The Case for a Creator - Lee Strobel [165]
CHAPTER TEN: THE EVIDENCE OF CONSCIOUSNESS
1. Imagine you were asked to debate the question of whether people consist of both body and spirit or, conversely, that we are essentially “a computer made of meat.” Which proposition, in your view, carries the most weight? What evidence would you present for your side?
2. One expert said that although there’s no adequate theory of how the brain causes consciousness, he has faith that science will eventually discover a completely naturalistic explanation. Nobel-winner John Eccles calls this hope “extravagant and unfulfillable.” In light of the interview with J. P. Moreland, who do you think is most likely correct and why?
3. Moreland said, “You can’t get something from nothing,” and therefore human consciousness is inexplicable if the universe only consists of physical matter. However, he said that if everything were brought into being by a divine mind, then the existence of finite minds makes sense. Do you find this argument compelling? Why or why not?
4. Techno-prophet Ray Kurzweil raised the question of whether computers might someday develop consciousness. Based on the evidence and arguments by Moreland, what’s your opinion on this issue and why?
CHAPTER ELEVEN: THE CUMULATIVE CASE FOR A CREATOR
1. After recapping the evidence, the author concludes that Darwinism “was simply too far-fetched to be credible.” After reading through his summary of the scientific data, do you agree or disagree? What evidence prompts you to come to your conclusion?
2. The author reiterates discoveries from six scientific disciplines and says, in his opinion, the positive evidence for an intelligent designer is “credible, cogent, and compelling.” As you consider the testimony by experts presented in this book, do you believe a sufficient case has been made for a Creator? Why? What facts tipped the scale for you in one direction or the other?
3. The portrait of the Creator that emerges from the scientific data, says the author, is “uncannily consistent” with the description of God in the Bible. Do you believe his analysis is reasonable? Why or why not? When you add the historical information about Jesus contained in the appendix, what’s your assessment of the credibility of Christianity?
4. Physicist and theologian John Polkinghorne says “religious knowledge is more demanding than scientific knowledge” because it calls for “the response of commitment to the truth discovered.” How do you believe you should personally respond to the evidence you’ve encountered in this book? If you decide to pursue the three-pronged approach that Viggo Olsen discussed, what specific steps do you plan to take? What do you think your biggest obstacle will be and how will you overcome it? Or are you at a point where you feel you should respond to the evidence like Olsen and the author did—by praying to receive Jesus as your forgiver and leader? What implications would such a decision hold for you personally?
Notes
Chapter 1: White-Coated Scientists Versus Black-Robed Preachers
1. Quote of German atheistic philosopher Ludwig Feuerbach in: Hans Küng, Freud and the Problem of God, enlarged edition, translated by Edward Quinn (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990), 3.
2. Lee Strobel, “Textbook Battle Rages in Bible Belt County,” Chicago Tribune (October 20, 1974) and “Hidden Issues Seen Behind Textbook Split,” Chicago Tribune (October 21, 1974).
3. Phillip E. Johnson, Darwin on Trial (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, second edition, 1993), 126–27.
Chapter 2: The Images of Evolution
1. Review of: Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark (New York: