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.