The following blog is taken from James White’s web site. I didn’t use all his examples because that would make for a lengthy blog. If you want to read it in its entirety, you can go here and here.
------------------------
This weekend, the publishing phenomenon that is Harry Potter reaches its conclusion with the official release of the final book in the series, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. Outside of the millions of people, young and old, who have invested money and hours of online time to these books, there are those, especially within the Christian community who will certainly not be sad to see Harry's story come to an end. Regardless of which category you fall into, these books have become a part of our popular culture, and as Christians who are in the world (though not of the world), like Paul in Athens, we should be willing to take that which is a part of our culture and use it for apologetic ends (see Paul's example in Acts 17:23).
Over the next week or so, you, or your child, might find yourself in (or close to) conversations around the book series and the events of the final installment. I thought it would be both timely and useful (and, let's face it, fun!) to present a way in which the Christian--regardless of whether he or she has actually read the books--might use such conversations as a means of bearing witness to Christ. If you understand the presuppositional approach to apologetics, you will already be familiar with the method I am proposing to use. If not, may this serve as an introduction to the method, and for further study I recommend you spend $4 on the mp3s of the Greg Bahnsen-Gordon Stein debate on the existence of God from Covenant Media Foundation. :-) In these blogs, I will be presenting passages from the first six Harry Potter books and demonstrating how it depends on a Christian worldview; in other words, Harry Potter could not have been written without assuming Christian presuppositions.
I am not claiming that these books are Christian, or even Christian allegory, or even that J. K. Rowling is herself a Christian (from interviews I have seen and read, she appears to be a typical nominal theist with a stereotypical suspicion of "organized religion"). But these books do make a number of assumptions about the way the world works, and about ethics and morality, that are inconsistent with anything but a Christian theistic, or Biblical, worldview. In other words, for her stories to "work," she cannot draw from the fallen humanistic worldview that gave us evolution (or neo-Darwinian macro evolutionary theory), Hitler, Stalin, and the moral decadence that is rampant in much of Europe (and sadly in the US too)--i.e., the natural worldview of fallen mankind. Rather, she has to borrow from the Christian worldview concepts that are foreign to the natural worldview for her story to have any kind of moral foundation.
Two Worldviews
The Scriptures often speak of the distinction between "the spirit" and "the flesh," or the way we used to think, and the way we think now we are in Christ, redeemed and reborn by the Spirit of God (Ephesians 2:1-7, for example). Biblically speaking, there is no middle, or neutral ground. You either see the world with fleshly eyes, only accepting what you can see, smell, touch, taste, and hear, or you see the world through the eyes of faith, as Scripture presents the world, allowing for the supernatural. Beyond this, though, the Christian also sees men as creations of a holy God that have fallen into sin, and as a result sin reigns in the hearts of men. Within this worldview, concepts of moral standards, good and evil, redemption, and so forth make sense, because the Christian believes there is a God who can set the standards, and also understands the condition of man to be one of always failing to meet those standards. The humanistic worldview, the worldview of "the flesh," however, can not explain moral absolutes, because the humanist does not have an ultimate arbitrator between right and wrong, good and bad. For the humanist, therefore, these things are "conventions": each society determines its own rules and standards of behavior.
The problems the humanist worldview encounters as a result of this perspective can, I think, be exemplified through the following samplings from the Harry Potter series. Given my appreciation for original languages, all quotations from the Harry Potter books will be from the British editions. :-)
Example One: Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone
Hagrid the half-giant explains to Harry how his parents died:
"... See, there was this wizard who went... bad. As bad as you could go. Worse. Worse than worse... Anyway, this--this wizard, about twenty years ago now, started lookin' fer followers. Got 'em too... Terrible things happened. He was takin' over. 'Course some stood up to him--an' he killed 'em. Horribly... All anyone knows is, he turned up in the village where you was all living, on Hallowe'en ten years ago. You was just a year old. He came ter yer house an'--an'... You Know Who killed 'em. An' then... he tried to kill you, too... Never wondered how you got that mark on yer forehead? That was no ordinary cut. That's what yeh get when a powerful, evil curse touches yeh..." (p. 45)
Let us look at the underlying worldview assumptions in this quotation. First, for a wizard to go "bad," one must have a moral standard with which to compare this wizard's behavior. Further, for Hagrid to be able to describe this wizard as "bad" and expect Harry to understand him, this standard must be universal. If we bear in mind that, in the context of the story, Harry has been living in England, and Hagrid has come to him from the "Wizarding World," the idea that each society creates its own moral standards goes out the window. On what basis could Hagrid assume that Harry's worldview would agree with his assessment of murder as "terrible," and the attempt on Harry's life as something that resulted in an "evil curse"? Of course, it is critical to the plot that Hagrid doesn't have to explain his worldview to Harry, or convince him that murder is not a good thing. But which of the two worldviews allows for these presuppostitions?
Example Two: Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets
Toward the end of the book, Professor Dumbledore gives some background information on the evil Lord Voldemort:
"Very few people know that Lord Voldemort was once called Tom Riddle. I taught him myself, fifty years ago, at Hogwarts. He disappeared after leaving the school... travelled far and wide... sank so deeply into the Dark Arts, consorted with the very worst of our kind, underwent so many dangerous, magical transformations, that when he resurfaced as Lord Voldemort, he was barely recognisable. Hardly anyone connected Lord Voldemort with the clever, handsome boy who was once Head Boy here." (p. 242)
This Tom Riddle, consorted with the "worst" of wizards in his pursuit of the "Dark Arts." It may seem redundant to observe that this is said with a negative overtone, i.e., that this was not a good thing to do. However, if we are to examine the worldview underlying this thought, we must ask why this would not be a good thing to do. Is it simply because such activity altered him from being "clever" and "handsome" to something other than these things? Or is it because of the moral destruction that occurred as a result of his activities? From a literary point of view, the transformation Tom Riddle underwent could be seen as an external manifestation of his gradual internal corruption, but this only goes to underscore the point: why is this a bad thing? What made the people Riddle consorted with "the worst"? If it was their behavior, then who is Dumbledore to judge their behavior? What standard is he applying? Is this merely a convention? And surely a wizard as powerful as Tom Riddle would see himself above such standards, and so by what superior standard would Dumbledore assess his condition?
Example 4: Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire
This excerpt is from the second task of the Triwizard Tournament where the competitors must rescue someone close to them from the bottom of the lake:
There were rocks littering the lake bottom. He dived and snatched up a particularly jagged one, and returned to the statue. He began to hack at the ropes binding Ron, and after several minutes' hard work, they broke apart. Ron floated, unconscious, a few inches above the lake bottom, drifting a little in the ebb of the water. Harry looked around. There was no sign of any of the other champions. What were they playing at? Why didn't they hurry up? He turned back to Hermione, raised the jagged rock and began to hack at her bindings too-- At once, several pairs of strong grey hands seized him. Half-a-dozen mermen were pulling him away from Hermione, shaking their green-haired heads and laughing. "You take your own hostage," one of them said to him. "Leave the others..." "No way!" said Harry furiously--but only two large bubbles came out. "Your task is to retrieve your own friend... leave the others..." "She's my friend, too!" Harry yelled, gesturing towards Hermione, an enormous silver bubble emerging soundlessly from his lips. "And I don't want them to die, either!" (pp. 433-434)
In the story, the Triwizard Tournament is a big event, where three wizarding schools each put forward a champion to compete on behalf of the school. Victory would not only give prestige and honor to the champion, but also to the school. In this excerpt, Harry, one of two champions representing Hogwarts (read the book or see the movie if you need further explanation), is ahead of the others until he gets to where not only his friends, but the loved ones of his competitors are tied to a statue. Harry manages to free the captive he was supposed to "save," but he finds himself unable to leave the others there, especially since it appears the other champions are not coming. In an act of apparent heroism that jeopardizes his lead in this event, Harry tries to release the other captives. As it turns out, all but one of the other champions arrive to claim their friends, and Harry ends up not only rescuing Ron, but also the sister of the champion that did not arrive, for which he paid the price of losing the event. He is vindicated, however, when the judges decide to award him extra points for "moral fiber."
By now, I hope you can see for yourself the underlying assumption: love and compassion for others takes precidence over "survival of the fittest." This collides with the naturalistic worldview on two fronts: first, evolutionists tell us that mankind has reached its position in the world through a process of development that demanded that the stronger of the species overcome the weaker. If Harry's philanthropic impulse had dominated, according to evolutionists, we would have died out long ago, since it is this very impulse that drives people to care for and nurture the weak, not step on them for the cause of progress. Which worldview supports Harry's thinking here? Do you find love and compassion for the weak in Darwin or the Bible? Remember, neo-Darwinian macro evolutionary theory can only thrive in a worldview that does not make right-and-wrong judgments about human behavior. This is where Harry's compassion collides again with the naturalistic worldview: Harry was outraged that the mermen would have forced him to leave the others to, seemingly, die. Surely for Harry to win the contest, that would have been an acceptable loss. If not, why not? Which worldview best accounts for Harry's reaction?
Example 5: Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix
Harry returns to the Griffindor common room (for those who don't know, Griffindor is the school "house" to which Harry and his closest friends belong) after detention with Professor Umbridge, a particularly unpleasant teacher who has used a distinctly vicious form of punishment on Harry:
"Listen Hermione, I was just up in Umbridge's office and she touched my arm..." Hermione listened closely. When Harry had finished, she said slowly, "You're worried You-Know-Who's controlling her like he controlled Quirrell?" "Well," said Harry, dropping his voice, "it's a possibility, isn't it?" "I suppose so," said Hermione, though she sounded unconvinced... "But last year your scar hurt when nobody was touching you, and didn't Dumbledore say it had to do with what You-Know-Who was feeling at the time? I mean, maybe this hasn't got anything to do with Umbridge at all, maybe it's just coincidence it happened while you were with her?" "She's evil," said Harry flatly. "Twisted." "She's horrible, yes, but... Harry, I think you ought to tell Dumbledore your scar hurt." (pp. 249-250)
By now you probably don't need my commentary. Did you spot the phrase? "She's evil." What gives Harry the right to say that about Professor Umbridge? After all, according to her worldview, Harry had behaved in a manner worthy of punishment, and, according to her worldview, the punishment she inflicted on him fitted the crime. In Harry's eyes (and the eyes of the however-many-millions of people that have read the book and seen the movie) the punishment was cruel to the point of being more like torture--but isn't that just Harry's worldview? Umbridge's estimation of Harry is that he is evil, because he is trying to undermine her position and authority. If such a tension truly existed in the minds of the readers of these stories, would they have been as popular as they are? Indeed, Rowling depends upon the fact that you will regard Umbridge as "evil" to drive the plot of the story. If you were left thinking, "well, perhaps Harry's the evil one here," why would you bother continuing to read, especially when it is Harry that is vindicated at the end, not Umbridge?
Conclusion
Hopefully, this somewhat light-hearted study has helped you to appreciate the fact that the naturalistic worldview fails precisely because it cannot account for the intangible. We all make moral judgments--our judicial system depends upon them--but a naturalistic worldview cannot explain why any of these judgments should be considered objectively correct. When humanists propose that moral systems are merely social conventions, why do they then complain when a certain Muslim country executes people for adultery? Surely that country has a right to define its own morality, and if that morality has no concept of grace and mercy, then on what basis can they object? Indeed, their own worldview cannot account for grace and mercy, so why should they expect others to? The fact of the matter is that God has written His law in the very fabric of the universe, and into the hearts of all men. Theologians refer to this as God's Moral Law, and from the first murder in Genesis 4, to the command to gather manna on only six days of the week in Exodus 16 (note, both events prior to the giving of the Ten Commandments), God has held these standards up for all mankind to obey. Of course, man in his sinful state fails to obey them, and by that same standard their sin is revealed, and they stand condemned before the most holy God. It is only when this understanding of the universe is grasped and applied does anything really make sense. And, as I hope I have demonstrated, it is only within the framework of this understanding of the universe that popular fiction such as the Harry Potter series can have meaning and connect with people.
Of course, Harry Potter is not the only cultural phenomenon that depends upon the same Christian worldview. Star Wars, Star Trek, Lord of the Rings, and even the classic British sci-fi series Doctor Who all have to borrow from the Christian worldview for their moral compass. As we engage our culture on a day-to-day basis, we should be aware of this, and look for ways to challenge the people we interact with to examine their worldview consistently, and ask them if it truly explains the world as it is. In the previous blog, I recommended the Greg Bahnsen/Gordon Stein debate on the existence of God as a good practical example of this apologetic method. For further reading, I would also recommend Dr. Bahnsen's excellent book Always Ready, available from the Alpha and Omega Ministries bookstore.
Showing posts with label Greg Bahnsen. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Greg Bahnsen. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Monday, February 5, 2007
The Dawkins Delusion
For those of you that are familiar with Richard Dawkins, you are in for a real treat. However, you have never heard of Dawkins or read his books; you should still get a kick out of this. Dawkins has been dubbed “The world most famous out of the closet living atheist”. Last year he published a book The God Delusion, which has gotten a lot of attention lately.
I came across this mock interview on a blog that I frequent often, James White. If you have ever heard Dawkins speak, Terry Tommyrot is quite tenanted in his impersonation of Dawkins. In the following interview, you will hear Richard Dawkins’ common augments against the existence of God used against his very own existence. I certainly got a kick out of it.
“If an unbeliever considers Christianity to be irrational simply on the basis that it allows for something to be accepted without independent demonstration, then the unbeliever in question is unrealistic and must be pressed to see that he ends up refuting himself (not simply Christians) in terms of such values and demands. Thus his unbelieving attitude turns out to be the truly irrational attitude, for it inconsistently requires something of it opponents which it does not live up to itself. Such an attitude would make knowledge of anything whatsoever impossible for finite and faulty creatures- and thus shows itself to be supremely unreasonable.”
(Dr. Greg L Bahnsen Always Ready pg 198)
If you liked the interview, you may be interested in this short parable of how this discovery took place in David Anderson’s Does Richard Dawkins Exist? A parable
I came across this mock interview on a blog that I frequent often, James White. If you have ever heard Dawkins speak, Terry Tommyrot is quite tenanted in his impersonation of Dawkins. In the following interview, you will hear Richard Dawkins’ common augments against the existence of God used against his very own existence. I certainly got a kick out of it.
“If an unbeliever considers Christianity to be irrational simply on the basis that it allows for something to be accepted without independent demonstration, then the unbeliever in question is unrealistic and must be pressed to see that he ends up refuting himself (not simply Christians) in terms of such values and demands. Thus his unbelieving attitude turns out to be the truly irrational attitude, for it inconsistently requires something of it opponents which it does not live up to itself. Such an attitude would make knowledge of anything whatsoever impossible for finite and faulty creatures- and thus shows itself to be supremely unreasonable.”
(Dr. Greg L Bahnsen Always Ready pg 198)
If you liked the interview, you may be interested in this short parable of how this discovery took place in David Anderson’s Does Richard Dawkins Exist? A parable
Thursday, January 18, 2007
The Foolishness of Unbelief Part 2 – Answering the Fool According to His Folly
In Part 1 I defined my position and argument on the existence of the Christian God. In this part I will demonstrate the foolishness of unbelief from an ongoing discussion I have been engaged in with an unbeliever.
Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes. Proverbs 26:5
The following is a review of an encounter with an unbeliever I had a month or so ago about the existence of God and how we know what we know (epistemology). We have been engaged in written debates over the last few months and decided to have a face to face discussion. Our first few written exchanges were mainly trying to understand each others worldview. This unbeliever worldview states that one can ONLY know something if one FIRST experiences it (through the five senses). Interestingly, his worldview also states that one can never know ANYTHING absolutely for sure, 100% (not even ones own self-existence) because he presupposes that the “logic” he uses is a man made construct (and not from God) and anything that is man made has the potential to be fallible. It also states that the most important goal in life is the need for everyone to be tolerant with everyone else’s worldviews because he claims that one can’t be absolutely sure about their own beliefs. Therefore, since there is a possibility for one to be “wrong” about their worldview (no absolutes), one should not be dogmatic about implementing their beliefs on others (such as Christians voting in favor of laws that reflect their worldview that might inhibit another person or persons competing worldview’s actions or beliefs). Finally, his worldview states that there are no absolute moral standards (morality is subjective and thus relative) and in order for one to be successful in this life, one should live in such a way to avoid as much pain as possible. In a nut shell, this unbeliever is a naturalistic pragmatic agnostic. It is interesting to note that at the beginning of our debate he affirmed that there is only one absolute truth that he could know for certain, his own self-existence (“I think, therefore I am”). I quickly pointed out to him that he had to use logic to come to that conclusion (using the word “therefore” is part of a logical construction) and that if he believed that his “logic” was a man made construct and thus could be fallible, then his “logical” conclusion of his absolute knowledge that he exists could be fallible as well. He eventually agreed and now questions his own self-existence and cannot believe in any absolutes whatsoever. Of course in doing so, he uses logic to come to the conclusion that it is impossible to use “logic” to come to any sure conclusion about anything at all.
It is important to note that this person is not just any old person I use as an example of answering a fool according to his folly. I have known this person for a very long time and have discussed many topics in philosophy and theology with him in the past. There was a time when I once regard his arguments and ideas to a very high standard, but sadly this is no longer the case. As you read, remember my apologetic of my Christian worldview, “If the unbeliever were correct in his presuppositions, then nothing whatever could be understood or known.” (Dr. Greg L. Bahnsen Always Ready pg 69)
Everything in the following email is the same with the exception of His responses to my questions and what I noted in Bold. His complete response follows my email. (Note his in depth responses to my objections to his worldview)
(Unbeliever response to this email: “I am actually encouraged by this email, it appears you are starting understand my position”)
(Unbeliever),
It will be a week tomorrow since we have last spoken and I have not yet received your questions about logic that you said that you were going to send me. I was going to try to answer them myself in this message, but I don’t remember exactly what they were. I wanted to take the time and review our interaction and tie up any loose ends there might have been. I want to start off by asking you questions that I hope you will attempt to answer in your next message to me (they will be underlined). The second half is some questions that you had asked me that I want you to be clear on from my worldview.
My first question is how do you, in your worldview, define experience and/or observation? Would I be correct in asserting that it is information that is perceived and encountered through one’s five senses (see, taste, touch, smell, and hear)? If the five senses are not how you define “experience”, how do you determine what is and what is not material since you don’t believe that non material things exist?
(Unbeliever responded: Yes, I would define experience via the senses.)
You have asserted in our last conversation that one can only have knowledge through their experience and/or observation. (If one could have knowledge outside of experience, then there are things that are immaterial that we receive knowledge from, which would damage your worldview of naturalism- the belief that only material things seem to exist). In your last written response you stated, “I don't know how to acquire knowledge outside of observation or experience” and also stated, “…it does not appear possible to know anything ABSOLUTLY, 100%, and undeniable.” In your world view, is it possible for a person to have a false experience and/or observation?
The way I see it is only three answers can be given:
- If it is not possible, are you saying that you can know something absolutely? Also, how did you come to the conclusion that it is not possible? Your answer certainly cannot come from your experience or observation, because if it did, that would be a circular argument; a logical fallacy. If your answer does not come from your experience or observation, then that would contradict the very foundation of your worldview of knowledge by experience.
- If it is possible for someone to have a false experience, then how do you distinguish between the false experiences and the true ones without using your experiences? You cannot use your experiences to distinguish from your false and true experiences because that would be begging the question, a logical fallacy.
- If your answer is simply that you don’t know, then how do you know that you are not having false experiences and observations to come to the conclusion that a person can only have knowledge through one’s experience and observation?
(Unbeliever responded: Yes, I believe that my experience can be false. It has been in the past or at least I think it has ;-)
This leads me to my next question. What happens in your worldview when your logic (internal experience?) contradicts your experience? I’ll give you an example from our last interaction. We started our conversation with your world view contradiction of “freedom of the mind” (which you believe the mind is material) and everything that is material world moves in a predictable and law like faction (no room for freedom). Your response was quite shocking. You stated that it is indeed contradictory and that you don’t have an answer, yet you “know” that we do have freedom because of your experiences. You proceeded to ask me if it is really necessary to have a WHY and an answer for everything and then tried to deflect your predicament by asking me what I would do if I had a logical problem in my worldview (I’ll deal with that later). So it would seem from this that when your logic contradicts your experience, your experience prevails. However, later in the conversation, I pointed out that when you see something that has
(Unbeliever responded: When logic contradicts my experience, I try to default to logic, however, that is easier said than done.)
You had asserted in our last conversation and in your written replies, “All we seem to have are probabilities and likeliness of things being true.” (Remember that probability is a mathematical (logical) measurement of the likelihood of something happening, such as 1 out of a 6 chance of a person rolling a 2 on a dice). You used probably over and over again in your argumentation to determine the likelihood of something being true. In one of your replies you stated, “…there does not seem to be evidence showing a high probability of the Christian god existing.” I find this quite fascinating because you even admitted that even if God did indeed exist, there would be no way for us to know He does exist. Your reason for this goes back to your worldview (presupposition) that we can only know something if we first experience it. How do you measure the probably of something that you have not yet experienced? Have you experienced God in order to “know” that He does not have a high probability for existing? How do you know the probability (a mathematical measurement) that the future will be like the past if you have not yet experienced the future (my argument of the uniformity of nature)? Better yet, have you “experienced” (knowing through the five senses; empirical) probability itself in order to know the probability of probability existing? If you haven’t experienced probability (and you cannot), how do you know it exists in order for you to use it in your argumentation to know that other things exist? With all of this in mind, how would one understand your statement, “I believe in the probability of absolutes, however, I do not know how to sufficiently prove something as being absolute.” Seeing how you have never “experienced” absoluteness… well, you get the point.
(Unbeliever responded: I do not know how to measure the probability of something I have not experienced personally, however, by experience, have learned to incorporate other people's probabilities into my decision making process.)
To be honest, I don’t know how you would even begin to answer any of these questions because you’ve already stated you can’t know anything for sure (no absolutes). That is why every time you opened your mouth and made a statement about anything, I interrupted you as asked you if you knew what you were saying was absolutely true, and of course you didn’t. How can I ever trust or believe anything you say, if you can’t really trust it or know it for sure yourself? This is why I said over and over and over again that when one removes God from the foundation of their thinking, one can’t know or make sense out of anything (Proverbs 9:10). Therefore, whenever someone challenges you about your worldview or philosophy, in order for you to be consistent with your own worldview, the best you can ever hope to offer in response is keep your mouth closed and not to say anything at all.
For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate." Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 1 Corinthians 1:19-20
I will use the rest of this review of our last conversation to cover some of the questions that you asked me of my worldview that I may or may not have answered clearly.
- Do we really need a WHY and an answer (reason) for everything?
This question was asked of me when I asked you how we can have “freedom of the mind” (or brain that is material) and know that everything that is material moves in a predictable and law like fashion. You were unable to even begin to reason out an answer. “Most people” would call that a flawed position to adhere to. Therefore if you want to be consistent and be your own favorite person (as your website says), then you should stand for something that you are “willing to let that something be challenged and change if reason begs to differ with (your) something.” So to answer the question, if one wants to, “genuinely seek to know ‘truth’,” and have an intellectual discussion of life’s meaning, then Yes, we need to at least attempt to reason for everything.
- How would you respond to what seems like a logical contradiction in your Christian worldview? For example, Jesus being both God and man at the same time.
First and foremost, in order for one to claim that something is contradictory or illogical, one must have a foundation (worldview) for all of their reasoning. In my worldview I presuppose that there is an eternal, omnipotent, personal God who has created and sustains all things and that all knowledge and wisdom is hidden within Him (Col 2:2-3). Therefore man is utterly dependent on God for any knowledge and wisdom. Man receives this knowledge by natural revelation (Rom 1:18-20) and special revelation (Scripture). Because of this dependence, God has chosen, out of His infinite wisdom, to reveal certain things to us, and withhold other things (a mystery). “The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever...” (Deu 29:29). An example of one of the things that God has kept hidden from us that seems logically contradictory is how He created this material universe out of nothing. Since God has said that He has created all thing by His Word (Col 1:16) and I was not there as a witness of the creation, I must submit to the authority of His Word and believe that this is true. Therefore, in the answer to how I would respond to a seemingly logical contradiction in my worldview, I would simply respond that God has not yet made it known or revealed it to us. As for Jesus being both God and man, even though I am not able to explain the mechanics of how this is possible (a mystery), it would still make logical sense. Since God is all powerful and the creator of His creation, why would it not follow that He would be able to enter into His creation?
- How do you know that God can’t lie? If God were to lie, how would you know that He did?
The Scriptures clearly state, “It is impossible for God to lie” (Num 23:19; Heb 6:18). Why do the Scriptures state this? Because God is by the nature the Truth (John 14:6). In other words, He is the very standard of all that is Truth. Can the standard of Truth itself ever be a lie? No, it is impossible because then there would no standard of Truth in order to determine Truth. Therefore, whatever God says and does is by definition the Truth. So, in my worldview I can call on someone to be logical because in doing so, they think the way God thinks, in a non contradictory (lying) fashion.
(Insert: It would be wise to give some context of following question seeing how he has taken what I have said and has missed used it on his own website. This question he raises is his “silver bullet” to silence his opponents. Because he believes that he can’t know anything for sure (no absolutes), then no one else can know anything for sure either. In his “reasoning”, since no one can’t know anything for sure, we should “therefore” tolerate everyone’s worldviews and actions. Well, as you see, I didn’t “bite the bullet”. As I have already pointed out, if we were to take this position to its logical conclusion, then there would be no reason to for him to debate at all because he can’t even be sure if using logic itself is effective or sufficient to discover any type of truth whatsoever. Remember, it is my worldview that gives the preconditions for logic, reason, and intelligible thinking; his worldview, of course, cannot. Because he can’t even be sure that he exists, one must wonder why he would even begin rely on any of his experiences in order to come to any sort of “logical” conclusion on anything.)
- Is it possible that you could be wrong in your presuppositions and/or worldview?
NO! Now I know that for some that might seems arrogant or closed minded, but it is the truth. Just because you don’t believe in absolutes doesn’t mean I can’t believe in them. Besides, how do you know absolutely that I can’t know absolutely that I’m correct in my presuppositions? Going back to the question, my reason for my answer is simple. If in fact my worldview was to be “wrong”, than it would be impossible for me to determine if it is right or wrong. [One cannot claim to be wrong unless they can claim or at least know of a means for them to be right] Therefore my evidence that I cannot be wrong (in an absolute sense) is that I would need an absolute standard to judge [objectively] in order to determine if something is absolutely right or wrong, and that standard would have to be my worldview (showing I was right in the first place). [Why is that? Because the only way for me (or anyone) to determine if they are right or wrong objectively is to have a worldview that has and can account for an abstract, universal, and absolute entity (the laws of logic).] I’ve already demonstrated above what happens when someone removes the absolute standard (God) from their thinking. So, for a person who seeking after Truth, they have only two choices in order to discover truth. They could either presuppose that there is no God and hence forfeit any right to claim an absolute standard for reasoning and logic, the very tools that would lead to the Truth (which would be self-defeating), or they could presuppose God in their thinking so that they are able to debate and rationalize in order to discover and determine the Truth. Therefore, when one wants to debate and use logic in order to deny the existence of God, they must first presuppose the existence of God in order to deny Him.
- Was our interaction and time spent together worth anything to you?
At first I didn’t think so, but now after further reflection, I think it was very beneficial. It was beneficial in the sense that it helped me refine certain truths within my faith. Also, you have further strengthened and reinforced my faith in my Lord by proving the Scripture true, “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God’ (Psalms 14:1a). For that, I am truly grateful.
As always, I look forward to hearing your response.
Eric…
“The proof of the existence of God is that without Him, it is impossible to prove anything.” -Dr. Greg Bahnsen
---------
Unbeliever’s Response:
You called me a fool! LOL! That's awesome.
Sorry I have not gotten back to you, laziness mostly.
I am actually encouraged by this email, it appears you are starting understand my position.
First and foremost, by definition, I can not prove with 100% certainty anything I say. Therefore, I can be wrong at any point in any of my arguments.
Yes, I would define experience via the senses. Have you had an experience that does not employ one of the senses?
Yes, I believe that my experience can be false. It has been in the past or at least I think it has ;-)
When logic contradicts my experience, I try to default to logic, however, that is easier said than done.
I do not know how to measure the probability of something I have not experienced personally, however, by experience, have learned to incorporate other people's probabilities into my decision making process.
Well, I wish I were comfortable with presupposing a narrative as "truth"
in order to prove everything from it and then any evidence contrary or missing from it, simply state that the answer will come one day. That would be sweet! Not sure why, but I can't do it any more. It is so funny how you have become the real life version of the even steven religious debaters.
Since you can not be wrong in your world view, it does not seem prudent to argue with you.
I do have a few questions:
1) Define logic
2) Prove its origin
3) How can we be certain we are being logical?
4) What are the principles of logic?
5) Where are the principles of logic defined?
6) How do we know if the definition of the principles is correct?
If I presuppose a God, show you his simple text that says, The Christian god is not real, I am the true god, I'll explain later. How could you prove that the God I was worshiping was not the true god?
Thanks again for calling me a fool. I think you are an arrogant jerk when it comes to the search for truth.
-------------------------------
Because this blog is long enough already, I’ll let my readers have the pleasure in responding to his responses and objections. If one would want to know how I would respond to them, I would be willing to do so if one was to ask me nicely in the comments. However, before I close, here are the very brief answers I would give to his six questions.
1) God’s thoughts or the means by which God thinks.
2) From the impossibility of the contrary (indirect proof) as already demonstrated in the above email and in Part 1
3) Because we have been made in the image of the one that is the very standard of Truth and logic itself- God.
4) I have already provided a list to him. I can provide it to any who may want it.
5) In the perfect mind of God. He has been gracious enough to reveal them unto all men.
6) Please refer to answers 3 and 5
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
The Foolishness of Unbelief Part 1 – Introduction to TAG
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
