For those of you that may not know, over the last year I have been studying and contemplating the proof of the existence of God in the branch of Presuppositional Apologetics. The particular argument that I have been studying is commonly known as the Transcendental Argument for Existence of God (TAG). This kind of argument is not the usual argument most people are accustomed to hearing and can be difficult to grasp at first. This argument does not try to prove the existence of God rationally (in terms of clear and distinct ideas logically carried out), empirically (experience through the five senses), or pragmatically (life would be better and more enjoyable if one believed in God). A Transcendental proof is to ask what must be true in order for anything to make sense, or what are the preconditions of intelligibility? This proof is an indirect proof that argues from the impossibility of the contrary. Everyone has ultimate presuppositions within their worldview in order to comprehend and function in this world. This argument compares the ultimate presuppositions of an opposing worldview in order to demonstrate that the problem of the opposing worldview (or the contrary of mine) is that if the opposing worldview were correct in its presuppositions, then it would be impossible to prove anything. Basically, the argument proves that when one removes God from their worldview, they no longer have the preconditions for anything to make logical sense (the preconditions of intelligibility). TAG demonstrates that when one wants to debate the existence of God (an intelligible discussion), they must first presuppose God’s existence in order to try to deny His existence.
The Preconditions of Intelligibility
When two people want to engage in a debate (like the existence of God), both must presuppose the laws of logic (there must be something in which one can evaluate arguments or lines of reasoning). TAG asks what must be true for there to be laws of logic (the preconditions of intelligibility). In order to answer that, one needs to ask what the laws of logic are. Are the laws of logic empirical in nature? That is, are they a physical entity that one can experience and measure by the five senses? No, the laws of logic are not physical in nature, but are in fact abstract in nature (immaterial). After all, how much does modus ponens weigh? Not only are they abstract, they are universally applicable and are absolute (there are no exceptions). So when an atheist (a materialist; one that doesn’t believe in the immaterial world) wants to debate, TAG asks if the atheist is able to account for the preconditions for entering into a debate, the laws of logic that are abstract, universal, and absolute. The atheist, given his own world view, cannot account for them. [1]
In a recent conversation with an unbeliever, he objected to the fact that the laws of logic are abstract and insisted that they are physical in nature. He maintained that logic is material in nature because scientists are able to manipulate people’s physical brains to control their movements and actions (like picking up a glass or clapping their hands) or they can pump someone with chemicals to change their emotions and behavior. Of course, this does not demonstrate that the laws of logic are material at all. What law of logic did the scientist used in order for him to cause the person to pick up the glass or change their emotions? Was it the law of non contradiction or the law of excluded middle? No, it is simply manipulating the chemical reactions in the human body (which is not itself logic). All he proved is that human beings have a physical aspect to them (who is going to argue that?). However, let’s assume that he is correct and that the laws of logic are in fact material; that they are the chemical reactions and processes in the brain that people derive the way they think and perceive of ideas. If that were true, then there could never be any common and objective laws of logic because what goes on in one person’s brain is not the same thing that goes on in another person’s brain (everyone’s laws of logic would be different according the way their own brain works). If it were in fact the same chemical reactions, then they would be thinking the exact same way and there would be no reason to debate in the first place. Another problem to consider, if the laws of logic are simply the chemical processes in the brain, then there would be no freedom whatsoever to think contrary of what one already thinks because one cannot think differently then what one’s brain tells them to think. And if that were true then it would not make sense to take courses in logic (or any educational course for that matter) so that one could learn to think more logically. Therefore, if one wants to maintain a reason for education and debate, they must reject the idea that the laws of logic are chemical reactions and/or brain waves and must assert that they are abstract and immaterial in nature.
If you are a naturalist then you have no reason to be a naturalist because you have no reason to trust the results of your brain processes. – Dr. Greg Bahnsen
The other two preconditions for intelligibility are universal and absolute. By universal it is meant that it must apply to everyone and everything. By absolute it is meant that there can be no exceptions and can never change. Take the following mathematical equation for example:
The Preconditions of Intelligibility
When two people want to engage in a debate (like the existence of God), both must presuppose the laws of logic (there must be something in which one can evaluate arguments or lines of reasoning). TAG asks what must be true for there to be laws of logic (the preconditions of intelligibility). In order to answer that, one needs to ask what the laws of logic are. Are the laws of logic empirical in nature? That is, are they a physical entity that one can experience and measure by the five senses? No, the laws of logic are not physical in nature, but are in fact abstract in nature (immaterial). After all, how much does modus ponens weigh? Not only are they abstract, they are universally applicable and are absolute (there are no exceptions). So when an atheist (a materialist; one that doesn’t believe in the immaterial world) wants to debate, TAG asks if the atheist is able to account for the preconditions for entering into a debate, the laws of logic that are abstract, universal, and absolute. The atheist, given his own world view, cannot account for them. [1]
In a recent conversation with an unbeliever, he objected to the fact that the laws of logic are abstract and insisted that they are physical in nature. He maintained that logic is material in nature because scientists are able to manipulate people’s physical brains to control their movements and actions (like picking up a glass or clapping their hands) or they can pump someone with chemicals to change their emotions and behavior. Of course, this does not demonstrate that the laws of logic are material at all. What law of logic did the scientist used in order for him to cause the person to pick up the glass or change their emotions? Was it the law of non contradiction or the law of excluded middle? No, it is simply manipulating the chemical reactions in the human body (which is not itself logic). All he proved is that human beings have a physical aspect to them (who is going to argue that?). However, let’s assume that he is correct and that the laws of logic are in fact material; that they are the chemical reactions and processes in the brain that people derive the way they think and perceive of ideas. If that were true, then there could never be any common and objective laws of logic because what goes on in one person’s brain is not the same thing that goes on in another person’s brain (everyone’s laws of logic would be different according the way their own brain works). If it were in fact the same chemical reactions, then they would be thinking the exact same way and there would be no reason to debate in the first place. Another problem to consider, if the laws of logic are simply the chemical processes in the brain, then there would be no freedom whatsoever to think contrary of what one already thinks because one cannot think differently then what one’s brain tells them to think. And if that were true then it would not make sense to take courses in logic (or any educational course for that matter) so that one could learn to think more logically. Therefore, if one wants to maintain a reason for education and debate, they must reject the idea that the laws of logic are chemical reactions and/or brain waves and must assert that they are abstract and immaterial in nature.
If you are a naturalist then you have no reason to be a naturalist because you have no reason to trust the results of your brain processes. – Dr. Greg Bahnsen
The other two preconditions for intelligibility are universal and absolute. By universal it is meant that it must apply to everyone and everything. By absolute it is meant that there can be no exceptions and can never change. Take the following mathematical equation for example:
unit value 1 + unit value 2 = unit value 3
What would happen if this simple equation could only be valid to those living in the northern hemisphere and is somehow invalid to those living in the southern hemisphere? (Invalid meaning arriving at a different answer i.e. 1+2=14) What would happen if this equation was only valid on weekdays, but would be invalid on weekends? In a past discussion with an unbeliever, he stated, “One does NOT need an absolute universal truth to create a system or convention of rules and regulation with which to determine if things are sound and or probably, hence logic.” (Of course, he stated an absolute universal statement in order to state that absolutes and universal are not needed for logic.) If the laws of logic were to be partial and/or relative, one could not use it to discover Truth, for what is to stop someone from creating their own reality and thus destroy intelligibility? If one does not believe in Truth, then there would be no reason to debate in the first place because engaging in a debate presupposes a means to discover Truth. A debate with no universal and absolute laws would be absurd and unintelligible and would result in a childish dispute, “Yes it is!”, “No it isn’t!”, “YES it is!!”, “NO it isn’t!!” Therefore, when one wants to enter into a debate they must assume something that is abstract, universal, and absolute in order for the debate to be intelligible.
Ultimate Presuppositions – the starting point of all Worldviews
Everyone living in this world has a worldview. “A worldview is a network of presuppositions which are not tested by natural science and in terms of which all experience is related and interpreted.” [2] By “network of presuppositions” it is meant how one views reality (metaphysics), knowledge (epistemology), and ethics (morality).
It is commonly thought by many that in order for one to determine a correct worldview, one must be neutral in their thinking, that is, one must first establish a theory of knowledge (epistemology; the nature and limits of human knowledge) and then apply it into the facts of experience in order to know the true nature of reality. This is simply an impossibility. It is impossible for anyone to be neutral in their thinking. One cannot choose a theory of knowledge (a method of knowing) without in some way first presupposing something about the nature of reality. One first chooses a worldview that contains both a theory of knowledge and a theory of reality that comport with each other. I’ll illustrate what I mean. Let’s say that I have an apple orchard and I want to sell my apples to the local market. However, the market will only take boxes of only good apples and will not buy any boxes that might contain bad apples. In order for me to be successful and efficient in selling my apples, I come up with an idea to invent a machine that separates to good apples from the bad ones; an apple sorting machine. I dump all the apples in one end of the machine and at the other end the good apples come out of one side and the bad apples come out the other. That machine is a method of apple sorting. The point of the illustration is this, would it is possible to build that machine if I didn’t know the difference between good apples and the bad apples? No, I must first have a “worldview” of reality (the nature of apples) before coming to a conclusion of a method of sort (good and bad apples). In the same way, if one does not first understand something about reality, one cannot devise a method of sorting the true conclusions about reality from the false ones. Therefore, the idea of trying to be neutral in one’s knowledge in order to discover the Truth about reality is simply wishful thinking.
It is an inescapable fact that every system of thought (worldview) has a starting point that verifies itself (an ultimate self-validating authority). As one develops their epistemology, they are going to try to verify and verify the claims that are made and eventually end up at a stopping point because no argument goes on forever. Every system of thought gets to a final point where it states that this is the basic standard for knowledge (an ultimate authority). If one wanted to try to verify their ultimate authority, they would either have to appeal to that ultimate authority as its own verification, or that thing or method that they use that is outside their ultimate authority would now become their ultimate authority because their original ultimate authority would no longer be ultimate. Therefore, when it comes to ultimate authorities, circularly reasoning is unavoidable. (This does not mean however, that all ultimate authorities are correct or valid) It should be realized then, that when entering into a debate, by nature, all worldviews assume a stating point that is ultimate and self-authorizing.
A Two-Fold Apologetic Procedure
Because all worldviews control the way people think (meaning it is impossible to be neutral) and has a staring point that is ultimate in its authority that verifies itself, how are two opponents that have different worldviews going to have any meaningful and intellectual contact? A “debate between the two perspectives will thus eventually work down to the level of one’s ultimate authority.” [3] It would appear that both sides would be sealed off from one another and would make any defense of each others worldview useless. Fortunately, this is not necessarily the case. The problem can be solved by asking which worldview (reality, knowledge, and ethics) makes sense out of the human experience; human experience meaning anything at all. For example, a professor that believes in evolution complains to one of his fellow professors about how the politicians in his city are oppressing of the poor. The tension in his worldview is evident. It makes no sense to believe that oppressing the poor is wrong because in an atheistic evolutionally worldview, man is just a group of complex chemicals that survived by getting rid of the “weaker” complex chemicals beings. Therefore it is inconsistent to condemn anyone for anything, especially for oppressing the “weaker” in society. His worldview cannot make the human experience intelligible. By taking two competitive worldviews and comparing them side by side with one another, one can determine which worldview can make human experience meaningful.
This particular apologetic method can be found in Proverbs 26:4-5
4 Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him yourself.
5 Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes.
The writer of this proverb did not contradict himself as some may claim. He is giving directions on how to expose the foolishness of a fool. In verse 4 he means don’t accept the fool’s presuppositions and/or philosophy in order to try to demonstrate his folly because in doing so you will end up thinking just like the fool. In other words, stand firm and grounded in the Truth as you talk to the fool and don’t try to be neutral, for if you do, you will be trapped behind enemy lines which will eventually lead to your surrender to him. In verse 5, however, to answer a fool according to his folly is not to accept his presuppositions, but to carry his presuppositions to its logical conclusion in order to demonstrate its utter foolishness. It means to enter into the fool’s worldview for the purpose of showing him the foolishness of his presuppositions so that he will not think that his he has any arrogant wisdom in finding the truth about reality given his worldview. Philosophers call this reducing to absurdity. When one can demonstrate that a person’s reality, knowledge, and ethics leads to absurdity, then that worldview is invalid and cannot retain the Truth.
One should not misunderstand what the Bible means when it calls a person a ‘fool’. It is not engaging in empty name calling. It is describing someone that is rebellious and dense; whose heart is hard towards God and rejects the capacity of reason that God has given him. It is the fool that refuses to submit to God’s Word and trusts in his own heart (Proverbs 28:26). In all reality, he “does not really want to find the truth; he only wants to be self-justified in his own imaginations.” [4] “A fool finds no pleasure in understanding but delights in airing his own opinions”, Proverbs 18:2.
Christianity- the Precondition of Intelligibility
The opposite of the fool, then, is a wise man who seeks and loves the Truth. His starting point is to submit himself to the very source of all wisdom and knowledge, God’s Word (Col 2:2-3). Knowledge and Truth is not an invention by man nor could he ever lay claim to the Truth that he may posses. “God’s knowledge is primary, and whatever man is to know can only be based upon a reception of what God has originally and ultimately known”. [5] Revelation from God is the foundation of knowledge, for “in Your light we see light” (Ps 36:9). God is active in revealing His knowledge and man is passive in receiving His knowledge. Therefore it was necessary for man to be created in the image of God in order for him to be capable to think God’s thoughts after Him. Humility before God must take precedence in order for man’s intellectual pursuit’s to be successful. “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding”, Proverbs 9:10.
It is the Christian worldview that is able to account of for the preconditions of intelligibility and make sense out of the human experience. The laws of logic are part of the nature and mind of God. God is Spirit and is not part of this creation (immaterial). [6] God is the creator of all things and everything must submit to His will (universal). [7] God’s nature is eternal and therefore He will never change (absolute). [8] Therefore, the laws of logic presuppose the existence of God because only He can fulfill the all preconditions of intelligibility. God can never be irrational because rationality is measured by the standard of his thinking and His revelation. God is the greatest and most valuable entity in the entire universe, so it is rational to believe that He has the authority to be the self-validating ultimate presupposition of rationality. “One must presuppose the truth of God’s revelation in order to reason at all – even when reasoning about God’s revelation. The fact that the apologist presupposes the word of God in order to carry on a discussion or debate about the veracity of that word does not nullify his argument, but rater illustrates it.”[9] Many philosophers today claim that the Truth is inaccessible and deny that one can be certain of knowing anything. It should be observed, however, that “the Christian’s starting point provides the precondition for intelligible experience and meaningful thought rather then destroying the epistemological enterprise, for it teaches that man was created to think God’s thoughts after Him and thereby know the truth.” [10] While the believer may not know exhaustively, God has given him adequate knowledge.
Therefore the claim must be made that Christianity alone is reasonable for men to hold. And it is utterly reasonable. It is wholly irrational to hold to any other position than that of Christianity. Christianity alone does not crucify reason itself… The best, the only, the absolutely certain proof of the truth of Christianity is that unless its truth be presupposed there is no proof of anything. Christianity is proved as being the very foundation of the idea of proof itself. - Dr. Cornelius Van Til [11]
Man’s depraved condition- Suppressing the Truth
Some might object to the idea of even trying to pursue the proof the existence of God because the Bible is clear that it is in faith that one comes to know God and please God. Using such things as logic to try to convince someone to believe in God would seem to be a violation of definition of faith itself. This idea comes from the misunderstanding of what faith is. It is commonly thought that faith is that which fills in the gaps where reason falls short. Many people will try to put faith and reason against each other. However, from the Christian perspective, faith does not sit on the foundation of reason but faith itself is the foundation of all reasoning. As was well said centuries ago by Augustine, "Understanding is the reward of faith; therefore, do not seek to understand in order to believe, but believe that thou mayest understand.”[12] In other words, in principle, faith in God is the precondition for anyone to reason at all. There is no other worldview that can make sense out of and can account for reasoning. An atheist might promptly object saying, “This cannot be true because I reason and I don’t have faith.” Exactly! All men, including atheists, within their heart of hearts knows the one true God of the Bible. They use the wisdom and knowledge given to them by God, yet fail to give him thanks and the glory for it. Dr. Cornelius Van Til once described this idea stating that every time an unbeliever tries to deny the existence of their creator and claim intellectual independence from God, he is liken to a little boy that must sit on the lap of his father in order to slap his father in the face. That is why those that do not confess Him as Lord and live for Him are guilty before God and is in danger of the judgment.
The Scriptures are very clear that God has made Himself known to all men (Rom 1:19-20) and that He has given His light to all men (John 1:9). The problem is not with God, but with man. Man’s heart, by nature, hates the one true God and take the truth that God has revealed them and “suppress it in unrighteousness” (Rom 1:18). As a result, “their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened, although they claimed to be wise, they became fools” because they “exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator” (Rom 1:21-22; 25).
When we say that sin is ethical we do not mean, however, that sin involved only the will of man and not also his intellect. Sin involved every aspect of man’s personality. All of man’s reactions in every relation in which God had set him were ethical and not merely intellectual; the intellectual itself is ethical. - Dr. Cornelius Van Til [13]
God must sovereignty grant understanding by changing the heart of the unbeliever. It is only then can the unbeliever truly repent from his autonomous intellectual pursuits and foolish thinking and realize the Truthfulness of God’s eternal Word.
Conclusion
The laws of logic are the fundamental and inescapable truths of all wisdom, knowledge and understanding. Yet, the unbelieving worldview cannot make the laws of logic intelligible. TAG argues that “if the unbeliever were correct in his presuppositions, then nothing whatever could be understood or known.” [14] Since the unbeliever is able to understand and reason, he testifies to the revelation that God has given him and thereby knows God in his heart. The unbeliever is self-deceived. The Christian apologist will always be able to interact with the unbeliever because of this common ground that they both share- God’s revelation of Himself to all men.
[1] Although all materialist are atheists, not all atheists are materialist. “An immaterialist atheist who affirms the existence of a non-material entity [like the laws of logic] must answer the question whether any such [things] are universal and authoritative. If they are, then the atheist is really a theist who affirms the existence of an impersonal Deity. If they are not, then he is hard put to explain why we should pay any attention to some of these [things] when other equally non-authoritative immaterial entities are demanding our attention -- Farley's ghost, the fairy queen, and the Contract with America.” - Douglas Wilson
[2] Dr. Greg L. Bahnsen Basic Training for Defending the Faith DVD “Introduction to Worldviews”
[3] Dr. Greg L. Bahnsen Always Ready pg 68
[4] ibid pg 56
[5] ibid pg 19
[6] John 4:24; 2 Cor 3:17
[7] John 1:3; Eph 1:11
[8] Ps 90:2; 102:26-27; Heb 13:8
[9] Dr. Greg L. Bahnsen Always Ready pg 75
[10] ibid pg 69-70
[11] The Defense of the Faith, Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1955, pp 396
[12] St. Augustine Homilies on the Gospel of John 29.6
[13] The Defense of the Faith. Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1955, p. 63
[14] Dr. Greg L. Bahnsen Always Ready pg 69
Ultimate Presuppositions – the starting point of all Worldviews
Everyone living in this world has a worldview. “A worldview is a network of presuppositions which are not tested by natural science and in terms of which all experience is related and interpreted.” [2] By “network of presuppositions” it is meant how one views reality (metaphysics), knowledge (epistemology), and ethics (morality).
It is commonly thought by many that in order for one to determine a correct worldview, one must be neutral in their thinking, that is, one must first establish a theory of knowledge (epistemology; the nature and limits of human knowledge) and then apply it into the facts of experience in order to know the true nature of reality. This is simply an impossibility. It is impossible for anyone to be neutral in their thinking. One cannot choose a theory of knowledge (a method of knowing) without in some way first presupposing something about the nature of reality. One first chooses a worldview that contains both a theory of knowledge and a theory of reality that comport with each other. I’ll illustrate what I mean. Let’s say that I have an apple orchard and I want to sell my apples to the local market. However, the market will only take boxes of only good apples and will not buy any boxes that might contain bad apples. In order for me to be successful and efficient in selling my apples, I come up with an idea to invent a machine that separates to good apples from the bad ones; an apple sorting machine. I dump all the apples in one end of the machine and at the other end the good apples come out of one side and the bad apples come out the other. That machine is a method of apple sorting. The point of the illustration is this, would it is possible to build that machine if I didn’t know the difference between good apples and the bad apples? No, I must first have a “worldview” of reality (the nature of apples) before coming to a conclusion of a method of sort (good and bad apples). In the same way, if one does not first understand something about reality, one cannot devise a method of sorting the true conclusions about reality from the false ones. Therefore, the idea of trying to be neutral in one’s knowledge in order to discover the Truth about reality is simply wishful thinking.
It is an inescapable fact that every system of thought (worldview) has a starting point that verifies itself (an ultimate self-validating authority). As one develops their epistemology, they are going to try to verify and verify the claims that are made and eventually end up at a stopping point because no argument goes on forever. Every system of thought gets to a final point where it states that this is the basic standard for knowledge (an ultimate authority). If one wanted to try to verify their ultimate authority, they would either have to appeal to that ultimate authority as its own verification, or that thing or method that they use that is outside their ultimate authority would now become their ultimate authority because their original ultimate authority would no longer be ultimate. Therefore, when it comes to ultimate authorities, circularly reasoning is unavoidable. (This does not mean however, that all ultimate authorities are correct or valid) It should be realized then, that when entering into a debate, by nature, all worldviews assume a stating point that is ultimate and self-authorizing.
A Two-Fold Apologetic Procedure
Because all worldviews control the way people think (meaning it is impossible to be neutral) and has a staring point that is ultimate in its authority that verifies itself, how are two opponents that have different worldviews going to have any meaningful and intellectual contact? A “debate between the two perspectives will thus eventually work down to the level of one’s ultimate authority.” [3] It would appear that both sides would be sealed off from one another and would make any defense of each others worldview useless. Fortunately, this is not necessarily the case. The problem can be solved by asking which worldview (reality, knowledge, and ethics) makes sense out of the human experience; human experience meaning anything at all. For example, a professor that believes in evolution complains to one of his fellow professors about how the politicians in his city are oppressing of the poor. The tension in his worldview is evident. It makes no sense to believe that oppressing the poor is wrong because in an atheistic evolutionally worldview, man is just a group of complex chemicals that survived by getting rid of the “weaker” complex chemicals beings. Therefore it is inconsistent to condemn anyone for anything, especially for oppressing the “weaker” in society. His worldview cannot make the human experience intelligible. By taking two competitive worldviews and comparing them side by side with one another, one can determine which worldview can make human experience meaningful.
This particular apologetic method can be found in Proverbs 26:4-5
4 Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him yourself.
5 Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes.
The writer of this proverb did not contradict himself as some may claim. He is giving directions on how to expose the foolishness of a fool. In verse 4 he means don’t accept the fool’s presuppositions and/or philosophy in order to try to demonstrate his folly because in doing so you will end up thinking just like the fool. In other words, stand firm and grounded in the Truth as you talk to the fool and don’t try to be neutral, for if you do, you will be trapped behind enemy lines which will eventually lead to your surrender to him. In verse 5, however, to answer a fool according to his folly is not to accept his presuppositions, but to carry his presuppositions to its logical conclusion in order to demonstrate its utter foolishness. It means to enter into the fool’s worldview for the purpose of showing him the foolishness of his presuppositions so that he will not think that his he has any arrogant wisdom in finding the truth about reality given his worldview. Philosophers call this reducing to absurdity. When one can demonstrate that a person’s reality, knowledge, and ethics leads to absurdity, then that worldview is invalid and cannot retain the Truth.
One should not misunderstand what the Bible means when it calls a person a ‘fool’. It is not engaging in empty name calling. It is describing someone that is rebellious and dense; whose heart is hard towards God and rejects the capacity of reason that God has given him. It is the fool that refuses to submit to God’s Word and trusts in his own heart (Proverbs 28:26). In all reality, he “does not really want to find the truth; he only wants to be self-justified in his own imaginations.” [4] “A fool finds no pleasure in understanding but delights in airing his own opinions”, Proverbs 18:2.
Christianity- the Precondition of Intelligibility
The opposite of the fool, then, is a wise man who seeks and loves the Truth. His starting point is to submit himself to the very source of all wisdom and knowledge, God’s Word (Col 2:2-3). Knowledge and Truth is not an invention by man nor could he ever lay claim to the Truth that he may posses. “God’s knowledge is primary, and whatever man is to know can only be based upon a reception of what God has originally and ultimately known”. [5] Revelation from God is the foundation of knowledge, for “in Your light we see light” (Ps 36:9). God is active in revealing His knowledge and man is passive in receiving His knowledge. Therefore it was necessary for man to be created in the image of God in order for him to be capable to think God’s thoughts after Him. Humility before God must take precedence in order for man’s intellectual pursuit’s to be successful. “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding”, Proverbs 9:10.
It is the Christian worldview that is able to account of for the preconditions of intelligibility and make sense out of the human experience. The laws of logic are part of the nature and mind of God. God is Spirit and is not part of this creation (immaterial). [6] God is the creator of all things and everything must submit to His will (universal). [7] God’s nature is eternal and therefore He will never change (absolute). [8] Therefore, the laws of logic presuppose the existence of God because only He can fulfill the all preconditions of intelligibility. God can never be irrational because rationality is measured by the standard of his thinking and His revelation. God is the greatest and most valuable entity in the entire universe, so it is rational to believe that He has the authority to be the self-validating ultimate presupposition of rationality. “One must presuppose the truth of God’s revelation in order to reason at all – even when reasoning about God’s revelation. The fact that the apologist presupposes the word of God in order to carry on a discussion or debate about the veracity of that word does not nullify his argument, but rater illustrates it.”[9] Many philosophers today claim that the Truth is inaccessible and deny that one can be certain of knowing anything. It should be observed, however, that “the Christian’s starting point provides the precondition for intelligible experience and meaningful thought rather then destroying the epistemological enterprise, for it teaches that man was created to think God’s thoughts after Him and thereby know the truth.” [10] While the believer may not know exhaustively, God has given him adequate knowledge.
Therefore the claim must be made that Christianity alone is reasonable for men to hold. And it is utterly reasonable. It is wholly irrational to hold to any other position than that of Christianity. Christianity alone does not crucify reason itself… The best, the only, the absolutely certain proof of the truth of Christianity is that unless its truth be presupposed there is no proof of anything. Christianity is proved as being the very foundation of the idea of proof itself. - Dr. Cornelius Van Til [11]
Man’s depraved condition- Suppressing the Truth
Some might object to the idea of even trying to pursue the proof the existence of God because the Bible is clear that it is in faith that one comes to know God and please God. Using such things as logic to try to convince someone to believe in God would seem to be a violation of definition of faith itself. This idea comes from the misunderstanding of what faith is. It is commonly thought that faith is that which fills in the gaps where reason falls short. Many people will try to put faith and reason against each other. However, from the Christian perspective, faith does not sit on the foundation of reason but faith itself is the foundation of all reasoning. As was well said centuries ago by Augustine, "Understanding is the reward of faith; therefore, do not seek to understand in order to believe, but believe that thou mayest understand.”[12] In other words, in principle, faith in God is the precondition for anyone to reason at all. There is no other worldview that can make sense out of and can account for reasoning. An atheist might promptly object saying, “This cannot be true because I reason and I don’t have faith.” Exactly! All men, including atheists, within their heart of hearts knows the one true God of the Bible. They use the wisdom and knowledge given to them by God, yet fail to give him thanks and the glory for it. Dr. Cornelius Van Til once described this idea stating that every time an unbeliever tries to deny the existence of their creator and claim intellectual independence from God, he is liken to a little boy that must sit on the lap of his father in order to slap his father in the face. That is why those that do not confess Him as Lord and live for Him are guilty before God and is in danger of the judgment.
The Scriptures are very clear that God has made Himself known to all men (Rom 1:19-20) and that He has given His light to all men (John 1:9). The problem is not with God, but with man. Man’s heart, by nature, hates the one true God and take the truth that God has revealed them and “suppress it in unrighteousness” (Rom 1:18). As a result, “their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened, although they claimed to be wise, they became fools” because they “exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator” (Rom 1:21-22; 25).
When we say that sin is ethical we do not mean, however, that sin involved only the will of man and not also his intellect. Sin involved every aspect of man’s personality. All of man’s reactions in every relation in which God had set him were ethical and not merely intellectual; the intellectual itself is ethical. - Dr. Cornelius Van Til [13]
God must sovereignty grant understanding by changing the heart of the unbeliever. It is only then can the unbeliever truly repent from his autonomous intellectual pursuits and foolish thinking and realize the Truthfulness of God’s eternal Word.
Conclusion
The laws of logic are the fundamental and inescapable truths of all wisdom, knowledge and understanding. Yet, the unbelieving worldview cannot make the laws of logic intelligible. TAG argues that “if the unbeliever were correct in his presuppositions, then nothing whatever could be understood or known.” [14] Since the unbeliever is able to understand and reason, he testifies to the revelation that God has given him and thereby knows God in his heart. The unbeliever is self-deceived. The Christian apologist will always be able to interact with the unbeliever because of this common ground that they both share- God’s revelation of Himself to all men.
[1] Although all materialist are atheists, not all atheists are materialist. “An immaterialist atheist who affirms the existence of a non-material entity [like the laws of logic] must answer the question whether any such [things] are universal and authoritative. If they are, then the atheist is really a theist who affirms the existence of an impersonal Deity. If they are not, then he is hard put to explain why we should pay any attention to some of these [things] when other equally non-authoritative immaterial entities are demanding our attention -- Farley's ghost, the fairy queen, and the Contract with America.” - Douglas Wilson
[2] Dr. Greg L. Bahnsen Basic Training for Defending the Faith DVD “Introduction to Worldviews”
[3] Dr. Greg L. Bahnsen Always Ready pg 68
[4] ibid pg 56
[5] ibid pg 19
[6] John 4:24; 2 Cor 3:17
[7] John 1:3; Eph 1:11
[8] Ps 90:2; 102:26-27; Heb 13:8
[9] Dr. Greg L. Bahnsen Always Ready pg 75
[10] ibid pg 69-70
[11] The Defense of the Faith, Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1955, pp 396
[12] St. Augustine Homilies on the Gospel of John 29.6
[13] The Defense of the Faith. Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1955, p. 63
[14] Dr. Greg L. Bahnsen Always Ready pg 69
No comments:
Post a Comment