Debate between Greg Koukl and Deepak Chopra

Filed under: Apologetics, Misc — Jeremy at 10:25 am on Wednesday, October 25, 2006

I guess it’s been well over a year now since it happened, but in April of 2005, Greg Koukl and Deepak Chopra had a debate of about half an hour on Lee Strobel’s (since discontinued?) tv show Faith Under Fire. I missed the debate, but heard a lot of good things about it and was pretty disappointed that I missed it and kept hoping it would be re-aired sometime. I know that you can now buy DVDs of the episodes, but as a poor college student I was overjoyed to find out yesterday that the whole thing can be viewed for free on Lee Strobel’s website. (Also, do a search for Koukl and you can watch his entire presentation on Tactics in Defending the Faith, which is a must-see. I’ve downloaded all the parts of both of these to put on a DVD for myself). The videos come in five parts of about 5 to 10 minutes each. For easy reference, here they are (enjoy!):

Part I: http://www.leestrobel.com/videos/Christianity/strobelT1119.htm
Part II: http://www.leestrobel.com/videos/Christianity/strobelT1120.htm
Part III: http://www.leestrobel.com/videos/Christianity/strobelT1121.htm
Part IV: http://www.leestrobel.com/videos/Christianity/strobelT1122.htm
Part V: http://www.leestrobel.com/videos/Christianity/strobelT1123.htm

1 Comment »

6391

Comment by Kevin Winters

October 26, 2006 @ 8:51 am

I think Koukl missed Chopra’s view: he is convinced that no one can put forth a view without “having confidence in a view.” I think Chopra would agree with that. However, “having confidence” is not the same as believing that one has “the” truth, the final end-all of all beliefs on that matter. I can put forth views that I am confident about, but this fact does not mean 1) that I think those who think otherwise are wrong (they may or may not be) or 2) that I am unwilling to budge on that view.

This, from my experience, is a common fact among apologetic Evangelicals: the inability to question their presuppositions, particularly their metaphysical presuppositions. They are “obvious” truths, which obvious character has only come after a couple millenia of acceptance and reiteration (”obvious” is so relative). Without understanding the relationship between pagan metaphysics and the biblical text, including how the adoption of the former into the latter has highly influenced (or been imposed on) Christian interpretations of the former, we cannot seriously say we’ve examined our truth-claims.

My greatest problem with “orthodox” Christianity is its presupposition that neo-Aristotelian metaphysics is the “only game in town.” This, I think, is part of Chopra’s point (though not put in this way): we are uncertain about the basic metaphysical ground on which our beliefs should rest. Within orthodox Christianity, it has been canonized in the creeds and, thus, given a “stamp of approval” by God. But you cannot demonstrate this sola scriptura, nor can sola scriptura itself be understood without the neo-Aristotelian metaphysic.

A last point on Koukl’s arguments for an early date for scripture: it has never been demonstrated in extra-biblical texts that Joshua ben Joseph is the Christ. Yes, there are texts that may confirm his existence, but there are no texts outside the bible that confirm his miracles, his resurrection, etc. Attempts to demonstrate that the biblical writers were eye witnesses are also specious: how can this be demonstrated? If there are no non-believer texts that confirm anything beyond the mere existence of the person spoken of, then how can we make the epistemological jump to claiming that we have demonstrated that their accounts are accurate?

I should add that I believe the Bible to be God’s word (though I think inerrancy a metaphysical fiction). So I am not arguing this in an attempt to make anyone disbelieve that text. But I think the arguments are shoddy.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>