Let’s just get this out of the way. Yes, as a Christian, I’m biased. I put more effort into following the teachings of Jesus and conforming my life to the way he lived than anything else I do. So, of course, I think Jesus is peerless and Christianity has had an unrivaled and positive effect on the world.

But I’m of the view that biases are not all bad. It certainly doesn’t make sense to say that, given a bias towards a belief, one cannot defend that belief in a rational way. We’d only be able to defend the views that we don’t believe and this makes no sense at all. I also want, for example, my doctor to be really biased towards his medical research. I don’t want him to come in to the exam room with a completely open mind! Every once and a while a doctor can be limited by his or her bias, and that’s of course the worry with a bias. But, on the whole, to have a bias is not necessarily bad. Likewise, I have a bias towards Jesus, it doesn’t follow that I don’t take him to be peerless and the movement he started to be good in a rational way.

So here are a few of the ways I think this is true.

First, I think that Jesus is peerless in the way in which he affected the course of human history. In one sense, this point is easily established given the fact that Christianity is the largest religion on the planet and has been for some time. In terms of sheer numbers, this seems to already establish the greatness of Jesus’s impact. This is especially extraordinary given that the large majority of Christian traditions require conversion. That is, unlike Islam and other hereditary religions, one is not born into the Christian faith, but must choose, even if born to Christian parents, to convert to Christianity. I and many of my friends and colleagues pray regularly that each of our children will come to Christ. I also know many Christians whose children have never made this decision, or made this decision when they were young, but later decided otherwise. And though this is deeply disappointing and remains a matter of prayer, they are not ostracized from the family. They are loved and accepted in virtue of who they are not for their religious commitment. This isn’t to say there are not social pressures in Christian families for children to sign on, but, on the whole and unlike many other religions, Christians recognize the need for each individual to make their own decision and they may walk away if they so choose.

But this only establishes the great impact of Christianity. It doesn’t establish that Christianity is good. I’d like to suggest that when we consider the impact of the Roman Empire in its Christian phase and what gives way to Christian Europe, and Christianity in the new world, the impact is inestimably good.

Now let’s get this out of the way as well. There’s no doubt there was a lot of corruption and injustice along the way. There has been and is A LOT of darkness and immorality that has been and is done in the name of Christ. I think we, as Christians, need to own this fact. However, if I had the space, I would argue that these injustices never map on to the life of Jesus. That is, when Christians or the church have done terrible things, they were (and are) acting profoundly unchristian. When I myself don’t live up to acceptable moral standards, I also am not exemplifying the life of Christ. But that will have to be a topic for a later post.

Even though there are these stains, I wish to argue that the impact of the movement started by and grounded in the teachings of Jesus and the other biblical writers has been overwhelming positive. In fact, most of what people would laud as the virtues of our society came to be only because of the Christian worldview. I’m not saying there is no way in which these virtues of our society could have came about. But, in a wide variety of cases, these goods came from Christianity. Moreover it seems especially clear that these are easily grounded in the Christian worldview as a natural fit. This of course why many of these things came about as Christian movements.

I realize the bigness of these claims, but that’s my pitch.

Here is a sampling.

Literacy

The Christian church has made tremendous efforts towards worldwide literacy. Wherever the church has gone (especially in protestant missionary efforts), so goes literacy. It is hard to quantify the global value of literacy. Christians have of course been motivated for people to understand Scripture, but have very often seen literacy as a value per se. Indeed, there are a variety of times and places in which the Christian pastor has functioned as the primary school teacher educating the youth in all aspects of education for some town or village.

Medicine

Prior to the adoption of Christianity by the Roman Empire, the diseased and sick were largely despised and sent away. The early church saw itself as living out the gospel by caring for, at great risks to themselves, these outcasts. When Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire, these efforts at caring for the sick are given expression in a much wider way. The later advent of modern medicine and medical education comes out of Christian Europe and continues to this day. It is so very common that hospitals and medical clinics all over the world—including places ravaged by poverty where they can’t afford to pay anything—were started by Christians who, again, saw themselves as living out the gospel by caring for the sick.

Science

To be clear, it was the early Greeks (before Christianity comes on the scene) who began to wonder about the skies and attempt incredible feats. Aristotle systematizes many of the sciences. So it is not like Christians invent science and of course one need not be a Christian to do good science. However, there are worldviews that do not easily make sense of the scientific enterprise. Whenever a worldview comes to think of the cosmos as unintelligible, then science grinds to a halt. This happened a few times with the Greeks (e.g., the Sophists who earned the ire of Socrates and Plato) and it took Plato and Aristotle to reset the world as broadly intelligible in the Greek mind. Given the Christian view of the world as God’s intelligently designed work of art and humans as caretakers of the world, it is no wonder that the scientific revolution comes out of Christian Europe. The idea motivating many scientists was a desire for knowing the creator by discovering facts about his world.

Universal Human Rights

It is very common today to believe that all humans have rights—indeed even unalienable rights. It doesn’t matter their station in life or what they look like. Each and every human deserves life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness/property ownership. But why think this is true? Though this seems obvious to us, it is kind of a radical thought when you think about it. Why should all humans deserve life on, say, naturalism? The mosquito doesn’t have this right. Not even the higher animals have this right for most of us. But this is today taken as absolutely fundamental to a society. And if we trace this belief back to its roots, we will find the biblical teaching that all humans are created in the image of God and therefore have a kind of dignity and sanctity. What other worldview (other than a Judeo-Christian view) has held to this idea without being inspired by the Judeo-Christian view?

Again, Christians have at times lived in a radically inconsistent way with this idea. Christians in America owned slaves and even used the Bible to argue for this position. In fact, my own denominational tradition (Southern Baptist) was on the wrong side of that issue at the time. Again, it can be shown that these Christians were acting profoundly unchristian (and had terrible exegesis in their use of Scripture on this point) in treating other humans as no more significant than farm equipment. But what is often missed in this discussion is that the drive for the abolition of slavery was also one grounded in Christian values and led mostly by Christians. In other words, it is not the case that the Christian position in the era was pro-American slavery. It was a battle of Christian values and the infinitely more Christian position of treating everyone equally (thankfully) won the day no matter their skin color, position in life, and country of origin.

Culture

Christians have also made colossal contributions in art, literature, philosophy, music, etc. There is no way to be a specialist in any of these areas and not run into a robust Christian contribution. This contribution has waned significantly in the last century or so. But a life of expressing aesthetically can be driven in large part by a God of aesthetic beauty. This is a very natural fit. A life of creating beauty and artful expression is at home in Christianity and this can be seen as demonstrable in history of the arts.

Now this isn’t meant as bragging and I’m really trying to not overstate here. My point is simply that these massively important aspects of our world come naturally (both historically and conceptually) out of a Christian worldview.

It is the life and teaching of a Jewish rabbi from Nazareth who started a worldwide movement that has impacted the world in immeasurable ways.

Many Christians think that doubting is a bad thing. Is this right? Does finding ourselves in a place of doubt have value? Now no one thinks that doubting is altogether enjoyable and no one thinks one’s goal in life should be to be a big doubter! But as the name of the blog should suggest I think there is benefit when it comes to doubt and I think that having faith and having doubts are perfectly consistent states. And I have been known to encourage folks to embrace and investigate their doubts. So why do many Christians think doubting is a bad thing? One reason is there are a few passages of Scripture that seem to take, let’s call it, a low view of doubt and the suggestion is that doubting is contrary to faith.

The go to passage on this is in the first chapter of James. James tells us that if we lack wisdom, we should ask God. He goes on:

But let him ask in faith, with no doubting, for the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea that is driven and tossed by the wind. For that person must not suppose that he will receive anything from the Lord; he is a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways (James 1:6-8).

The first point to make is James has a particular context here. He is not talking about all situations of doubt. It doesn’t seem like he has in mind the perhaps more typical experience of doubt where the doubts just creep in beyond our control. People don’t typically set out to doubt their worldviews, but simply find themselves with questions they can’t fully answer.

But notice for James to say that we shouldn’t doubt, suggests that the doubt in view is under our control. As a general matter of principle, if it makes sense to say “don’t x,” then x is something we can do or can refrain from doing. It makes no sense to go to my one of my kids and say “don’t be human” or “stop thinking…about anything.” These are things that are beyond their control and I’ll likely only get strange looks from them. By contrast, it makes a lot of sense to say “stop taking your brother’s toy without asking” or “don’t light the house on fire” since it is entirely possible for them to refrain from doing this.

If James has in view a person who shouldn’t doubt, then it seems that James has in view a Christian who is already completely confident in his or her faith. That is, it is in the ideal, a Christian person should not doubt God’s willingness to provide wisdom. His point is it is very inconsistent for a person who has every reason in the world to trust God to provide wisdom to simultaneously doubt that God will provide it when needed. This is being double-minded and those who are fully mature should, well, knock it off.

What James is not addressing is how one comes to a place of full confidence. It is here, I’d like to suggest, that doubting is (or at least can be) a good thing. Again, it is not good in the sense that we want to remain at a place of doubt (see James 1:6-8). But it is beneficial for a greater good—growing in our confidence. The good of doubting, I’d like to suggest, is instrumental. That is, doubt when handled properly leads to truth and knowledge (and, since I think Christianity is true, it can and should lead to a more confident Christian faith!).

Tim Keller has said that doubts function for faith in a way similar to antibodies in the human body. When we ignore our doubts or just simply try to stop doubting, this doesn’t typically go well for us. Faith without some doubts is not a healthy faith. The doubts may go away for a time but they tend to come back, and they often come with friends! By investigating our doubts, we press in more deeply to our faith. We are forced to ask deep and difficult questions we have been too afraid to ask. This can of course be a bit scary and intimidating. But if the Christian faith is true and reasonable (as I think it is), then we will find answers to these questions. This isn’t to say that we will resolve all issues and we often have to live with some tensions. There are quite a few deep and difficult questions for which I have overall satisfying answers but not knock down drag out answers. There are many things that I still think about and consider whether there are perhaps better answers. This can also take a significant amount of time. This is hard work, but it is very satisfying work since we are coming to a place of truth and knowledge about the deepest and most important issues.

And here is the beautiful thing. It is because of the doubt that we come to a place of confidence and greater faith in these truths upon which we settle. Once one can see one’s way clear of some doubt, one comes to a place of confidence. We not only find truth and confidence for ourselves, but we are now equipped to help others walk through similar quandaries or thoughtfully answer the objection from a hostile inquisitor. We do this with confidence.

And here comes the teaching in James. If you need wisdom confident Christian, ask God without being double-minded since it would be silly to doubt God when we are rationally confident that God has the ability and promises to provide wisdom and guidance when we ask.

Here’s a podcast interview I did for a new article in the Christian Research Journal. My approach is to offer a definition of doubt according to which doubt is the experience of finding plausible what we take to be a potentially defeating claim. I offer a few ways to evaluate our doubts and suggest that investigating our doubts, when done properly, will lead us to truth and knowledge and a greater faith. In this sense, doubt should be seen as valuable.

The article is in the latest issue (39, Vol. 04) of the Journal. I would highly recommend that you consider subscribing to the journal. The content is terrific. It strikes the right balance between being accessible and yet challenging. For more information see here.

Here’s the question: Is Christianity possibly false?

My answer: Well yes, of course it’s possibly false.

What? How could I have given my life for something that I think is possibly false? Doesn’t admitting to this swing the door wide for doubting one’s faith? Isn’t this just philosophers stirring the paint– needlessly making trouble for those that already have a solid faith?

All really good questions!

In teaching Christian apologetics, this issue typically comes up. The question is what sort of status does the claim ‘Christianity is true’ enjoy? Students, in my context, are always a bit taken aback by saying that Christianity is possibly false.

Now before you make a call to my institution and insist that they relieve me of my employment, what you need to realize is that the only reason this sounds provocative is that the terms are not well defined. In my experience, once we clarify the terms, then my students (and you too) will say “of course, Christianity is possibly false in that sense.”

Okay, so what does it mean for a claim to be possibly false? Let’s first say what it does not mean. It does NOT mean that Christianity is actually false. And it does NOT mean that Christianity is probably false. It doesn’t even mean that we are 50/50 on whether it is false. All ‘being possible’ means, for our purposes, is that something is conceivable. A claim is possible insofar as one can imagine it or conceive of its being the case. It could be the craziest thing in the world that no sane person believes and yet it is still possible in this sense. So to ask whether something is possible is just to ask whether one can conceive (i.e., coherently hold in one’s mind and imagination) of the claim.

So what things are possible? It is going to be a range of claims far and wide. It’s possible that, by the time I retire, I’m a billionaire. In fact, it is possible that, by tomorrow, I’m a billionaire. This is incredibly unlikely, especially given my line of work, but it is clearly conceivable. I could befriend a billionaire benefactor who writes me into the will later today and moments later tragically dies. There you go, I’m a billionaire. Or I could stumble on inventing something that gets manufactured for every human on the planet. Or there could be a diamond mine under my house. Again, I’d be crazy to plan on or even hope for any of these things. However, they are conceivable, and thus they are possible.

Philosophers typically annoy people when we talk about possible thought experiments. We like to talk about how it is entirely possible that last night while you were sleeping you were captured by a mad scientist who removed your brain from your body, placed it into a vat of life sustaining chemicals and with electrodes is stimulating your brain to have the everyday sorts of experiences you are having right now. So, in this case, all of your experiences, from what you see, hear, taste, feel, etc., are not caused by the objects you take them to be caused by but are manufactured Matrix-like experience. Is this possible? Of course it is! Does any (sane) philosopher think that it is actually the case? There are none that I know.

We could keep going here but I hope you get the idea. So long as something is imaginable, so long as something is conceivable, then it is possible.

You might be wondering at this point what’s not possible, since it seems like the range of possible is fairly substantive? A claim is not possibly true when it is logically incoherent. It is not possible that one will find a married bachelor. A married bachelor is a logically incoherent notion. One could not possibly imagine or conceive of such a thing. One can imagine a bachelor getting married but the very moment he marries, he ceases to be a bachelor. It is not possible that God causally determined a human to act freely. God can (and does) causally determine a person to perform an action. However, by the definition of ‘causal determination,’ the action is not free. It would be incoherent to claim otherwise. 2+3 necessarily equals 5. To think otherwise is literally impossible. Or, more accurately, one should say that it is logically impossible. Given the concept of ‘2-ness’ and ‘3-ness’ and ‘addition,’ it follows that 2+3=5 and you couldn’t imagine otherwise in a logically coherent way.

Can you imagine a square circle? That is, can you imagine a circle that has the properties of a square? Try as you might, you can’t do it. Imagine a circle. And then take that image and start to put some 90 degree angles on it and then… but wait, whatever is now before your mind is no longer a circle. It’s likely just turned into a square.

So when we ask whether it is conceivable that Christianity is false, the answer seems to be clearly yes. In fact, this appears to be precisely what the Apostle Paul does in 1 Corinthians 15:16-19. He says:

For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied.

Paul seems to be raising the mere possibility that the resurrection is false and concluding that if this were to be the case, then we, who have given our lives to its truth, are pitiable fools. Paul is not saying it is a likelihood that the resurrection did not occur. He’s not saying it is 50/50. And he’s not somehow doubting the truth of the resurrection claims since he’s just got done laying out a case for its truth grounded in eyewitness testimony. But he is admitting its conceivability—it’s possibility.

Should this cause us to doubt? The mere possibility should not cause us to doubt unless you are in the business of doubting all logical possibilities, including claims related to the Matrix, mad scientists and a plenitude of other conspiracy claims.

It is of course striking that Paul says here that Christianity wholly turns on whether Jesus rose from the dead. He predicates the Christian gospel on the truth of a historical event. This might make us feel a bit uneasy. However, I think the case for this historical event is incredible. I think it is so incredible that I have given my life to its truth and to the defense of Christianity. If Christianity wasn’t possibly false, then there would be no point to defending the truth. No one defends the truth of 2+3=5. No one gathers evidence to show that bachelors are unmarried. We just explain these things to our kids and eventually they “see” or grasp these truths. However, when it comes to an event like the resurrection evidence matters (again, this is presumably why Paul lays out a case for the resurrection in the first part of 1 Cor. 15).

So I am never merely trying to stir the paint or mess with someone’s faith when I bring this up. The attitude that I hope it motivates, however, is an attitude of intellectual humility. Realizing that one could be wrong about something helps one to take care in how one thinks about one’s Christian faith. This, in turn, should motivate us to be like Paul and defend the Gospel with good evidence.

I just returned from a conference for writers. This was my first foray into this world and community. To be honest, it didn’t change my life. There were a few sessions that were diamonds but there was a lot of rough I had to wade through. I’ve had a few conferences where I left changed. Most of the conferences that I go to are not of this sort. But are conferences worth it? Yes, they are but it is all about expectations.

Here’s my experience. I’m a philosopher and regularly attend and make presentations at academic philosophy conferences (yes, these do exist and there’s lots of them). I often speak at Apologetics conferences. I’ve even gotten to be the lead organizer for our annual Stand Firm conference for the last few years.

Here are some thoughts about reasonable expectations at conferences…

1. Conferences are often not well oiled machines. There is literally nothing (really, I’m serious, nothing) in my training that qualifies me to be an organizer of a moderately sized conference. I don’t know how to get the word out. I don’t know how much everything costs or what’s worth spending money on. I know what I like in a conference but I have no reasonable expectation that this would be good for general consumption. This seems to be all too common (by the way, it turns out that writers are no better than academics in putting on a conference). We value certain areas of expertise and we think “hey, we should put on a conference.” Do we know the first thing about putting on conferences? No, not really.

2. People don’t typically learn a whole lot at conferences. Let’s be honest, there’s not much new under the sun and, if you are already a practitioner in a specific area, then it’s unlikely that your world gets turned upside down. I think you can reasonably expect to sharpen some skills and pick up a few knowledge nuggets. However, 95-99% of what gets presented in these sorts of conferences is someone else’s work. Some of the biggest names in Christian Apologetics are folks who are not doing original work. I’m a novice in the world of writing but even I recognized ideas that were unoriginal to the speaker. All in all , there’s nothing wrong with this. In apologetics, we desperately need this sort of dissemination and often these are able to present the ideas with a new and fresh angle. But, let’s face it, you can almost always find a few dozen different presentations of the same material on youtube from the comfort of your own home.

So my advice: Don’t go to conferences expecting great organization and don’t go expecting to come away an expert. So why should folks go to conferences?

3. It’s really all about community. The reality is that conferences provide opportunities to connect in ways and with people that are very unlikely to happen otherwise. You can often get an audience with a major figure in the field that may result in a signed book and an individualized answered question or it may turn into an ongoing relationship. Both of which often make conference attendance completely worth the price of admission. There are also many minor figures in the field at conferences. These individuals are typically much more accessible and you really can establish a relationship. They are often open to getting lunch or would be willing to have an ongoing dialogue long after the conference is over. A handful of these minor figures will become major figures in the field and it’s great when you already have connection. Finally, you are certain to meet a few folks who are peers. These are conference goers who have similar interests. Great friendships are likely to emerge precisely here.

So go to conferences. But go with a mild expectation to learn a few things and a great expectation to connect with interesting people (oh and give your conference organizers a break if not everything goes perfectly well!).

Is it really okay to question God?

Many well-meaning Christian philosophers have pushed students to question their faith too hard without ever teaching students how to question well. This can result in the student walking away from his or her faith in confusion. I want us to ask the deep and difficult questions but I am definitely not here aiming at confusion. Rather I’m aiming at genuinely knowing God more fully through pursuing him intellectually.

Let’s look at 3 examples that illustrate how to appropriately pursue God with intellectual curiosity.

Childlike Faith

Let’s talk about children and childlike faith as, I think, children are a great example for us. It is important to note that the call to childlike faith is not to a call to childish faith. In fact, the writer of Hebrews challenges us to leave the childish thinking about God, the milk, and dine in maturity on solids (Heb. 6:1-2). But there is a quality of being childlike that Jesus pointed us to on more than one occasion in the gospels (e.g., Matt. 18:2). It seems to me that children have an almost undying trust and faith in the adults in their lives.

Now it’s true that children are very trusting but they are also VERY curious and many children beautifully strike the balance between trusting and being curious. They ask questions, questions and more questions. One of my children is especially given to curiosity. She asks questions about EVERYTHING! I sometimes have to cut her off, giving her the “okay sweetie, last question” because if I don’t I won’t make it to work on time. However, in all of these questions, I have never once felt that she didn’t trust me. In fact, she was coming to me with questions precisely because she trusts me and loves me. When children ask questions, their attitude is rarely skeptical or cynical (that comes in the teen years, or so I hear). Generally speaking, they are not trying to usurp or unseat the authority of the father or mother. They are just simply and intensely curious. My daughter may ask me how does a car make us go so fast because they are filled with wonder and awe at moving down the highway. Notice she didn’t even hesitate to get in the car with me and is not any way cynical about it. She is simply voicing a puzzle to someone who is to her an authority, an authority whom she loves.

Lovers

Another example is of those who are newly and wildly in love. It is possible for these lovers to gaze into each other’s eyes and simply study each other. In a fresh new love we want to know everything there is to know about our significant other. We want to know how she thinks and are intrigued by (what may seem to us outsiders to be) minor details of response. This is not because we don’t trust our new love. In fact, we probably trust him or her to a fault but have an insatiable curiosity. Those in love in such a manner would never be satisfied with say “she says it, I believe it, that settles it” but, out of a deep loving curiosity, we want to know why she says it.

Allow me a final illustration that I and many students have found useful. I routinely fly on airplanes and many of you reading this do too. We literally entrust our lives, indeed, place our faith in these airplanes quite regularly. However, I know very little about flight. Somehow a craft composed primarily of steel weighing in at around 1 million pounds can lift off the ground and ascend to 30,000 feet in the sky and get us to our destination. If we let this sink in, it is wondrously amazing. It is very natural for us to have a question (or thirty) out of curiosity for how this is even possible.

Questioning at 30,000 feet

But notice we can have these questions but we still make our flight to Chicago or LA. That is, we can maintain our questions and most likely have many of them go unanswered regarding how a million pounds of mostly steel can soar through the air 6 miles up, and all the while continue to trust the airplane. In fact, we can even have a friendly conversation about aeronautics while in the air if we had the good fortune to sit next someone who knows about these things. I may not understand a lick of it but we could finish our conversation and go on our merry way once the plane touches down. Notice we need not be skeptical and doubters to be curious about an object of wonder. We can question something in genuine curiosity while still placing my faith in the very object of my curiosity.

When it comes to God, the call here is to pursue him with curiosity simply as a matter of our love and devotion to him. We can maintain our faith in God while asking deep and difficult questions about our faith, where the questioning comes from a deep and abiding love for God and desire to know God more deeply.

Walking Away

But don’t we still risk folks walking away from the faith? Of course we do! There’s always this risk in making one’s faith their own. You could always try sheltering, brain washing and even threatening people to stay faithful. But besides the blatant moral problems with this approach, this risk, it seems to me, does not go away in the slightest and in fact is perhaps greater.

Christian Apologists, you should be aware of Mark Lanier.

Mark is an “Attorney, Author, Teacher, Pastor and Expert Story Teller.” We are so excited to host him at the Stand Firm Apologetics conference (4/15-16 at Southwestern Seminary in Fort worth, Texas) where he will be giving a plenary talk. Let me tell you just a bit about him.

As an attorney, Mark and his team have won a variety of landmark cases with verdicts or settlements netting hundreds of millions of dollars for their clients, with a recent verdict against a large Pharmaceutical company amounting to 9 billion dollars! So he’s sort of successful.

Despite this “worldly” success (whatever that amounts to), Mark is a vocal Christian and makes his mark (sorry!) in the local church and academics, as well as a speaker and writer.

One thing worth mentioning that makes a weekend trip to Houston worth it for me, is that Mark built a 5th century Byzantine chapel and theological library in his front yard. You mean you don’t have a 5th century Byzantine chapel in your front yard?! The Lanier Theological Library has over 70,000 volumes and, among other things, houses one the best CS Lewis collections in the US.

Mark also teaches a very popular Sunday School class (700+) at his church and has a love of and expertise in Biblical languages.

He fits our Stand Firm conference given that he is the author of Christianity on Trial.  This is a nicely done and provocative book, framed, as the title suggests, as Christianity’s trial. It begins with an opening statement, there is the defense, and finalizes with closing statement. The following is a presentation (at the Lanier Library, by the way) of the major contours of his project.

I’m always excited to see someone who is an expert in a particular field and bringing those particular talents to bear on issues of faith. Just think of the contributions of guys like Lee Strobel (journalist) and Jim Wallace (Cold Case detective) and many more still. They oftentimes get an audience philosophers will never get.

Check out Mark Lanier and tell me what you think: