The Neil Shenvi Apologetics Interview

Yeah.

If you're talking to someone, let's talk about faith and science.

Let's say you're talking to a scientist.

You're not in an elevator, but maybe you're in an Uber.

Yeah.

And you got five minutes.

They hopped in the Uber.

They're just going down the road a piece.

Right.

You got five minutes with them to try to reconcile faith and science, because in their mind, the two are irreconcilable.

What do you tell them?

I think I'd start with a question like, well, first of all, I wouldn't start there.

Let's say I did start there.

One thing that's interesting about my book and my approach is I'm always talking about Christianity and the gospel.

So a lot of times, the classical apologetics starts with, does God exist? And then, is Christianity the true religion? Whereas I have always aimed at Christianity being the goal of the argument.

So when I argue for God's existence, I'm arguing for the Christian God existing.

I'm arguing for the resurrection.

I'm arguing for the resurrection not as a thing that randomly happened, but as God's vindication of his suffering servant, Messiah Jesus.

Yes.

All the arguments I give have three main large arguments.

I'm sorry, four.

And all four of them are aimed not at showing in general that God exists, but that the Christian God who sent Jesus to rescue us, he exists.

Okay.

But if someone asked me, well, you're a scientist and you're religious.

That's so weird.

Yeah.

If you're talking to someone, let's talk about faith and science.

Let's say you're talking to a scientist.

You're not in an elevator, but maybe you're in an Uber.

Yeah.

And you got five minutes.

They hopped in the Uber.

They're just going down the road a piece.

Right.

You got five minutes with them to try to reconcile faith and science, because in their mind, the two are irreconcilable.

What do you tell them?

I think I'd start with a question like, well, first of all, I wouldn't start there.

Let's say I did start there.

One thing that's interesting about my book and my approach is I'm always talking about Christianity and the gospel.

So a lot of times, the classical apologetics starts with, does God exist? And then, is Christianity the true religion? Whereas I have always aimed at Christianity being the goal of the argument.

So when I argue for God's existence, I'm arguing for the Christian God existing.

I'm arguing for the resurrection.

I'm arguing for the resurrection not as a thing that randomly happened, but as God's vindication of his suffering servant, Messiah Jesus.

Yes.

All the arguments I give have three main large arguments.

I'm sorry, four.

And all four of them are aimed not at showing in general that God exists, but that the Christian God who sent Jesus to rescue us, he exists.

Okay.

But if someone asked me, well, you're a scientist and you're religious.

That's so weird.