Apologetics and Evidence

While taking a cultural apologetics class in my doctorate, I rambled along in a 30-page paper and in it, I wrote that, “I define religion as an anthropological system consisting of worship which is often filled with specific sacred rituals that seeks to appease or eradicate guilt.” My professor red-penned this and said that I am not yet in an authoritative position to make such definitions. But I was never asked how I came up with such a partial definition. The thing is, working on my second post-graduate degree in apologetics, studying many other religions on a deeper level was inevitable, and  by this, I noticed a pattern in all of them which was the fact that they all seek to appease or eradicate guilt, including   Buddhism , even though   many adherents of Buddhism claim that it is not a religion . The point is that all religions seek to eradicate guilt on some level, because   guilt crosses all cultures and times, to all people .   Guilt transcends all peop...

I had a conversation with an atheist the other day. He basically believes that the Moral argument for the existence of God is false, because he believes that morals have evolved, in order for survival. The problem with this is that in order to believe morals have evolved, one has to posit that morals are evolved, but morals have never changed. When people burned witches at the stake, they were burning them not simply because they were witches, but because people believed that these “witches” could murder other people through spells and hexes. Likely frequently and highly mistaken, the townsfolk were simply bringing judgment on a murderer. The point is, people then were trying to rid the world of murder, because they knew it was wrong. Morals do not change. Secondly, the peacock, for example is not a moral creature, yet still survives even though it is one of the world’s most fragile creatures. It does not take morals in order to survive. On top of all of this, the 20 th cen...