Have you ever noticed how the moral argument for God is somewhat like the first-cause (or cosmological) argument for God? At the core of the first-cause argument is the idea that, if we notice a sequence of causes, then there must be either an infinite regress of causes or there was an ultimate first cause. However, the moral argument functions much in the same way. G. E. Moore introduced the idea of the “open question”: if we say that something is good, then the following question can always be asked: “What makes that thing good?” Any answer you give to that question can also have the same question asked of it: “Well, then that makes that thing good?” This causes an infinite regress unless, of course, there is one thing that is just ultimately good.

Are traditional methods of apologetics outdated? Does giving arguments for God or providing evidence that Jesus rose from the dead actually convince anyone? Should we instead only use apologetic methods that "work"? Some try to disparage traditional apologetic methods, claiming that they really don't convince anyone, and that other things like personal stories or emotional appeals are what really convince people to change their minds. But is simply making Christianity more “attractive” or “desirable” a better approach for apologetics?

Sometimes Christians are accused of trying to "legislate morality." What does that mean? Is it wrong to bring our moral values to the table when making legislation? This objection is often made with hot-button issues like abortion, but what about rape or murder? Is it "legislating morality" to outlaw those actions? We all have certain beliefs about reality, but are these beliefs moral beliefs? philosophical beliefs? religious beliefs? scientific beliefs? It can be hard to label or classify our beliefs, and thus oftentimes the objection against "legislating morality" is simply an appeal to rhetoric rather than substance.

What does it mean to say that the Bible is "self-authenticating"? If something is self-authenticating, that means that you don't need anything else to authenticate it or show that it real. In terms of the Bible, if it is self-authenticating, that means that the Bible itself shows that it really is the Word of God. However, some who say that the Bible is self-authenticating use that idea to imply that doing apologetics is wrong or unbiblical, that we shouldn't need to give evidence to support the Bible's truthfulness. But is that really what the Bible being self-authenticating means?

On July 13, 2024, there was an assassination attempt against former President Donald Trump while he was speaking at a political rally. In this podcast, Adam talks about how our frequently heated political rhetoric can lead to situations like this and discusses various ways that we, as Christians, can avoid being taken in by this rhetoric and becoming fearful, frustrated, angry, and hateful. We can disagree with someone’s political positions without using exaggerated statements or being a jerk, and we can refuse to engage in spreading this type of rhetoric.

The #1 movie on Netflix right now is a movie called "Hit Man." It's a film about a psychology and philosophy professor named Gary who gets away with two murders. Adam discusses this movie and shows how films like this that glamorize evil actions and portray the characters as suffering no negative consequences for their evil choices present a false picture that can actually encourage evil actions in the real world.

Greg Welty recently wrote a book on Alvin Plantinga in the "Great Thinkers" series. Alvin Plantinga is a renowned Christian philosopher whom you should be familiar with. He was at the forefront of a Christian renaissance in academic philosophy in the latter half of the 20th century. Welty's book is a great short introduction to Plantinga's work. One place where Adam disagrees with Plantinga is on the idea of "Reformed Epistemology." Some descriptions of Reformed Epistemology seem to look down too much on human reason. While we certainly don't want to downplay or dismiss the vital work of the Holy Spirit, we don't want to settle for basing everything on feelings or intuitions either. In his book Warranted Christian Belief, Plantinga seems to dismiss the idea that philosophy can be useful in determining if Christianity is true, and Adam thinks he is incorrect to do that.

It may be surprising to hear that postmodernism and presuppositionalism could be similar. Postmodernism is a philosophy that, among other things, is very committed to the idea that truth is relative in some sense. Presuppositionalism is the idea that we should start doing apologetics by assuming (or presupposing) that God exists and the Bible is His Word. So, how could these two ideas be related? Both postmodernism and presuppositionalism were overreactions to philosophical modernism. Both movements tended to downplay the importance of using reason in forming our beliefs and instead focused on other means, such as our inner feelings (postmodernism) or blind faith (presuppositionalism). James K. A. Smith is an example of a presuppositionalist who has recognized and even promoted this connection.