Is Christianity coherent, consistent and livable? Part 5 of 5


Quite a while ago I contributed a post titled “Coherent, Consistent, and Livable” to a series titled “Is Christianity is True” organized by Brian Auten. Shortly after the compiled book was published, Luke Muehlhauser announced his intentions to publish a rebuttal to each essay in the “Is Christianity is True?” series in a “Why Christianity is False” series of his own.

This is part 5 of a 5 part series intended to address Luke’s post, “Christianity is Incoherent”.

My hope is that through this series others will be encouraged to examine their own worldviews. Christian and non-Christian alike.

As Socrates famously said,

The unexamined life is not worth living.


It would be pat for me to write in conclusion that I find Luke’s objections to be unconvincing. However I will say that a a finite being I am well aware that I may be wrong with regard to my current beliefs. And if I am when it comes to my Christian worldview then Luke has done me a disservice by

  1. Not offering a clear rebuttal to anything I’ve claimed
  2. Not offering a more compelling alternative view


Now to be fair, and to be fair to any evangelical atheist who wishes to undertake this challenge, here is specifically what I’ll need to have in order to seriously question my beliefs

  1. I need a good explanation of how the world came to exist
  2. I need to know how I, a cognitive being, came to exist in this world
  3. I need to know why I should trust my epistemic faculties, including my mind, to provide me with true information
  4. I need a good accounting of things I hold to be intrinsically to be true, like altruism and self-sacrifice
  5. I need to know why I or anything I do matters, especially in view of our universe’s impending heat-death

12 responses to “Is Christianity coherent, consistent and livable? Part 5 of 5

  1. Sir,____As a fellow Christian I appreciate your response.____However, I see that Luke has posted responses to your posts.____I must say, I believe Luke's points are valid. I think his responses__are sharp.

    I think he won this round.

    But Christ will someday prove us all right. 🙂
    Sola Deo Gloria!

    • I've read Luke's response and I am baffled at how you have come to the conclusion that he "won this round". Could you explain how you came to your conclusion?

      Additionally, since you appear to be of a reformed inclination I am also curious what you think a proper response to an atheist would or should be.

  2. "As Aristotle famously said, The unexamined life is not worth living."

    Is the the above quote most appropriately attributed to Aristotle? I was under the impression that it was committed to some sort of writing by Plato, and in such writing its original utterance is attributed to Socrates. Perhaps I am misinformed?

  3. What do you think of Mike Licona?
    I think he is going to be better than Habermas.

  4. Far from it.
    You are committing a logical fallacy by judging a book by its cover.
    I am using my name to boast of my freedom in Christ (book of Romans)
    and to emphasize his incarnational ministry (he was human afterall).

    Still, you avoid the question and instead take refuge behind pointing at someone's name.

    Why is it that it is often most difficult to have a loving talk between two CHRISTIANS?
    Why is this so rampant in the Kingdom? Answer that question instead.
    Try and edify instead.
    Will you join me, brother?

Leave a Reply