An Interview with Dr. Robert J. Marks II

by Adam Christopher Lausche

January 27, 2003

Interview Q: Are you sure that God exists? If yes, how? If no, explain how sure you are and how this doubt affects the way you live. A: I’m as sure as anything else. Are you sure that love exists? Are you sure that you exist? That’s a real philosophical question you’re asking – whether or not something exists. I have experienced God; I’ve made a commitment to him; I’ve seen evidence that he exists; I have companionship with him. I’m as certain that God exists as I am that love exists, that pain exists. Like with Occum’s razor, it’s the simplest explanation for the evidence I’ve seen. Q: You said earlier at the fall retreat that in order for atheists to say there is no God, they would have to know everything, and in order for them to say that, they would have to have be God themselves. A: That’s right, it’s called a bipolar paradox. [1] The very statement “God does not exist” is self-contradictory, because implies a kind of knowledge that only God would have. Q: Well, in order for a person to say that they are sure that God exists, don’t they also have to have infinite knowledge? A: No, not at all. For example, if someone were to claim that all penguins are black, it’s possible for them to examine every penguin in the world and determine that it’s true. It’s a finite problem. But the contrapositive of that statement, that everything that is not black is not a penguin, is much, much bigger problem and ultimately unsolvable. You’d have to examine everything in the universe and verify that if it isn’t black it isn’t a penguin. That problem is much larger. In the same way, atheists have a much more difficult problem in front of them because they have to examine everything in the universe, so to speak, to prove that there is not a God. Theists, on the other hand, simply have to find God once and they’re done. And that occurred when God reached down to us and revealed himself to us in the person of Jesus Christ. I believe that in a sense one can prove that God exists, or perhaps more precisely that the non-existence of God is very unlikely. For example, you are likely aware of the many prophecies that are made in the Old Testament. The likelihood that these prophecies would all come true simply by sheer chance is enormously small, something on the order of all the atoms in the universe to one. [2] Archeological evidence, as time goes on, continually shows more and more how the events and places described in the Bible actually occurred and existed. Again, God’s existence is just the simplest and most compelling explanation for the evidence I’ve seen. That’s why I am so sure. Q: If the Bible were conclusively shown to be errant, would you still believe that Jesus is the Son of God, that he died and rose from the third day, and still serve him as your Lord? A: It depends on the error, I suppose. You’re making a very large supposition there, of course, that the Bible is errant in some respect. It’s a hypothetical question, I know, but it’s a big assumption to say that some part of the Bible is conclusively wrong. Like if you were to conclusively show me that Jesus didn’t really rise from the dead, I’d seriously have to reconsider my faith. As Paul says in I Corinthians, if Christ didn’t actually rise from the dead, then we Christians are the biggest fools of all. Q: If people were conclusively shown to have evolved from primordial soup through a long chain of gradual improvements over a long period of time, would you still believe and serve Christ as your Lord? A: Yes. Absolutely. I believe that evolution has been demonized by Christians because it’s held up by atheists as their only religion, because for atheists it’s the only thing that they can believe. Honestly, I don’t really know if evolution accounts for where people came from or not. But there’s a difference here between my beliefs and my convictions. For example, I have a conviction that it’s bad to stab old people for the fun of it, that love exists, that Christ exists. But my beliefs about evolution are simply opinions formed on the evidence I’ve seen. But like St. Augustine said [3] , we need to be careful not to confuse our opinions with our faith. For example, Christians don’t have to be Republicans. Christianity doesn’t imply a flat earth. But when an atheist says that evolution means that there’s no need for God, that’s when he’s stepping on my convictions, and things are a little different. Q: What is / are the foundation(s) of your faith? A: Things are a lot different now than when I first became a Christian. I was a junior in college, things were good, I came from a good family. But like Pascal said [4] , I felt that something was missing, still empty. In Christianity, in Jesus Christ, I found what I had a God-shaped vacuum in my heart. I looked at a lot of different faiths, specifically the Bahá’í Faith in particular. It’s a very interested, all-encompassing faith, but it just didn’t cut it. In the end, it’s just a bunch of people being good and doing good things, but it was Jesus Christ I needed to fill that emptiness. I still have a long way to go; I still have challenges and face battles. Ravi Zacharias said it’s like when he first got married, he thought he’d never be tempted again by other women. When Christians first embrace Christ, many feel they will never again be tempted or doubt. This is what I thought. I was wrong, but what’s important is what you do with those doubts and temptations. Properly handled, you grow stronger. The reason I’m a Christian now is that I’m pretty good friends with Jesus [5] . I have a relationship with Him. Like the Bible says, we’re supposed to love him with all our heart, mind, soul, and strength. With my heart and soul, I love him through this relationship that I have with him. With my mind, I really enjoy learning more about Christian apologetics. I love seeing the consistency of Scripture with physics. Many scientists through the ages (e.g. Pascal, Newton) have been motivated by their love for God to study how this universe is put together. Like Paul says in Romans 1:19, just look around at the world and see God’s glory through the world he created.

Q: What do you struggle with intellectually the most? A: That’s a good question. The church that I go to preaches that the Bible is inerrant, and I’m not 100% sure if that is true. I’m not sure if that’s a conviction of mine, or simply a strong opinion. But in my view consistency is not the most important thing. For instance, there are varying accounts of the Bible of the resurrection, but nothing contradictory from the viewpoint of the authors. The facts concerning the resurrection are consistent, the disciple’s actions are consistent. I remember reading a book by Chuck Colson, a member of the Nixon administration, talking about his experiences during the Watergate scandal. Once one fellow leaked the truth out, everyone scattered to their lawyers trying to get plea bargains and prevent themselves from being punished. This is what a cover-up looks like. The disciple’s actions are completely the opposite. Every one of them, except John, went to this death proclaiming Jesus’ resurrection. In a cover-up, everyone tries to save their own skin. But not with the disciples. They all sold their lives completely for the truth of the gospel – which indicates to me that their message is true, that they weren’t covering anything up. On a scale of certainty of the truth of the gospel, I’m at about a 9.5 that the Bible is inerrant. [6] Although I struggle with details, there seems to be a good amount of foundational evidence. Even if our Bible translations are not accurate to every jot and tiddle, the message of Jesus remains powerfully uncompromised. Q: How do you go about approaching/attacking your intellectual struggles? A: I’ve always found that whatever doesn’t kill me makes me stronger. In each of my struggles I’ve prayed them out, thought them out, and in the end it’s made me a deeper, more mature Christian. I believe these struggles are necessary for our growth as Christians; I don’t see how we could grow without them. [7] When I’m struggling with an intellectual issue, I try to see what other great Christian thinkers have written on the subject, and follow up what they say in Scripture. Many times I find that contradictions I’ve seen in the scriptures ultimately lead to a greater universal truth that explains the discrepancy. Light for instance, sometimes behaves like a particle, sometimes like a wave. This isn’t a contradiction, but rather the key to a greater understanding to how things work on the quantum level. In the same way, there seem to be varying accounts in the gospels of what occurred after the resurrection. One says that two Mary’s went to see the tomb, whereas another one says that two Mary’s and a disciple went. Now these two descriptions seem to contradict each other as well, unless you consider the union of the two. For example, it’s possible that three people really did visit the tomb: two Mary’s and one disciple. The first account isn’t necessarily wrong then, because two Mary’s really did go. It just didn’t give a complete list of everyone who went. And so the apparent contradiction again leads us to a more complete understanding of how things are. And with this in mind when I find a contradiction or something similar that I don’t understand, I try to learn as much as I can about it, pray about it, read what other Christians have said about it and ultimately try to understand the truth behind it. [8] It’s not always easy, but as I said these struggles have always made me stronger and brought me closer to God. FOOTNOTES [1] (RJM) Bipolar paradox’s are meta statements (statements that refer to themselves) that result in a self contradiction. The classic bipolar paradox statement is “All Cretons are liars” voiced by a Creton. If the statement is true, then, when applied to the statement, we conclude the Creton lied and, hence, all Cretons are not liars – a clear paradox. The statement “Nothing’s impossible” implies there is something impossible, namely, specifying something that is impossible. Russell’s Paradox is a bipolar paradox. The bipolar paradox is the crux of one of the most profound mathematical proofs of the twentieth century: Gödel’s Theorem. [2] (RJM) Some sources say there are approximately 300 prophesies fulfilled in the Old Testatment 100’s of years before the birth of Christ. (Personally, I have not counted them all). These include the price of Christ’s betrayal, the city of his birth, the dividing of his clothes by the guards, his detailed ancestry, and many many more. Assigning a probability to each of these events is highly heuristic. Some prophesies are more compelling than others and deserve a high probability. Conservatively assigning a probability of one half to each prophesy gives odds, assuming statistical independence, of 2^300 = 2.0´10^90 to one. This, indeed, exceeds current estimates of the number of atoms in the universe. I fail to see how a reasonable person, after verifying the accuracy of the historical dating of the Old Testament, can fail to be overwhelmingly astonished by this number. Given that a billion seconds is about 32 years, I still get excited about odds of a billion to one. Since 2^30 » a billion, only 30 prophesy fulfillments are needed. [3] (RJM) Here is the exact quote. “... in Holy Scripture different interpretations [opinions] are sometimes possible without prejudice to the faith we have received. In such a case we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search for truth justly undermines that position, we too fall with it. That would be to battle not for the teaching of the Holy Scripture but for our own, wishing its teaching to conform to ours, whereas we ought to wish ours to confirm to that of Holy Scripture.” St. Augustine. [4] (RJM) Blaise Pascal, the namesake of Pascal’s triangle, the computer language Pascal, and the MKS unit of pressure (i.e. pascals), said “There is a God-shaped vacuum in the heart of every man, which only God can fill through His Son Jesus Christ.” [5] (ACL) My emphasis added, because I love this. [6] (RJM) Interestingly, the Bible itself questions its own detailed accuracy. At the end of the Gospel of Mark, many Bibles say the last few verses were not found in early versions of the Gospel. This section contains reference to handling snakes and drinking poison – a foundation of certain snake handling churches in Appalachia. [7] (RJM) I love the metaphor of the butterfly escaping from the cocoon. If helped to escape by, say, a well intentioned human, the butterfly will die. The butterfly needs the struggle of escape to give it strength to live and thrive. [8] (RJM) I also read what the agnostics and atheists say. My favorites are Stephen Hawking, Isaac Asimov, and all the unfortunate people who have debated William Lane Craig.