Über die Autorin bzw. den Autor

Paul Copan (PhD, Marquette University) is the Pledger Family Chair of Philosophy and Ethics at Palm Beach Atlantic University in Florida. He lives with his wife and five children in Florida.

Von der hinteren Coverseite

Guidance for those deep coffeehouse conversations about God

What do you say when someone raises tough objections to the Christian worldview, like

•Why not just look out for yourself?
•Isn't it okay to do whatever you want as long as you don't hurt anyone?
•Is it ever okay to lie?
•Aren't some people born gay?
•Do people really believe miracles happen?
•Aren't the Bible's holy wars just like Islamic Jihad?

In When God Goes to Starbucks, renowned apologetics expert Paul Copan tackles these and other vexing questions. He offers wise and relevant answers that will not only help you clarify your own beliefs but empower you to articulate those beliefs to others.

"Classic Copan: thoughtful, respectful, well-reasoned, and ultimately persuasive. Open it up, grab a cup of coffee, and join the conversation!"--Lee Strobel, author, The Case for Christ and The Case for the Real Jesus

"If you want sound apologetics made relevant--here it is! Copan provides clear, orthodox, practical, accessible, and necessary answers to questions that stymie seekers and galvanize skeptics against historic Christianity."--Hank Hanegraaff, president, Christian Research Institute; host, Bible Answer Man broadcast

"I love this book. Its arguments--careful, logical, and most of all fair-minded--speak eloquently in our sound-bite world."--David K. Clark, lead pastor, Faith Covenant Church; professor of theology, Bethel Seminary

Auszug. © Genehmigter Nachdruck. Alle Rechte vorbehalten.

When God Goes to Starbucks

Baker Books

Contents

Introduction...............................................................................9Part I: Slogans Related to Truth and Reality1. Why Not Just Look Out for Yourself?.....................................................152. Do What You Want-Just as Long as You Don't Hurt Anyone..................................223. Is It Okay to Lie to Nazis?.............................................................28Part II: Slogans Related to Worldviews4. Why Is God So Arrogant and Egotistical?.................................................415. Miracles Are Unscientific...............................................................536. Only Gullible People Believe in Miracles................................................617. Don't People from All Religions Experience God?.........................................678. Does the Bible Condemn Loving, Committed Homosexual Relationships?......................779. Aren't People Born Gay?.................................................................9410. What's Wrong with Gay Marriage?........................................................108Part III: Slogans Related to Christianity11. How Can the Psalmists Say Such Vindictive, Hateful Things?.............................12112. Aren't the Bible's "Holy Wars" Just Like Islamic Jihad? Part One.......................13613. Aren't the Bible's "Holy Wars" Just Like Islamic Jihad? Part Two.......................14414. Aren't the Bible's "Holy Wars" Just Like Islamic Jihad? Part Three.....................14915. Was Jesus Mistaken about an Early Second Coming? Part One..............................16216. Was Jesus Mistaken about an Early Second Coming? Part Two..............................17417. Why Are Christians So Divided? Why So Many Denominations?..............................191Notes......................................................................................203

Chapter One

The human basis for morality is self-interest or egoism (from the Latin ego, "I"), according to Russian-born philosopher Ayn Rand, who popularized the idea of egoism. This viewpoint has its own version of the Golden Rule: we should "do unto others" who will eventually/hopefully do the same to us. If I scratch someone's back, eventually someone will scratch mine. In fact, each person has a moral duty to pursue her own self-interest exclusively. According to the egoist, I am the one who best knows what I need-much better than any other person. So self-interest comes before the interests of others. This is what the good life is all about-pursuing what I want.

This view fits quite nicely with today's relativistic "true for you, but not for me" mentality. Relativists aren't interested in finding truth but in preserving their own autonomy. This isn't a logical argument against relativism, of course. I'm just trying to point out that the true(!) basis for relativism is ultimately rooted in its motivation rather than in any good reasons or persuasive arguments.

If self-interest is the basis for decision making and setting our priorities, we run into a host of problems.

First, this view often fails to distinguish between self-interest and selfishness. In the Disney movie Ice Age, Sid the Sloth-a really nice guy-is being discussed by two female sloths. Says one, "He's not much to look at, but it's so hard to find a family man these days." The other replies, "Tell me about it. All the sensitive ones get eaten." The implication is this: if you want to survive, look out for yourself, not others. Rand's discussion of this subject seems to suggest that self-sacrifice and self-preservation are opposed to each other. If I am deeply concerned about others, then I am less likely to preserve my own life.

Such thinking is confused. Taking care of oneself isn't the same as selfishness. The Scriptures themselves assume that we already love ourselves; so we're commanded, "Love your neighbor as [you already love] yourself" (Mark 12:31). A normal self-love means that we will, for example, feed and take care of our bodies. As Paul writes, "No one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it" (Eph. 5:29). Self-love isn't a goal to pursue (Paul warns Timothy to avoid those who are "lovers of self" in 2 Tim. 3:2, 5), but rather a fact to be acknowledged. The fact that we love ourselves is to guide us in our love for others: given our knowledge of how we want to be treated, this should serve as a model for how we treat others (Matt. 7:12).

Second, this view commits the "naturalistic fallacy," illegitimately moving from "is" to "ought." We all recognize that we can easily cater to our self-centered tendencies and our wants. Too often we are inclined to look out for our own well-being and disregard the welfare of others (Phil. 2:3-4). The problem with Rand's view is that it makes an illegitimate jump from the way we are to the way we ought to be (known as the "naturalistic fallacy"). However, such a conclusion-moving from the descriptive to the prescriptive-doesn't follow. Why accept Rand's view? Why not affirm that we should resist our self-centeredness rather than give in to it? There is nothing logically compelling about making Rand's recommended move.

Third, when we speak about how we "ought" to live, we are speaking of universally applicable ideals-but this flies in the face of egoism. It's ironic that an egoist would announce far and wide that selfishness (or self-interest) is a virtue to be pursued. If we're talking about ethics, then we're talking about universal relevance-a stance all should embrace. But this works at cross-purposes for the egoist. Presumably, Ed the Egoist wants others to embrace this view as intellectually superior and to act on it, but this would mean that Ed is recommending that others cater to themselves rather than to Ed! As egoism becomes universalized and practiced, it actually undermines itself. It tells others to live for themselves rather than to live for me! This suggests that egoism is a deficient view. Why would egoists want their views universalized? Instead, they should keep quiet about them!

Fourth, we can never trust an ethical egoist. The ethical egoist can't be trusted when offering moral advice to others, because it will ultimately be to his own advantage-not another's-to follow it. After all, the egoist is always me-deep in conversation! Advocates of egoism only create a climate of suspicion around themselves. This, of course, renders egoism suspect; it turns out to be a very counterintuitive notion.

Fifth, the egoist's desire to get what he "wants" turns out to be an empty or trivial concept-or worse. The egoist says that what he "wants" is the primary drive to all that he (or anyone else) does. People usually don't betray their friends-even if doing so under severe pressure or possibly torture would give them considerable relief. They want to be loyal. If some cave in to pressure, it's because they want relief more strongly than loyalty.

The problem here is fourfold:

The term want becomes unhelpful. When anyone acts, the egoist tells us that this action was in response to the strongest...