time, and matter (See above Syllogism)
Minor premise: God must have an object of his love
Conclusion: God must have an object of his love outside of space, time, and matter

(The above syllogism works when you understand God Is Love is an eternal statement, i.e. God Is Love, not God Became Love)

We call this object of his love "Jesus," or the "Son of God". The existence of God the Father necessitates the existence of God the Son.

Ideas, Christianity, and the University

I headed over to Dr. Craig's website for (I'm ashamed to say) the first time this afternoon and picked through a few articles. Here's an excerpt from one that I'd like to share:

"In order to shape the thought structures of society so as to foster a cultural milieu that allows a place for the Christian worldview as an intellectually viable option, we must influence the university. I say this because the single most important institution shaping Western culture is the university. It is at the university that our future political leaders, our journalists, our lawyers, our teachers, our business executives, our artists, will be trained. It is at the university that they will formulate or, more likely, simply absorb the worldview that will shape their lives. And since these are the opinion-makers and leaders who shape our culture, the worldview that they imbibe at the university will be the one that shapes our culture. If we change the university, we change our culture through those who shape culture. If the Christian worldview can be restored to a place of prominence and respect at the university, it will have a leavening effect throughout society.

But that implies that popular-level apologetics aimed at the masses will not do the job. Only scholarly level apologetics aimed at specialists in the various academic disciplines will be capable of changing the university and so ensuring lasting cultural change. Machen observed that many people in his day "would have the seminaries combat error as it is taught by its popular exponents" instead of confusing students "with a lot of German names unknown outside the walls of the university." But, Machen insisted, the scholarly method of procedure

'. . . is based simply upon a profound belief in the pervasiveness of ideas. What is to-day matter of academic speculation begins to-morrow to move armies and pull down empires. In that second stage, it has gone too far to be combated; the time to stop it was when it was still a matter of impassionate debate. So as Christians we should try to mould the thought of the world in such a way as to make the acceptance of Christianity something more than a logical absurdity.'"

I think this is a deep, resounding call to America and to the modern Christian church. The immense volumes of scholarly progress over the past two millennia centering around the relation of man and God are all for naught if the current trends in culture continue. How is scholarship on Christianity viewed publicly? The answer to that question, at least for most people, would probably be "what scholarship?"

What happens when the power of ideas intersects with the power of the living God? Think about it...

Big Questions Week at Georgia Tech Video

Sneering Is Not an Argument

Much of atheistic rhetoric these days comes off as a collective sneer at the idea of theism or intelligent design. From my experience, atheists often forgo cogent arguments in favor of mocking, rather than arguing against, the existence and revelation of a God. Such proved to be the case in the debate last night between Christopher Hitchens and Jay Wesley Richards at Stanford University. Hitchens is the author of God Is Not Great, and Richards is co-author of The Privileged Planet and a senior fellow of the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture.

Read the story from the Stanford Daily, or read his book, and you will see that Hitchens is one of those argument-less atheists. He presents no coherent arguments of his own, and in fact addresses very few of Richards's points. In fact, in response to Richards's arguments from cause-and-effect and irreducible complexity, Hitchens simply asks if he believes in the virgin birth and resurrection of Christ. When Richards answers "yes," he is dismissed out-of-hand.

Melinda over at Stand to Reason makes some very good points about Hitchens's debate:

This is, of course, a dodge of the arguments Richards had offered. He apparently made no attempt to answer them and stay on topic. And what does belief in the virgin birth have to do with the rationality of Richards' evidence for ID? Rational people often have some irrational beliefs. Citing the latter doesn't defeat the former.

Let me say it again: a sneer is not an argument. While it may get you by in the arena of public opinion, it says very little (in fact, less than nothing) of the truth of your claims. This new generation of atheists is going to have to do a little better if they are to engage theists on an intellectual level.

A Vision for Veritas

A lot of people have begun to ask, "What do you want to accomplish?", "Why are you doing this?", and so on. The first time I was asked this question was when I was new to Veritas. I was taken back--not because I didn't know the answers, but because I realized the great need to be able to answer these questions very well. I can't ever give a half-hearted answer to these types of questions.

Our team sat down and had a bit of a vision session two weeks ago. We asked ourselves some big questions: "Where do we want to be in two years? What will Veritas have become? What will the culture of campus be like? What impact do we want to make as The Veritas Forum?"

Then, even more challenging, were the short-term questions: "How will we get there? What are we doing now that will help us accomplish this?" The challenge of answering these questions proved healthy to keep our goals in the forefront of our minds. After several such sessions, I believe we really know what it is that we can accomplish and desire to accomplish as an organization.

Now, I know you're asking, "So what did you come up with, specifically?" So I'm going to share.
Our long term goal is to establish a culture of investigation and open dialogue among Christians and non-Christians on campus about the most challenging questions. We will put on events and provide resources that will allow people to interact with Truth. We want to be an organization that people look toward for hope (that they would see/feel the Truth of Jesus), and to be an organization that unites Christian ministries on campus behind a common initiative of spreading the Truth and brilliance of Jesus. We hope to be a pre-evangelistic ministry that would bring non-Christians to the point of realizing the plausibility of God's existence and the Bible's inspiration. Then we hope to hook these people in with a campus ministry where they can be ministered to and eventually have a personal and relational encounter with Jesus Christ.

Looking forward, our "Big Questions Week" in February will challenge our campus on a deeper philosophical level. We hope to coin the event "Big Questions Week" as an annual big event associated with Veritas. Alternatively, we hope to also engage students on a cultural level - a level where the truth of Christianity can interact with their emotions. We believe the truth of Christianity is not just intellectual, so, with that, we've planned an event in the fall about marriage. We are also trying to bring a drama to campus in the fall. It's really exciting to see where God is leading our planning.

Now when people ask us questions about our vision, it really becomes an opportunity to share our conviction, excitement, and love for truth. The results of expressing this well have already been remarkable.

In His Grace and Truth,

Stephen Kump
2008 Campus Director
Veritas Forum at Georgia Tech

Veritas Promo Video

A Question?

Onlookers and passersby may have been curious. Then again, it's a college campus! Regardless, last night's event would probably look strange to most.

In our Planning Team meeting this week, we had a very fruitful discussion. Part of the business discussed included an excited interchange of ideas about a chalking campaign to advertise to the campus. To those unfamiliar with the term, Georgia Tech students often advertise their clubs and events out on the public walkways with large, brightly-colored messages written with sidewalk chalk. Perhaps this strategy belies the quriky nature of what students stare at as they walk to and from classes? Anyway--chalking is one of the most common (and also, I would wager, effective) ways of communication and advertising on Tech's campus.

Our team (guided by Jason) decided to chalk the campus in 4 stages over the next 5 weeks. If our intentions succeed, the first week will only pique students' curiosity. Each stage will see a different message chalked on the sidewalks - and only in the last stage will we start advertising the dates and relevant information for the events of our forum.

But I'm getting ahead of myself! There we were: ten students, three cars, and four boxes of large chalk. It was half past midnight, and I'm sure a strange sight indeed. Anyone watching would have seen five guys cruising up to an intersection, hopping out, writing on the sidewalk, and racing back to the car to speed off towards the next location. But what did we write on the sidewalks? This time, only one simple symbol: a question mark. They were many colors and sizes, some shaded, some fat, and some tucked into strange places (for advertising). But as we packed up and headed back to our house, I reflected on the strange profundity of what we symbolically marked all over campus:

THE questions. Some may seem big, some small, but wherever you go, you can't run from them.

More pictures: http://andyjones.smugmug.com/gallery/4193758

Georgia Tech Big Questions Week Feb 08

Planning the first annual Georgia Tech Big Questions Week has been an adventure. The whole Veritas Forum Planning Team has experienced God's work in so many new ways and seen Him move obstacles all over the place to gather support for this February forum. The vision for the forum this time around came directly out of our responses from the exit survey at last year's event in which the campus told us loud and clear that Tech has enough science and wants to hear about issues surrounding morality.

By title I'm the Creative Events Coordinator, but in truth every one of us has been working overtime to get this event together and raise support, etc. We expect much more work to make it happen the way we envision it, but are always expecting God to work His miracles to go far beyond our expectations.

In future posts I hope to relate my experiences with my brothers in Christ with whom I've had the pleasure of working to plan this event. I also might share some of my theological, philosophical and moral/ethical questions and areas of interest in order to give an example of the sorts of questions that Tech students have and need answered. And also maybe to show some of the skeptics out there that there are, in fact, engineers and "sciency" people that fully believe in and follow Christ. I hope to post again very soon. And remember the Big Questions Week is February 18th through the 22nd at Georgia Tech. We'd love to see you there!

Irreducible complexity, intelligent design, and science

A relatively fruitful discussion had started on the Facebook event wall before the April 10th event, and has gone from the forefront after the event. I would like to enable all involved to continue the discussion, as well as add some thoughts of my own. So, I invite everyone involved or spectating to join the discussion as it migrates here from Facebook, especially Nacho and Travis, who have carried the majority of the dialogue to this point. Here is my attempt to summarize the ground already covered:

The three main issues brought up were irreducible complexity, intelligent design, and the theory of science and truth. I have outlined the opinions on each of these topics below.

Irreducible Complexity
Trip said,

Irreducible complexity (IC) is the argument that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved from simpler, or "less complete" predecessors.

Travis mentioned,

...a good book on Irreducible Complexity is Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box. Michael Behe is a microbiologist, and he discusses systems he believes are irreducibly complex from his field.

And Nacho countered,

If IC is an issue in evolutionary biology (I actually don't know, it's not my field), scientific research should lead to the discovery of natural processes that could lead to steps in evolution (and that discovery cannot be the postulation of divine intervention, just like in any other branch of science).

Intelligent Design
Nacho has stated his position with the following:

Would Schaefer use a theological argument to prove one of his discoveries in computational chemistry? If not, why does he request evolutionary biologists to do it?

As any other theory, it's [evolution's] falsifiable. But, if evolution fails, it should be replaced by another scientific theory which explains everything that evolution explains, is backed by all the natural evidence of evolution and, [sic] at some point will be superseded by another theory. I think the core of the discussion is if you can call "scientific theory" something that does require the use of supernatural explanations.

Ok, he [Schaefer] showed some physical evidence that shows the universe had a beginning and does not have a end, just like Christian theology explains. But doing so he assumed two things:
- The same physical laws that are valid today have been valid since the beginning of time, and
- there were no unexplainable events in the evolution of the universe that might affect the information we receive from that event.
The kind of god that he finds as as primary cause, then, is a god that walks away from his creation. Otherwise there should be "irreducible complexity" showing up at different stages of cosmological evolution.

Johann had this to add:

the entirety of the scientific community has agreed that ID/Creationism is bullcrap

Travis said,

I have a proposal - let's see where the evidence leads, and then label that scientific. Does the evidence support ID, or the cosmology usually associated with non-ID evolutionary processes? Let's leave the labels about what is scientific or not until after the evidence has been heard.

I think though that some of the problem is that we've created a false dichotomy between "natural" and "supernatural". There is only what is.
What I look for is truth - which I define as knowledge concerning what is. My assumption is that any knowledge of truth will be useful and apply to real life.

The Theory of Science and Truth
Nacho has said,

Saying that something is the way it is because "it was designed to be that way" does not allow any further scientific development so, I think, it can not be called science.

I'm not stating evolution is the ultimate answer, it's perfect or it's the absolute truth.

Your argument that ID still leave[s] the room for theological psychology or archeology is like replacing atmospheric physics by a norse mythology based explanation and then ask ourselves why thor makes some thunders hit the ground and others not.

Travis has written,

Some good books about the philosophy of science are The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn and Progress and Its Problems by Larry Laudan. They're both pretty readable, and talk a lot about how science can and cannot be used.

I think though that some of the problem is that we've created a false dichotomy between "natural" and "supernatural". There is only what is. What I look for is truth - which I define as knowledge concerning what is. My assumption is that any knowledge of truth will be useful and apply to real life.

Nacho responded,

You say my dichotomy of natural and supernatural explanations is false, but you do not say how and why. Science has explained consistently and efectively lots of things that were previously thought to be of miracolous [sic] nature. Why do you think this trend should be reversed?

Science is not a quest for truth, is a quest for a better explanation. It will never give you the reason or the meaning, those are philosophical or theological inquiries. And, if you are a believer as I think you are, you are not seeking the truth either. You know the truth (or at least, your truth).

Travis replied,

I think it's a mischaracterization (albeit a common one) that saying "it was designed to be that way" will end inquiry. After all, when presented with a design that works - the first thing people do is try and figure out why it works so well. For example, I once read a quote that I thought was profound by an early astronomer (Newton maybe?). He believed that learning about the world was "thinking God's thoughts after Him." If that isn't motivation for inquiry, I don't know what is.

I think that we should explore this dichotomy, as Travis puts it. Are there "natural" and "supernatural" worlds, or is the world we live in comprised of both? Is it a false distinction to exclude what is considered "supernatural" from discussion about the world? Note that I didn't say scientific discussion—that's because science is being used to explore only materialistic explanations for the world. Is that a valid definition of science, even? If not, what is science? What is truth? What is knowledge? Some of these existential questions are irreversibly married to the issues we are debating. I think much can be gained through discussing these questions and the statements above.

Our first event...a success!

The first ever Veritas Forum event at Georgia Tech was a week ago. Tuesday evening, April 10, Dr. Henry "Fritz" Schaefer came and gave his lecture "The Big Bang, Stephen Hawking, and God" at our first Veritas Conversation. Attendance was well over 300, and the Instructional Center auditorium was packed out—we brought in 60 folding chairs, set up 30 chairs in the lobby and broadcast the lecture out there, and had quite a few people sitting on the steps or standing inside the lecture hall. Check out the photo album on Facebook.

The lecture and Q&A were thought-provoking, sparking conversation that lasted past 11pm. We had attendees from the BCM, Campus Atheists, Campus Crusade for Christ, Westminster Christian Fellowship, and several other campus organizations, in addition to several Tech professors. Debate over the issues also arose on Facebook, and I am in the process of migrating that discussion to this blog.

I consider the huge response to such a small event a great success. I can't wait to see what kind of impact Veritas can have on the Georgia Tech community when we are able to put on full-fledged Forums and advertise more. Looks like the majority of the campus is ready to join in dialogue over these issues. May the free and open exchange of ideas commence!

If you missed the lecture, the audio and video will be online within the next couple of weeks. I'll post links when they're live. If you attended, please comment on this post with your thoughts and impressions from the event. A big thanks to the Veritas Planning Team for pulling this one off!

Is Veritas deceptive? ...part three...

This is the final installment in my series of posts to answer the question, “Is Veritas deceptive?” In my first post, I outlined the Biblical imperative to avoid deception and the impression of deception. In my second, I confessed my tendency to veil the fact that we are a Christian organization and encouraged us all to clearly represent Veritas as a Christian movement. But on a deeper level, we are being honest when we say that we are hosting forums on truth. We don't have to shout out that we are Christians in everything we do to avoid deception. Allow me to explain.

National Veritas says this:

Our job is to raise the level of dialogue on campus by drawing out the deep questions of the campus and seeing if Jesus’ answers ring true. After all, we only want to follow Christ if he is the way, the truth, and the life, and we need each other in order to more fully understand this.

Let me make this clear: the purpose of a Veritas Forum is not evangelism. We are not proselytizing. We exist because, especially when it comes to the interactions among God, truth, and science in the academic community, open dialogue does not. Scholastic arenas often prove tragically hostile to people of faith. Veritas seeks to encourage the free and open exchange of ideas (which is an accepted principle of academics) when it comes to God and science, including the nature of truth, philosophy, origins, and questions of existence.

And so, to answer the criticism: no, we are nothing less than sincere. We don't seek to get you involved in Christianity. We aren't hosting a sermon series. We purpose to bring together the best and brightest minds of the Georgia Tech community to evaluate a multitude of worldviews, including the Christian one, doing so in the pursuit of veritas—truth and true life.

We give the community our word on this: a Veritas Forum is an even playing field. An open forum is just that, and we intend to keep it that way. There is no need for bias, intolerance of ideas or people, or unwillingness to change one's mind. After all, the truth will out. Jesus Christ made a lot of claims about life and His answers to our questions. If He was right, then we have nothing to worry about—Veritas is just a way to evaluate the Christian worldview and let it compete in the marketplace of ideas. We believe that our academic community can rise above the exclusion of "religious" answers to life's tough questions and evaluate everyone's ideas through free dialogue. We don't want to dominate or just talk about what we believe, we want to open up the lines of communication about all the worldviews out there. We want to facilitate informed decisions about who and what to believe. We want to conquer the ignorance and misinformation that so often clouds the interactions between God and intellect. Sure, we think we're right—but don't you think you're right, too? That doesn't mean we can't coexist in the Georgia Tech community. Why can't we sit down over coffee or hear a lecture and learn from each other? Let's introduce a little sincerity into how we discuss these matters.

If that's your heart, you'll want to be on-board with the Veritas Forum @ GT. We're not going to hide the fact that we're a Christian movement, but our desire is to treat every worldview fairly and foster that sort of dialogue on our campus. Because part of what we believe is this:

For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart. And no creature is hidden from his sight, but all are naked and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we must give account. Since then we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. (Hebrews 4:12-14)

We're just putting the answers that Jesus Christ provides out there and letting His words do the work. We won't try to enforce anything, add anything, or suppress anyone. We're just sticking to our confession and bringing that to the table. Will anyone join us there?

Is Veritas deceptive? ...part two...

"We're hosting forums on truth," we told them as we conducted surveys on Skiles walkway. "What is truth?" the banner on our table posited. If we had time to speak with people, we shared that we are Christians who believe that the Biblical worldview can compete in the marketplace of ideas, and we are trying to bring open forums on truth and God to campus. One survey-taker had some piercing commentary to make, however.

Ok. Now I'll make a guess. You are involved in some sort of religion and you want to get other people involved in it. If that's the case, it's a bit deceptive to say you're "conducting a survey to bring in a speaker for a forum" or whatever you said. If you want to talk to me about your religion, go ahead & tell me what it is. Introduce a little sincerity.

I've always been in the intellectual camp of Christianity, that group of amateur theologians who love to read Augustine, Calvin, and Piper and throw around little words like supralapsarianism, dispensationalism, hypostatic union, and eschatology. We see beauty in the technicalities of a well-thought-out Biblical worldview. We love apologetics and had to test and prove the claims of Jesus Christ before we would follow Him. Our method of worship and grand goal in life is to learn and live good theology. We envy dead people because they have better theology than we do. (Seriously.)

This scholarly Christianity has a great heritage, for the intellectual community used to be dominated by and thrive under great Christian thinkers. Only recently has the scientific community been taken over by those who deny a Biblical faith. (Required-in-my-opinion reading: Love Your God with All Your Mind by J. P. Moreland.) But now we exist in a hostile environment. One word about God and we are either ridiculed or dismissed from anything "intellectual" or "scientific." This environment often fosters a fear of being frank about the fact that we are Christians and we actually believe all that Bible and God stuff.

I am guilty as charged—I have often failed to "introduce a little sincerity," including when I've represented Veritas to others. But under the teaching of John Piper at Passion 2007, I was encouraged to take that risk—come what may. We must be ready and willing to risk our intellectual reputation, our ego under ridicule, whatever it takes, by being honest and frank about the fact that we are followers of Christ and Veritas is a Christian movement. Anything less and we are not risking our own pride, we are risking God's reputation within our lost community. His fame is at stake, and we can't give Him a bad name by our deception. He can't take risks: it's all certain to Him. So ours is just to be faithful to the God we say we believe and commit to the utmost honesty (see part one).

Is Veritas deceptive? ...part one...

Veritas Forums are university events that engage students and faculty in discussions about life's hardest questions and the relevance of Jesus Christ to all of life.

The Veritas website is unequivocal when it comes to the purpose of a Veritas Forum: we exist to proclaim the relevance of Biblical Christianity to all of our lives. But when I represent Veritas to others, I say that we are hosting a "forum on truth," which is also true. (After all, "Veritas Forum" means "Truth-Forum.") But are we being deceptive if we don't immediately say that we are a Christian organization?

Before we look at the accusations, let me say a few words about why this matters. Beyond the obvious need for credibility for the Veritas Forum organization at Georgia Tech, what motivates us to examine ourselves for any hint of deception or duplicity? The answer is easy to say and hard to practice.

Paul, in reference to our conduct concerning disputable matters, exhorts us to "not let what you regard as good be spoken of as evil" (Romans 14:16). Since deception is evil, if we in Veritas show others even the appearance of deception, we open the door to allowing the Veritas Forum to be spoken of as evil. The exciting part of this command is that, if we are careful to follow, we have the promise that "Whoever thus serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men" (Romans 14:18)—we will serve our primary purpose as slaves of Christ's will, and we will be justified in the sight of men.

In reference to his ministry, Paul writes to the Corinthians,

But we have renounced disgraceful, underhanded ways. We refuse to practice cunning or to tamper with God's word, but by the open statement of the truth we would commend ourselves to everyone's conscience in the sight of God. (2 Corinthians 4:2)

We cannot and must not attempt to veil the core of who we are and the reason we exist: the gospel, the firm belief that God exists and He saves sinful humanity. I charge us all to emulate Paul in his hardcore ethical stand on the sufficiency of the gospel and his absolute commitment to honor and honesty. There will be no "bait and switch" with Veritas. My dad once told me about a friend of his, an evangelism-focused believer who would cruise the streets and invite students to a "party." In truth, there was no party—it was a Christian youth meeting. I can hear the rationale now: at least they were exposed to the gospel. Get them in the doors, no matter what the cost. This may be their only chance to hear the gospel. A thousand times no! God forbid that we would become end-justifies-the-means pragmatists, even if we claim to do so for the sake of the gospel! I see no allowance in Scripture for such deception—and it is deception. Paul refused to practice such cunning. After all, if Christ needs us to lie to spread His gospel, we must have a weak message and a small God, indeed!

Not only are we commanded to avoid deceitful methods, in Romans we are encouraged to "give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all." It's important to think about this issue. This blog post is not easy to write, nor is this topic likely to be comfortable or pleasing to many—but writing this is part of my obedience to the command to "give thought." Join me in obedience to this command by giving thought to how we are to represent Veritas to our campus and to the world.

What's the difference?

I was watching The Ice Harvest last night (not recommended, really) and it made me think of our Veritas Forum. (Is that a sign I'm thinking about this too much? Perhaps...) Anyway, here's our working forum topic in nice big letters:

Does it matter how you live?

Of course, we disciples of Christ answer this question with a resounding "Yes!" But do we know why? Could we explain why? Could we answer Charlie Arglist when he says,

Did I ever tell you my father was a twin? Fraternal. Looked a lot alike, though, him and my uncle. Different temperaments completely. My father, he's a cop. By-the-book guy. Believed in the law, wanted his only son to be a lawyer. Drank in moderation, didn't smoke. Kept up his life insurance premiums. Voted in every election, not just for president.
Pete Van Heuten: Lemme guess, uncle didn't vote?
He said he didn't want to encourage the b*******. In and out of jail from the time he was 16... drunk all the time, f***** everything that walked. Won a fortune playing poker, lost it all the same way. Lost an eye in a fight. My father was 54 when he died of a massive embolism, right here in Wichita. My uncle died the very next day in a car wreck in California. So the point is... it is futile to regret. You do one thing, you do another... I mean, so what? What's the difference? Same result.

What do you say to someone like that? We not only need to know our answers, but reasons for them (1 Peter 3:15); and we need to be able to put forth a defense against the philosophies and people this world may throw at our claim that this life matters eternally. We need to be able to bring in a basis for morality, a meaning for this life, and the person of Jesus Christ to our answer.

And that's where this Veritas Forum comes in. Stay tuned, it's going to be amazing.

Brainstorming

The Survey Committee presented their findings on Wednesday, leading us into beginning to discuss what the main topic of the Spring 2007 Forum will be. The issues that floated to the top are as follows:

• meaning in life
• the human condition (pain and suffering, the problem of evil)
• basis of morality
• religious plurality

Michael writes:

Monday we will be brainstorming and developing our topics more. Please come, we want many people so we can have good input. This is one of the most important parts of the planning process. ... At the last meeting we decided that meaning in life would be a good starting point, but we want to integrate the other topics in too. Come to the meeting with ideas.

We may still land on any one of these topics, or a hybrid of two or more.

This is a big deal in more ways than one. Deciding the topic of any Veritas Forum is not insignificant, but this being the first at Georgia Tech, the topic and how we address it will likely shape the reputation and image of the Veritas Forum at Georgia Tech for the years to come. Please pray for wisdom and harmony for the Planning Team as we collaborate on this decision. Also, pray that our charter with national Veritas will go through smoothly now that we have an interim faculty advisor to give us official status.

More on that to come later. And perhaps I will have a chance to write about my thoughts on the forum topic.

Just beginning...

We're bringing the Veritas Forum to Georgia Tech. Campus organizations and ministries all over the school are pulling together to plan and execute this event. I'm getting involved in the planning stages, and it's very exciting. In case you don't know, Veritas Forums bring honest and open dialogue on life's big questions and the relevance of Jesus Christ to college campuses, through debates, discussions, and open forums. Their website has more information. For now, I ask that you pray:

• for the entire Planning Team as we are finalizing the members of the directors team and sub-committees.
• for unity among the Christian organizations on campus to pull together to host the Forum.
• for cooperation in supporting and promoting the Forum from non-Christian organizations on campus, in the spirit of truth-seeking and not antagonism.
• for the Planning Team as we look for the right Faculty Advisor to oversee the Forum, and that he/she will have the same passion for the cause of Christ.
• for unity among the Planning Team, directors, and committees in making decisions in future meetings.
• for specific guidance in determining what the "headline question" for the Forum will be, and that it will be relevant and draw students in.
• that, above all, the Forum will make God more famous at Georgia Tech, nearby schools, Atlanta, and the world.

More updates to follow!

Welcome!

Welcome to the new blog for the Veritas Forum here at Georgia Tech! This site is for our thoughts, feelings, hopes, and prayer requests as we plan the first Forum for spring 2007. Planning Team members will all be able to post here, so check back often and subscribe to the Atom feed (below) to keep up with us!