"God's Not Dead" (film) - Some Sadly Flawed Arguments

8/12/2014

It’s true. The existence of God has come into question during our time. Christianity really is under more attack today in America than ever. If you call yourself a Christian you are sure to be labeled as a bigoted, uneducated, mean spirited, prude, with a huge chip on his shoulder. So when a film comes out that holds to a Christian worldview and even promotes a belief in God it’s hard not to get excited about it. The growing attack against the existence of God fuels the intriguing story lines in the movie “God’s Not Dead.”

When I first saw the trailer for the movie I have to admit that I was kind of excited about it. Finally we would have a movie that could help answer some of the more difficult questions being thrown at us in academia. Apparently, I was not alone in my excitement. Despite the fact that “God’s Not Dead” was only shown in 780 theaters it still made the top 4 in box office results. It actually made a whopping 9.2 million dollars in its first weekend which understandably shocked the Hollywood world.[1]I believe that the reason the movie was so popular was because it deals with the most important question anyone could ever ask: Does God exist?

In short, the movie is about a young college student who stands up to his teacher who had boldly proclaimed on the first day of class that God is in fact dead. Josh is college freshman with aspirations of becoming a lawyer. He has to find a philosophy elective that fits his schedule so he lands on the class Introduction to Philosophy. Dr. Radisson, the professor of the class, is infamous for his atheistic rants in the classroom. In the very first class period Dr. Radisson gives a short lecture about the advantages and academic superiority of atheism. His first assignment for the class is that they all write on a white piece of paper three simple words: “God IS Dead.” Writing the words down and turning the paper in will result in a passing grade. Josh refuses to do the assignment. Dr. Radisson then offers Josh an alternative assignment. Josh will be given 20 minutes of time in during the next three lectures to prove the existence of God. If the students are convinced at the end of Josh’s lectures that God is NOT dead Josh passes the assignment. If not, he will fail the class.

As I sat watching it was at this moment that I was ready for the movie to make its lasting contribution to my life. Who doesn’t want to hear three compelling lectures on the existence of God? As a former high school and college debater I was eager to hear some of the arguments that Josh would present in the movie. To my chagrin I was left disappointed by what Josh had to say when he gave his very first argument for God’s existence.

First Debate Scene
In his very first session Josh equates the big bang to what we would expect if God spoke the universe into existence. Let me rephrase that so you are completely clear on what I am trying to say. Josh Wheaton, the main character in this movie, uses the big bang and theistic evolution as arguments for the existence of the universe. While there are those such as Tyler Franke who blogs for the site godofevolution.com that are thrilled about Josh’s views about evolution, I do not share their sentiment. Francke, a professing theistic evolutionist said this about the movie: “I was glad to see the Big Bang used as part of the defense for the existence of God.”[2] I disagree with Mr. Francke. I was not glad to see Josh use the big bang theory as one of his proofs. I saw it as a watering down of the arguments and even a frightening compromise.

[I want to be very clear before we go any further. I understand that there are those who will disagree with me about that claim. I also understand that I am not the only one to lay such a claim on this movie. After reading the transcript of this section of the movie and refreshing myself on theistic evolution, however, I have become increasingly convinced that Josh was indeed teaching theistic evolution.]

Let me explain. In his lecture Josh references Georges Lemaitre. Josh uses Lemaitre’s arguments to attempt to reconcile the big bang model with the Genesis 1 account of creation. Here’s an exact quote from the movie:

Josh: He [Geoges Lemaitre] said that the entire universe, jumping into existence in a trillionth of a trillionth of a second, out of nothingness in an unimaginably intense flash of light, is how he would expect the universe to respond if God were to actually utter the command in Genesis 1:3, “Let there be light.”

So who is Lemaitre and why is it such a big deal that Josh would use his arguments? Lemaitre is remembered in history as being the “Father of the Big Bang.” He was a Roman Catholic priest and a professor by trade. He actually taught at the French section of the Catholic University of Louvain for years. He was the first to propose that the universe expanded from an original “cosmic egg.” This proposal that he called his “hypothesis of the primeval atom” is what we know as the “Big Bang Theory.” In the movie Josh Wheaton is suggesting that the big bang explains exactly how we would assume the universe to be formed if God were to speak it into existence.

Is Josh correct? Does the account in Genesis 1 really align itself with the big bang theory? Before we run off and accept Josh’s argument let’s stop and compare the account in Genesis 1:1-5 to the big bang theory. The big bang was supposed to have happened millions of years ago with the sun allegedly appearing millions of years before the earth was formed. This stands in stark contrast to the account in Genesis 1:1-5.

“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters. Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.”

The big bang theory stands in direct opposition to the very Genesis passages that Josh is supposed to be defending. Josh is even affirming that the age of the earth is billons of years.

To be fair, this first argument that Josh gives is not all bad. Josh actually provides us with a solid apologetic for the question, “Who created God?”

Female Student: But, in his book, The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins says that if you tell me God created the universe then I have the right to ask you who created God.

Josh: Dawkins’ question only makes sense in terms in a god who has been created. It doesn’t make sense in terms of an uncreated god, which is the kind of God Christians believe in. And even leaving God out of the equation, I then have a right to turn Mr. Dawkins own question back around on him and ask, if the universe created you, then who created the universe? You see, both the theist and the atheist are both burdened with answering the same question of how did things start. What I’m hoping you’ll pick up from all this is that you don’t have to commit intellectual suicide to believe in a Creator behind the Creation. And to the extent that you don’t allow for God, you’d be pretty hard pressed to find any credible alternative explanation for how things came to be.

Second Debate Scene
In his second debate Josh addresses the problem of life coming from non-life. He moves from this into a dialogue on biological evolution. Using the analogy of a clock Josh attempts to explain the existence of life on earth. His conclusion is that God must have guided the process.

There are some things worth noting in this section. First, Josh clearly denies Darwinian evolution.

Josh: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, for the last 150 years, Darwinists have been saying that God is unnecessary to explain man’s existence and that evolution replaces God, but evolution only tells you what happens once you have life. So, where did that something that’s alive come from? Well, Darwin never really addressed it. He assumed maybe some lightning hit a stagnant pool full of the right kind of chemicals—Bingo—a living something. But, uh, it’s just not that simple.

Dr. Radisson (Kevin Sorbo) and Josh (Shane Harper)

Many people see this in the movie and immediately assume that Josh is not teaching evolution. The thing that they forget in making that assumption is that Darwinian evolution is not the only form of evolution being taught or adhered to today. Denying Darwinian evolution is actually a popular approach taken by those who accept a cosmological or geological evolution. This is the belief that evolution took place over billions of years but was not some kind of blind, random process like that taught by biological evolution. What Josh is holding too appears to be very similar to that taught by the Intelligent Design movement. Basically, Josh believes in a big bang and then a long, slowly developed process that was controlled by God.

Looking at this at face value I would conclude that Josh’s comments in the section of the movie are a ringing endorsement of theistic evolution. I strongly believe that this argument does not correspond the teachings of Scripture. Josh’s old earth view does not fit with a plain reading of the creation account.

The creators of this movie really missed a big opportunity with these first two arguments. Not only were the arguments flawed Biblically they would also have a difficult time holding up in any informed debate. While the professor in the movie was left reeling by Josh’s arguments most any informed atheist would not have a difficult time shooting them down. An informed atheist would no doubt point out that evolution is a cruel and wasteful process. Why would anyone want to believe in a God who would use such a flawed method? Furthermore, the producers clearly must not have heard Richard Dawkins, a committed atheist, say that he believes those holding to theistic evolution are diluted.

Third Debate Scene
After watching the first two debate scenes I have to admit that I wasn’t too thrilled about the impending third debate. But that’s where I got it wrong. The third scene was actually a welcome reprieve from the flawed arguments Josh had been using earlier. This was a uniquely powerful part of the film and I am sure God has and will continue to use this scene for good.

Josh tackles the problem of evil. In this scene Josh uses God’s character as the basis for recognizing absolute truth. He appeals to the innate sense of morality in all of us. During this argument you can sense even in Dr. Radisson’s eyes that the momentum has swung in Josh’s favor.

But Josh has a problem. The foundation that he has laid does not provide a pedestal from which he can preach about a God who wishes to eradicate all forms of evil. The account of creation that Josh has laid is that of an old earth view. Thus, Josh is forced to accept that earths history has always been filled with pain and suffering. Notice in the transcript that Josh nowhere mentions that God originally created a perfect world where there was no pain and suffering

Josh: It has been said that evil is atheism’s most potent weapon against the Christian faith. And it is! After all, the very existence of evil begs the question [sic], “If God is all good and God is all powerful, why does He allow evil to exist?” The answer, at its core, is remarkably simple: free will. God allows evil to exist because of free will. From the Christian standpoint, God tolerates evil in this world on a temporary basis so that one day those who choose to love Him freely will dwell with Him in heaven free from the influence of evil, but with their free will intact! In other words, God’s intention concerning evil is to one day destroy it.
Professor Radisson: Well, how convenient. “One day, I will get rid of all the evil in the world, but until then you just have to deal with all the wars and holocausts, tsunamis, poverty, starvation, and AIDS. Have a nice life.” Next he will be lecturing us on moral absolutes.
Josh: Well, why not? Professor Radisson, who’s clearly an atheist, doesn’t believe in moral absolutes. But his course syllabus says he plans to give us an exam during finals week. Now, I am betting that if I managed to get an A on the exam by cheating, he will suddenly start sounding like a Christian, insisting it is wrong to cheat, that I should have known that. And yet, what basis does he have? If my actions are calculated to help me succeed, then why shouldn’t I perform them? For Christians, the fixed point of morality, what constitutes right and wrong, is a straight line that leads directly back to God.
Professor Radisson: So you are saying that we need a god to be moral? That a moral atheist is an impossibility?
Josh: No, but with no God there is no real reason to be moral; there is not even a standard of what moral behavior is. For Christians, lying, cheating, stealing, and my example, stealing a grade I didn’t earn, are forbidden as a form of theft. But if God does not exist, as Dostoyevsky famously pointed out, “If God does not exist, then everything is permissible.” And not only permissible, but pointless. If Professor Radisson is right, then all of this—all of our struggle, all of our debate, whatever we decide here—is meaningless. I mean, our lives, our deaths are of no more consequence than that of a goldfish.
Professor Radisson: Come on, this is ridiculous. So after all of your talk, you are saying that it all comes down to a choice—believe or don’t believe.
Josh: That’s right. That’s all there is. That’s all there’s ever been. The only difference between your position and my position is that you take away their choice. You demand that they choose the box marked “I don’t believe.”
Professor Radisson: Yes, because I want to free them. Because religion is like a . . . it’s like a mind virus that parents have passed on down to their children. And Christianity is the worst virus of all. It slowly creeps into our lives when we’re weak or sick or helpless.
Josh: So religion is like a disease?
Professor Radisson: Yes, yes. It infects everything. It’s the enemy of reason.
Josh: Reason? Professor, you left reason a long time ago. What you are teaching here isn’t philosophy; it’s not even atheism anymore. What you’re teaching is anti-theism. It’s not enough that you don’t believe, you need all of us to not believe with you.
Professor Radisson: Why don’t you admit the truth? You just want to ensnare them into your primitive superstition.
Josh: What I want is for them to make their own choice. That’s what God wants.
Professor Radisson: You have no idea how much I am going to enjoy failing you.
Josh: Who are you really looking to fail, Professor: me or God?
Josh: Do you hate God?
Professor Radisson: That’s not even a question.
Josh: Okay, why do you hate God?
Professor Radisson: This is ridiculous.
Josh: Why do you hate God?! Answer the question! You’ve seen the science and the arguments. Science supports His existence. You know the truth! So why do you hate Him?! Why?! It’s a very simple question, Professor. Why do you hate God?!
Professor Radisson: Because He took everything away from me! Yes, I hate God! All I have for Him is hate!
Josh: How can you hate someone if they don’t exist?
Professor Radisson: You’ve proven nothing.
Josh: Maybe not, but they get to choose. Is God dead?
Students [as they stand]: God is not dead. God is not dead. God is not dead. God is not dead. God is not dead . . .

Josh missed the boat when he elaborated on his first two arguments. From an old earth perspective there has always been evil. Death is not a result of the fall but a process of creation. Because Josh did not form a foundation of a young earth creation he has nothing to stand on now. While his arguments in this third debate are solid there is something missing and that something should have been there at the beginning.

Concluding Thoughts
“God’s Not Dead” has much to be commended for. It absorbing, entertaining, and provides much food for thought. It also addresses a real issue that we all need to be aware of. As the credits rolled out all the college organizations that had been attacked because of their religion I was overwhelmed. The movie is actually authentic to the college experience. God really is being put on trail every day in colleges across America.

With that said there is much to be wary of in the movie. The greatest danger I see is Christians using these arguments in their own personal conversations. Given the overtly flawed nature of most of the arguments we are best served never using them. Most likely you’re scenario will probably not go the way Josh’s did. In that instance you may be tempted to doubt the veracity of your beliefs rather than the weakness of your arguments.

I’ll admit some trepidation in writing this piece simply because I know how greatly impactful this film has been. I trust this blog has at least made you think.

[1] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-03-24/u-s-movie-box-office-grosses-for-march-21-march-23.html
[2] Francke, Tyler. "Review: 'God's Not Dead' (because we made a movie about him)." God of Evolution. 12 August 2014 <http://www.godofevolution.com/review-gods-not-dead-because-we-made-a-movie-about-him/>.

Posted by Caleb

12 Comments

Matt

8/15/2014 03:56:10 pm

The claim that Josh supports theistic evolution is a flawed argument from silence (aka. absence of evidence). Josh makes no such claims of an old earth. He even mocks the idea of evolution being possible. There was no poor theology teaching. Your knowledge of lesser popular theories, and Josh not debunking them does not mean that the movie was supporting them. This is absurd thinking requires a huge blog post just to setup such a stretched argument. Most of this post falls apart without this jump of accusation.

I'm not sure if you watch very many movies, but this was not a documentary or a class on apologetics. You should have never expected to hear a true debate. If you want that, there are classes and documentaries that do that. This was a movie to a broad audience of both believers and unbelievers. Jesus never debated. Debate is a fun, but futile practice. There are times to stand up and defend your faith (1 Peter 3:15), but this was a movie. So when "you can sense even in Dr. Radisson’s eyes," it is because he is an actor. The time spent in debate was adequate for the story line of the movie.

The movie was fairly well done for a Christian film. I only wished that the reporter that appeared to get saved at the end had a clearer statement of Faith. Most people cannot get prayed over by the Newsboys, which left in my mind a missing gap in what is really needed for salvation. The movie did say to trust in Jesus so I can't be to critical, but I wished for a little more on just that one scene. Salvation on film can be very hard. It is possible they even cut it later because it might have not come across natural... who knows. That was my only real critique.

Tommy

8/18/2014 11:19:44 am

Matt,

I think your thinking that what the author was bringing up were "lesser popular theories" is deeply flawed. I have to admit that this post made me think a great deal. In fact, at first I vehemently disagreed with the author of this post. But after some reading and researching of my own I become more and more convinced that he was right.

You may be correct in saying that this was a movie and not a debate. However, just because it's a movie does not exclude it from being theologically correct. The movie was actually very well done for a Christian film but I must agree with the author of this post. The movie is "sadly" lacking in the theology department.

Perhaps it would be beneficial for you to read some of these articles that I read from other sources that seem to agree with this author:

* https://answersingenesis.org/reviews/movies/gods-not-dead-movie-review/

* https://answersingenesis.org/reviews/movies/gods-not-dead-revisited/

*http://creation.com/gods-not-dead-review

Emily

5/11/2016 10:16:14 am

Just saying. Of course the argument is going to be flawed there is no scientifical evidence proving Gods existence. There is no way it is going to be perfect. They are showing how even the smartest people like Darwin can be wrong or right. It is a matter of opinion we have no proof that God or gods ever existed just opinions of people

edward

5/12/2016 11:01:36 am

this is terrible, you all are uneducated atheists

Steve Miller

7/13/2016 02:12:30 pm

Lets not confuse how many people saw the film, or how much money it made with how good it was. Lets be honest - it was really bad.

Rotten Tomatoes gave it a 15%

Average Rating: 2.8/10
Fresh: 3
Rotten: 17

Blaise Carie

9/16/2021 01:14:47 pm

I thought it was a thought-provoking read. I will have to do more research and dive into why I believe what I believe. I know what I believe, but I want to be more versed as to why. Thank you for the article.

What was the saddest thing to me is that this comment board (probably a group of professing Christians, as am I), was just as mean-spirited as any other comment sections on youtube.

G.K. Chesterton

"The greatest single cause of atheism in the world today is Christians, who acknowledge Jesus with their lips and walk out the door. That is what an unbelieving world simply finds unbelievable."

John Terrell link

1/4/2023 05:26:47 pm

I am an agnostic. It doesn't offend me that some people believe in a god, or many gods. What does offend me is that many Christians claim there is no moral code except that handed down by God an evidenced in the Bible.

But the primal code has existed since human became social creatures, and that was a long, long time ago. At some point, humans came to the realization that they could greatly enhance their physical security and food security by banding together. but to do that, they had to mutually agree to the primal code, which is simply this: do no harm to your fellow tribe members.

Harm can be parsed out in several senses: physical harm would be the top of the list: economic harm (stealing), social harm (lying, false witness), and so on. but it's just common sense: it would be self-defeating to injure the person you've joined with to protect you.

1/5/2023 07:39:46 am

Why does it offend you that "Christians claim there is no moral code except that handed down by God"?
Truth is exclusive. You are no more claiming a truth statement that your source of morality is right any more than a Christian. I don't get offended that you have a different starting point for morality, I just think their is no objective way to have morality as an agnostic. It would be beneficial to have more abortions in order to 'save the planet' according to many environmentalists so should that be encouraged? Under your morality or another's morality that might mean that this abortion practice is okay. We are now giving rivers personhood in parts of Europe while we abort millions of babies every year which are actually persons.

We can agree to disagree, but in my search for truth I just never found anything more verifiably accurate in the ancient world as the death and resurrection of Jesus. Bart Ehrman even agrees, and he is an agnostic Biblical studies scholar. I have never found anything that best explains the problems with this world, gives solutions for these problems, more radically changes people, and gives a person hope and meaning which we all long for. I can expound upon any of these or give you sources if you would like.

But either way, your claim that you are right is no different than a Christian's claim that we are right. I just don't get offended by it. I know truth is exclusive and everyone is claiming truth. And the Law of Non-contradiction essentially says that two competing ideas can't both be right at the same time and in the same sense. The question is what is the most reasonable and relevant in our world and in someone's life, and I have faith (not in spite of the evidence, but because of the evidence) that Christianity is the one true worldview.

1/5/2023 12:38:26 pm

Blaise Carrie says nothing to refute the logic of my argument. My argument isn't based on a belief: it's based on evidence.

Carrie refers to Christianity as a worldview. But which Christianity? There are at least seven major "flavors" in the US alone. The major division is between Catholic and Protestant. The Catholic position is the the only way to heaven is through the Catholic Church. How's that for divisiveness?

The Bible not only didn't originate the first moral code it also wasn't the first to codify a moral code. Here are two precedents: The Code of UR-NAMMU ( Mesopotamian circa 2100 – 2050 BCE) and The Code of HAMMURABI (Babylonian circa 1754 BCE).

Fortunately, in the US we have a moral code that is for every citizen: it is embedded in our Common Law. One can see that it embraces the concept of do no harm to others. No, it's not based on the Ten Commandments or the Bible. It's based on British Common Law, which traces its history back to the Magna Carta, which predates the arrival of Christianity in the British Isles.

1/5/2023 02:14:48 pm

I appreciate your response, but you misunderstood or did not thoroughly read my post. I was not advocating for my viewpoint as much as I was just commenting on the fact that you are doing the same thing as any other view on morality: You are claiming that yours is right all the while blaming Christianity for saying that they are right.

And yes there are different "flavors" of christianity to use your terminology but there are just as many "flavors" in all other spheres in our country including the atheistic/ agnostic realm. My whole point was not based upon solely blind belief which is what I assumed you meant when you said belief. My belief is because of the evidence not in spite of it. I have sources and all kinds of other data to support my viewpoint. If you would like some of the sources I can give them to you or further elaborate.

Bottom line: Your view and my view both can't be right. Your view and my view can both be wrong, yours can be right and mine be wrong or vice versa, but ours both can't be right.

Based upon evidence (I am a high school science teacher for 10 years with 50+ graduate school hours), I believe my view BECAUSE of the evidence not in spite of it. And I don't think that you have any objective morality to stand on. It is just majority rules, culture rules, which is why a youtube video had to be removed because an atheist in a debate had to honestly admit that he couldn't claim the holocaust was objectively wrong. He could claim he didn't like it, but he could not claim that it was morally wrong or evil. This is all I need. I don't want to live in a world where a belief system can't and/ or won't be able to admit that holocaust is objectively wrong or even evil.

Again, I was never trying to refute your argument but tell you that you were getting frustrated for doing the very same thing you were claiming Christians they were doing: thinking they were right and others were wrong. Truth is exclusive. We all can't be right. And if you think we can then that is an illogical position and one I cannot believe in.

1/6/2023 08:36:51 am

To Blaise Carrie:
I have a Masters degree in Geology. My thesis dealt with radiometric age dating of certain strata in West Texas, but my education was broad-based, touching on interfaces with biology, anthropology, chemistry, and physics. I also have a broad base in software and practical application of computers.

The starting point for my moral origins theory was Darwin's "Descent of Man", where he describes man's social evolution. And from there, anthropological history-- thousands of years as hunter-gatherers.

While I think my historical data is sufficient to prove my point, here's something you can see today. We start learning and internalizing the moral code as soon as we're able to interface with others. For example, little Jimmy learns it's not nice to pummel, kick, or bite (physical harm) little Tommy. What "teaches" him is a sharp swat to his backside. and it is an even greater lesson to the victim, little Tommy. And you can envision the cases for stealing, false witness, and so on, Later, as they mature, they can see this is how, and why, Society works.

That said, I would very much like to see the sources of your evidence. I would also like a citation on the inept atheist who couldn't find a moral objection to the Holocaust.

Regards

1/6/2023 02:00:45 pm

I will get back to you. It will take me some time to find the article and sources. I still feel like we aren't on the same page though. Jimmy kicking Tommy and it not being nice is different than it being morally wrong. And if evolution and anthropological history are true then our "moral code" is just a random product of matter + plus + chance and ultimately is an unguided process with no mind behind it. Therefore in my opinion, you can say something is morally wrong but if I disagree with you, you have no rationally compelling reason to disagree.

We are just random products of evolution. Something that is "bad or good" for society is not morality. Something that is right or wrong has to have a standard. And I believe your standard is one of a mindless process.
And if our minds are products of a mindless process then how can we trust anything that we think or say? I believe we were given a mind and given a logic by Our Creator. And morality is objective. It is not circumstantial.

I just made this post because I do not think we were using the same definition for morality. Good and bad or right and wrong seemed to need clarification. If I misrepresented your view of the term morality please correct me. I will get back to you about your questions. Love the debate. Thanks and enjoy your weekend.

"God's Not Dead" (film) - Some Sadly Flawed Arguments

Leave a Reply.

Authors

Archives

About Us:

What People have to Say: