On what Christians should do when they disagree with each other:

The proper activity of professing Christians who disagree with one another is neither to ignore, nor to conceal, nor even to minimize their differences, but to debate them. (pg. 22)

On why we should speak the truth in love, not being truthless in love or loveless in truth:

We seem in our generation to have moved a long way from this vehement zeal for the truth which Christ and his apostles displayed. But if we loved the glory of God more, and if we cared more for the eternal good of the souls of men, we would not refuse to engage in necessary controversy, when the truth of the gospel is at stake. The apostolic command is clear. We are “to maintain the truth in love,” being neither truthless in our love, nor loveless in our truth, but holding the two in balance. (pg. 19)

On the difference between a “tolerant mind” and a “tolerant spirit”:

We need to distinguish between the tolerant mind and the tolerant spirit. Tolerant in spirit a Christian should always be, loving, understanding, forgiving and forbearing others, making allowances for them, and giving them the benefit of the doubt, for true love “bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things” [1 Cor. 13:7]. But how can we be tolerant in mind of what God has plainly revealed to be either evil or erroneous? (pg. 8 )

I think Stott would have liked something G. K. Chesterton once said: “The object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid” (The Autobiography, vol. 16 of The Collected Works of G. K. Chesterton [San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988], 212).

There are times in the life of a believer when he seems about to sink under great avalanches of trouble and sorrow. But then “I call to remembrance my song in the night” (Psalm 77:6), and God answers once again. In the book of Psalms, the theme of conflict and suffering is prominent, but always there is also the note of hope and ultimate triumph.

The very first psalm, for example, notes the conflict of the righteous with the ungodly, but promises that “the way of the ungodly shall perish” (v. 6). The second psalm foretells the final rebellion of the heathen against God and His anointed, but assures us that God will “vex them in his sore displeasure” (vv. 2, 5). In Psalm 3, the believer says: “Many are they that rise up against me.” But then he remembers that “salvation belongeth unto the LORD” (vv. 1, 8). He cries in Psalm 4: “Hear me when I call, O God of my righteousness: thou hast enlarged me when I was in distress; have mercy upon me, and hear my prayer” (v. 1).

In Psalm 5, immediately after the first imprecation in the psalms (“cast them out in the multitude of their transgressions”) occurs the first specific mention of singing in the book of Psalms: “Let all those that put their trust in thee rejoice: let them ever shout [literally 'sing'] for joy, because thou defendest them” (vv. 10-11).

The Lord Jesus and His disciples sang a psalm, even as they went out into the night of His betrayal and condemnation (Mark 14:26). This is His gracious promise: “Ye shall have a song, as in the night. . . . And the LORD shall cause his glorious voice to be heard” (Isaiah 30:29-30).

Stephen Hawking’s latest claim that God did not create the universe reminded me that sometimes very smart people say dumb things. He’s done so because he’s playing outside the bounds of his field of expertise, trying to apply the rules of his field of study to an entirely different kind of playing field.

Hawkings’ attempt to avoid the powerful conclusion of the Kalam Cosmological Argument doesn’t work because he keeps trying to employ the laws of the physical universe prior to when they existed. He claims that the inevitable law of physics brought everything into being. But, er, the law of physics didn’t exist prior to the beginning of the universe so how could a non-existent law bring about anything? And calling it “inevitable” doesn’t make it any more convincing.

He writes, “Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.” But the law of gravity didn’t exist so it couldn’t cause anything. Gravity and all of the laws of physics came into being along with the physical universe. They’re part of the physical universe. They’re not inevitable and they can’t cause themselves.

Nothing of the physical world existed prior to the universe. Wrap your head around that – nothing! Nothing at all – no laws of physics, no matter – to work with, to get things started, to bring anything else into existence. And if the very speculative theories that there were universes prior to this is true, the problem of how the first one of those universes got started just gets pushed back.

To quote Maria von Trapp from “The Sound of Music”, “Nothing comes from nothing. Nothing ever will.” There was no law of physics, no law of gravity, nothing inevitable to get the physical world going on its own. And the rules of Hawking’s own game state very clearly that every physical effect needs an adequate cause. Some causes are physical, some are personal. And there was nothing physical prior to the physical universe to be its adquate cause.

The realm of study for science and physics is the physical universe. The boundaries of their arena is the beginning and the end of the physical world. Prior to the beginning of the physical world is out of bounds for their field of play. Their rules, their laws don’t apply there. Hawking cannot dismiss the cosmological argument by trying to apply the laws of his field when it’s out of bounds. It’s a whole new game with new rules.

Nothing at all, nothing physical existed. So how does something come from nothing when there is no raw material, no laws of physics, no nothing to get started? Only a personal being answering the description of God is an adequate cause to bring something from nothing, to get things going when there was nothing at all. Hawkings is just flat wrong and he’s out of his game making such claims.

There’s no denying that Stephen Hawking is intellectually bold as well as physically heroic. And in his latest book, the renowned physicist mounts an audacious challenge to the traditional religious belief in the divine creation of the universe.

According to Hawking, the laws of physics, not the will of God, provide the real explanation as to how life on Earth came into being. The Big Bang, he argues, was the inevitable consequence of these laws ‘because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.’

Unfortunately, while Hawking’s argument is being hailed as controversial and ground-breaking, it is hardly new.

For years, other scientists have made similar claims, maintaining that the awesome, sophisticated creativity of the world around us can be interpreted solely by reference to physical laws such as gravity.

It is a simplistic approach, yet in our secular age it is one that seems to have resonance with a skeptical public.

But, as both a scientist and a Christian, I would say that Hawking’s claim is misguided. He asks us to choose between God and the laws of physics, as if they were necessarily in mutual conflict.

But contrary to what Hawking claims, physical laws can never provide a complete explanation of the universe. Laws themselves do not create anything, they are merely a description of what happens under certain conditions.

What Hawking appears to have done is to confuse law with agency. His call on us to choose between God and physics is a bit like someone demanding that we choose between aeronautical engineer Sir Frank Whittle and the laws of physics to explain the jet engine.

That is a confusion of category. The laws of physics can explain how the jet engine works, but someone had to build the thing, put in the fuel and start it up. The jet could not have been created without the laws of physics on their own – but the task of development and creation needed the genius of Whittle as its agent.

Similarly, the laws of physics could never have actually built the universe. Some agency must have been involved.

To use a simple analogy, Isaac Newton’s laws of motion in themselves never sent a snooker ball racing across the green baize. That can only be done by people using a snooker cue and the actions of their own arms.
Hawking’s argument appears to me even more illogical when he says the existence of gravity means the creation of the universe was inevitable. But how did gravity exist in the first place? Who put it there? And what was the creative force behind its birth?

Similarly, when Hawking argues, in support of his theory of spontaneous creation, that it was only necessary for ‘the blue touch paper’ to be lit to ‘set the universe going’, the question must be: where did this blue touch paper come from? And who lit it, if not God?

Much of the rationale behind Hawking’s argument lies in the idea that there is a deep-seated conflict between science and religion. But this is not a discord I recognize.

For me, as a Christian believer, the beauty of the scientific laws only reinforces my faith in an intelligent, divine creative force at work. The more I understand science, the more I believe in God because of my wonder at the breadth, sophistication and integrity of his creation.

The very reason science flourished so vigorously in the 16th and 17th centuries was precisely because of the belief that the laws of nature which were then being discovered and defined reflected the influence of a divine law-giver.

One of the fundamental themes of Christianity is that the universe was built according to a rational , intelligent design. Far from being at odds with science, the Christian faith actually makes perfect scientific sense.

Some years ago, the scientist Joseph Needham made an epic study of technological development in China. He wanted to find out why China, for all its early gifts of innovation, had fallen so far behind Europe in the advancement of science.
He reluctantly came to the conclusion that European science had been spurred on by the widespread belief in a rational creative force, known as God, which made all scientific laws comprehensible.

Despite this, Hawking, like so many other critics of religion, wants us to believe we are nothing but a random collection of molecules, the end product of a mindless process.

This, if true, would undermine the very rationality we need to study science. If the brain were really the result of an unguided process, then there is no reason to believe in its capacity to tell us the truth.

We live in an information age. When we see a few letters of the alphabet spelling our name in the sand, our immediate response is to recognise the work of an intelligent agent. How much more likely, then, is an intelligent creator behind the human DNA, the colossal biological database that contains no fewer than 3.5 billion ‘letters’?

It is fascinating that Hawking, in attacking religion, feels compelled to put so much emphasis on the Big Bang theory. Because, even if the non-believers don’t like it, the Big Bang fits in exactly with the Christian narrative of creation.
That is why, before the Big Bang gained currency, so many scientists were keen to dismiss it, since it seemed to support the Bible story. Some clung to Aristotle’s view of the ‘eternal universe’ without beginning or end; but this theory, and later variants of it, are now deeply discredited.

But support for the existence of God moves far beyond the realm of science. Within the Christian faith, there is also the powerful evidence that God revealed himself to mankind through Jesus Christ two millennia ago. This is well-documented not just in the scriptures and other testimony but also in a wealth of archaeological findings.

Moreover, the religious experiences of millions of believers cannot lightly be dismissed. I myself and my own family can testify to the uplifting influence faith has had on our lives, something which defies the idea we are nothing more than a random collection of molecules.
Just as strong is the obvious reality that we are moral beings, capable of understanding the difference between right and wrong. There is no scientific route to such ethics.

Physics cannot inspire our concern for others, or the spirit of altruism that has existed in human societies since the dawn of time.

The existence of a common pool of moral values points to the existence of transcendent force beyond mere scientific laws. Indeed, the message of atheism has always been a curiously depressing one, portraying us as selfish creatures bent on nothing more than survival and self-gratification.

Hawking also thinks that the potential existence of other lifeforms in the universe undermines the traditional religious conviction that we are living on a unique, God-created planet. But there is no proof that other lifeforms are out there, and Hawking certainly does not present any.

It always amuses me that atheists often argue for the existence of extra-terrestrial intelligence beyond earth. Yet they are only too eager to denounce the possibility that we already have a vast, intelligent being out there: God.

Hawking’s new fusillade cannot shake the foundations of a faith that is based on evidence.

Here’s a word from J. P. Moreland about William Lane Craig and his significance:

It is hard to overstate the impact that William Lane Craig has had for the cause of Christ. He is simply the finest Christian apologist of the last half century and his academic work justifies ranking him among the top 1 percent of practicing philosophers in the Western world. Besides that, he is a winsome ambassador for Christ, an exceptional debater, and a man with the heart of an evangelist. I know him well and can say that he lives a life of integrity and lives out what he believes. I do not know of a single thinker who has done more to raise the bar of Christian scholarship in our generation than Craig. He is one of a kind and I thank God for his life and work.