Consider the argument that "everything which begins to exist has a cause for its coming into existence, and the universe began to exist, therefore the universe has a cause for its coming into existence". Someone would have to know everything in order to even begin to show that "everything which begins to exist has a cause for its coming into existence". Further, the argument just assumes that the universe has a cause because everything else does. Perhaps everything which begins to exist does not have a cause because the universe does not. Aside from these difficulties is the difficulty of proving that the universe indeed did begin to exist and has not existed eternally as many believe that it has.
Even if the argument works, what has it really shown? The universe has a cause...? So what? How do we know that this cause did not happen and then go out of existence? How do we know that it still exists? Why only one cause and not many others? What else can we really know about this cause? If someone honestly wants to show that the Christian God exists, this is not the argument to use, because it fails miserably. Even if the argument succeeds then it has proven the existence of any number of gods unlike that of Christianity. So those gods exist?
When we look around us we see design and should infer that there is a designer. One designer? Why not trillions? When I look at something which has been designed by humans I only know that it has been designed by them from experiencing the world around me, however I have never experienced God creating or designing the world. There are also many parties involved in the creation of most everything we see. So again, why only one designer? Aside from this, who is to say that it is the Christian God who has designed? How do we know that this designer is still in existence? The supposed design around us can be seen to stem from ancestry, so why can this not go back forever? It is not as though we make an inference to a direct designer being involved in a human being or a plant being born; it all came about through natural causes. Why should the whole world be thought of as being any different in this respect?
The historical facts surrounding Jesus do not prove at all that God exists, even if it is shown that a resurrection occurred. Personal religious experience does not prove the existence of God, since it would therefore prove the existence of many other gods all inconsistent with one another since people of all different religious faiths claim experiences as well (just as the arguments mentioned above also do).
I do not think that any of this is very difficult to understand. These arguments are poor and yet Christians use them over and over again.
Many also insist that they will prove God's existence without using the Bible, whatever that means. I have heard the argument before that all of God's words are without error and the Bible is God's words so the Bible is without error. The argument is valid but how can someone show that any of it is true?
How do you know that God's words are without error and how do you know that the Bible is God's words? I've heard all of the stuff about 66 books 1500 years over 40 authors manuscripts prophecies etc. but none of it actually shows in any way that the Bible is God's words or that God's words are without error.
The Christian God is also said to be all powerful and all good, yet evil exists. Why? The answer cannot be free will, because it would follow that either 1)there will be evil in heaven or 2) there will not be free will in heaven. Both of these are inconsistent with the explanation that the reason evil exists is because humans must possess free will (or else they are "robots").
Why do you believe?
I can assure you it is not because of any of the traditional theistic proofs.
Bahnsen Burner's Presuppositional Apologetic For Objectivism, Part 2
Something which is difficult to grasp in apologetic encounters is the massive role of presuppositions. Even those who would label themselves “presuppositional” struggle with this because it is so all-encompassing; presuppositions affect everything. Disagreements between Christians and non-Christians are always traceable to the presuppositions which each party would have as their own even if they do not claim such presuppositions as their own. Even a discussion of the presuppositional method of apologetics, especially with an unbeliever, will ultimately come back to the presuppositions of each party involved. The current discussion with Bahnsen Burner illustrates this nicely.
The Christian worldview is predicated upon a total commitment to the Lordship of Jesus Christ in every area of life including philosophy. There is a philosophy which is according to Christ and there is a philosophy which is not according to Christ. (Colossians 2.8) These two philosophies, or worldviews, are presented as the only two throughout Scripture, and there is no middle ground between them. There is p and there is ~p and there is no in between. Christians are to view everything in terms of its relation to Christ Jesus, and anything which is not in accord with Christ is considered anti-Christ. This is logically required by the teaching of Scripture. Christ is fundamental to Christianity.
Objectivism, on the other hand, takes its view of everything in terms of existence. As Bahnsen Burner writes, “At the fundamental level of philosophy is the issue of metaphysical primacy”. There is a philosophy which adheres to the primacy of existence, and there is a pseudo-philosophy which adheres to the primacy of consciousness. As mentioned before, Bahnsen Burner is essentially offering two circles of his own, a presuppositional model allegedly based upon his worldview. Bahnsen Burner takes issue with my bringing this up and writes, “I didn’t just blow in and say your illustration is wrong because it disagrees with Objectivism.” Of course, I never meant to imply that Bahnsen Burner hand waives my illustration because it disagrees with Objectivism anymore than I would imply that Christian presuppositional apologists engage in hand waiving by virtue of their method but rather mean to highlight the presuppositional nature of this encounter. He continues, “I pointed out that the division on which your illustration is based is not fundamental”.
Now then, upon which presupposition is Bahnsen Burner asserting this statement? It is not upon the Christian’s presuppositions as we can see from the brief description in the paragraph prior to this one. It is not upon neutral presuppositions providing obligatory norms for all worldviews either as this would itself be a worldview set forth in opposition to the Christian worldview leaving us in the same position we are in now. Rather, this statement is made from within the context of Objectivism. This has been shown in the discussion of what Christianity and Objectivism define as fundamental. The disagreement here is presuppositional in nature. Again, “It is based on a non-essential difference, and the various worldviews which you group together in contrast against Christianity are united according to a non-essential”. Non-essential according to whom? According to which worldview? Christ is considered essential to the Christian worldview within the Christian worldview, and any position which excludes Christ because He is “non-essential” is properly placed with other positions that do the same (again, within the Christian worldview). Now again, will non-Christians agree with this? Perhaps not, but in terms of the Christian worldview, taking it as a whole and being fair to what its teachings are, it is impossible to get around. The Non-Christian worldview is characterized by a rejection of Christ even though this may not be claimed by or emphasized by members of that worldview. Characterization involves more than emphases, it is not contingent upon them. For example, Christianity is characterized by a commitment to an independence to Allah, though this is certainly not often emphasized. It is easy to imagine a situation in which such a commitment to independence from Allah may be emphasized though, for example if a Muslim is dealing with a Christian. To insist that a position which is non-Christian (such as Objectivism) is not characterized by being non-Christian or committed to an independence from Christ or however else you may want to put it is absurd; one need equivocate upon the meaning of “characterized” in order to reach this conclusion even given the non-Christian worldview. The Christian may define characterization in the stronger sense of the word as Van Til does in the quote provided, but why this supposedly presents a problem for the Christian worldview is not clear.
Now then, according to the Christian worldview, does Objectivism fit into the Non-Christian circle? Bahnsen Burner’s own words and attitude give us a good look at the answer to this question, so I will let them speak for themselves. My prayer (oh how I bet an Objectivist winces at that) is that the readers will be able to see what I am trying to get across, which is the reality of two worldviews on display here in complete opposition to one another. Remember that Christians are to view everything in terms of relation to Christ Jesus and anything which is not in accord with Christ is considered anti-Christ. That having been repeated, is Objectivism committed to Christ or opposed to Christ? Let us take a quiz.
“The thing that is most characteristic of the philosophy of the unbeliever is its presumption of moral and intellectual autonomy from God.” (Van Til’s Apologetic: Readings & Analysis, p. 109.)
According to Christianity and its affirmation of the Lordship of Christ in every facet of life, are the following statements written in opposition to Christ? Answer “Yes” or “No”.
“Notions of imaginary, non-existent beings are simply irrelevant and have no place in identifying fundamental principles of a rational worldview.”
“A worldview premised on the primacy of consciousness (such as Christianity) can only obfuscate truth and seek to replace it with a fantasy.”
“Your ‘Christ’ is neither here nor there.”
“An Objectivist’s position on Christ is simply not *fundamental*”
“Objectivism is not characterized…by ‘Ultimate commitment... to Christ of Scripture’”
“Objectivism does hold independence as a cardinal virtue”
“A so-called ‘commitment’ (whether ‘ultimate’ or ‘fundamental’ or ‘primary’) for or against your god is simply not a concern whatsoever to Objectivism.”
“the one worldview which is positioned wholly and consistently on the primacy of existence (namely Objectivism).”
“some atheists (like Objectivists) affirm the primacy of existence”
Very well, the encounter here is presuppositional in nature. It appears Bahnsen Burner and I cannot agree on even the most basic (there is a joke in there somewhere) things. Where do we go from here?
The answer to this question is the subject of the next blog post in this series…
The Christian worldview is predicated upon a total commitment to the Lordship of Jesus Christ in every area of life including philosophy. There is a philosophy which is according to Christ and there is a philosophy which is not according to Christ. (Colossians 2.8) These two philosophies, or worldviews, are presented as the only two throughout Scripture, and there is no middle ground between them. There is p and there is ~p and there is no in between. Christians are to view everything in terms of its relation to Christ Jesus, and anything which is not in accord with Christ is considered anti-Christ. This is logically required by the teaching of Scripture. Christ is fundamental to Christianity.
Objectivism, on the other hand, takes its view of everything in terms of existence. As Bahnsen Burner writes, “At the fundamental level of philosophy is the issue of metaphysical primacy”. There is a philosophy which adheres to the primacy of existence, and there is a pseudo-philosophy which adheres to the primacy of consciousness. As mentioned before, Bahnsen Burner is essentially offering two circles of his own, a presuppositional model allegedly based upon his worldview. Bahnsen Burner takes issue with my bringing this up and writes, “I didn’t just blow in and say your illustration is wrong because it disagrees with Objectivism.” Of course, I never meant to imply that Bahnsen Burner hand waives my illustration because it disagrees with Objectivism anymore than I would imply that Christian presuppositional apologists engage in hand waiving by virtue of their method but rather mean to highlight the presuppositional nature of this encounter. He continues, “I pointed out that the division on which your illustration is based is not fundamental”.
Now then, upon which presupposition is Bahnsen Burner asserting this statement? It is not upon the Christian’s presuppositions as we can see from the brief description in the paragraph prior to this one. It is not upon neutral presuppositions providing obligatory norms for all worldviews either as this would itself be a worldview set forth in opposition to the Christian worldview leaving us in the same position we are in now. Rather, this statement is made from within the context of Objectivism. This has been shown in the discussion of what Christianity and Objectivism define as fundamental. The disagreement here is presuppositional in nature. Again, “It is based on a non-essential difference, and the various worldviews which you group together in contrast against Christianity are united according to a non-essential”. Non-essential according to whom? According to which worldview? Christ is considered essential to the Christian worldview within the Christian worldview, and any position which excludes Christ because He is “non-essential” is properly placed with other positions that do the same (again, within the Christian worldview). Now again, will non-Christians agree with this? Perhaps not, but in terms of the Christian worldview, taking it as a whole and being fair to what its teachings are, it is impossible to get around. The Non-Christian worldview is characterized by a rejection of Christ even though this may not be claimed by or emphasized by members of that worldview. Characterization involves more than emphases, it is not contingent upon them. For example, Christianity is characterized by a commitment to an independence to Allah, though this is certainly not often emphasized. It is easy to imagine a situation in which such a commitment to independence from Allah may be emphasized though, for example if a Muslim is dealing with a Christian. To insist that a position which is non-Christian (such as Objectivism) is not characterized by being non-Christian or committed to an independence from Christ or however else you may want to put it is absurd; one need equivocate upon the meaning of “characterized” in order to reach this conclusion even given the non-Christian worldview. The Christian may define characterization in the stronger sense of the word as Van Til does in the quote provided, but why this supposedly presents a problem for the Christian worldview is not clear.
Now then, according to the Christian worldview, does Objectivism fit into the Non-Christian circle? Bahnsen Burner’s own words and attitude give us a good look at the answer to this question, so I will let them speak for themselves. My prayer (oh how I bet an Objectivist winces at that) is that the readers will be able to see what I am trying to get across, which is the reality of two worldviews on display here in complete opposition to one another. Remember that Christians are to view everything in terms of relation to Christ Jesus and anything which is not in accord with Christ is considered anti-Christ. That having been repeated, is Objectivism committed to Christ or opposed to Christ? Let us take a quiz.
“The thing that is most characteristic of the philosophy of the unbeliever is its presumption of moral and intellectual autonomy from God.” (Van Til’s Apologetic: Readings & Analysis, p. 109.)
According to Christianity and its affirmation of the Lordship of Christ in every facet of life, are the following statements written in opposition to Christ? Answer “Yes” or “No”.
“Notions of imaginary, non-existent beings are simply irrelevant and have no place in identifying fundamental principles of a rational worldview.”
“A worldview premised on the primacy of consciousness (such as Christianity) can only obfuscate truth and seek to replace it with a fantasy.”
“Your ‘Christ’ is neither here nor there.”
“An Objectivist’s position on Christ is simply not *fundamental*”
“Objectivism is not characterized…by ‘Ultimate commitment... to Christ of Scripture’”
“Objectivism does hold independence as a cardinal virtue”
“A so-called ‘commitment’ (whether ‘ultimate’ or ‘fundamental’ or ‘primary’) for or against your god is simply not a concern whatsoever to Objectivism.”
“the one worldview which is positioned wholly and consistently on the primacy of existence (namely Objectivism).”
“some atheists (like Objectivists) affirm the primacy of existence”
Very well, the encounter here is presuppositional in nature. It appears Bahnsen Burner and I cannot agree on even the most basic (there is a joke in there somewhere) things. Where do we go from here?
The answer to this question is the subject of the next blog post in this series…
Is the atheist a fool?
Scripture has much to say about the fool, especially in its Hebrew poetic and wisdom literature. Proverbs paints the picture of a fool as one who shuns wisdom and will not listen to instruction. The fool rejects any kind of discipline and even gloats about his folly. The fool despises God, who is the source of wisdom and knowledge, and shows Him no reverence. There is no fear of the Lord God before the eyes of the fool.
Proverbs 1:7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge; Fools despise wisdom and instruction. (NASB)
Proverbs 14:15 The naive believes everything, But the sensible man considers his steps. (NASB)
Proverbs 17:7 Excellent speech is not fitting for a fool, Much less are lying lips to a prince. (NASB)
Proverbs 1:22 "How long, O naive ones, will you love being simple-minded? And scoffers delight themselves in scoffing And fools hate knowledge? (NASB)
Proverbs 28:4 Those who forsake the law praise the wicked, But those who keep the law strive with them. (NASB)
Proverbs 18:2 A fool does not delight in understanding, But only in revealing his own mind. (NASB)
Psalm 14:1 For the choir director. [A Psalm] of David. The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, they have committed abominable deeds; There is no one who does good. (NASB)
Psalm 53:1 For the choir director; according to Mahalath. A Maskil of David. The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God," They are corrupt, and have committed abominable injustice; There is no one who does good. (NASB)
The passages above are only a small portion of all of the things Scripture states about the fool but they are sufficient to reveal much of the character of the fool. The term "fool" in Scripture describes a particular type of person, it is not just an instance of empty name calling. The fool turns away from the fear of the Lord and finds him or herself enveloped by futility in thought, word, and deed.
In the last two passages we are told that the fool says in his heart, "There is no God". Recognize that when this was penned, there was no idea of a "general theism" or other such nonsense. When the Bible speaks of God, it means the God of the Bible, not some general theistic god found at the end of a philosophical proof. This means that while the atheist is certainly a fool by biblical standards, so are all others who constantly hold the truth of God down and seek after themselves, becoming corrupt and practicing injustice according to their lack of a tenable worldview.
Bahnsen Burner's Presuppositional Apologetic For Objectivism, Part 1
Recently I posted an illustration which I use when presenting presuppostional apologetics in an introductory fashion, asking for corrections where due and suggestions on how the illustration might be made better. The first response I received serves to confirm that which is communicated through the illustration as the response is from a non-Christian. The objections raised about the illustration are based upon a particular manifestation of the non-Christian worldview known as Objectivism. In essence, Bahnsen Burner, the nick of the individual responding to the original post, appears to “agree” with me that there are two worldviews but delivers this message from within the context of his own Objectivist worldview. Thus the illustration is faulted for being in disagreement with Objectivist categories.
Bahnsen Burner argues (http://bahnsenburner.blogspot.com/2005/07/only-two-worldviews.html) that assuming “the whole spectrum of philosophies can be divided into two fundamentally opposed categories, that which is Christian in nature…and that which is not Christian in nature…implies a global uniformity within Christianity that simply does not exist”. It should be forthrightly acknowledged that there is not a “global uniformity” within Christianity, but it should at the same time be pointed out that global uniformity within a worldview is not necessary for the presuppositionalist’s purposes. Just because a particular person or group might identify him/her/itself as Christian does not mean that the identification is correct, nor does it mean that the presuppositionalist must extend the Christian worldview to accommodate sub-biblical views. It is no secret that presuppositional apologists such as Van Til and Bahnsen were very forward with their adherence to the specifically Reformed camp of Christianity as it is the truest expression of what Scripture teaches. Recognizing this significantly narrows the term “Christian worldview” in the context of presuppositional apologetics. On a pragmatic level those things which Christians would take to be fundamental aspects of their worldview and are agreed upon by virtually every individual referring to him or herself as a “Christian” are often all that are appealed to in a presuppositional encounter with an unbeliever anyway. Bahnsen Burner’s pointing out that that there are minor disagreements within the Christian worldview is hardly an argument against Christianity, especially when this disagreement may be accounted for within the context of the Christian worldview. Disagreement, even amongst believers, stems from sin. When Bahnsen Burner asks, “Are the thought patterns of the ‘original knower’ so tangled that its mouthpieces should be caught up in endless internal bickering when ‘thinking’ the original knower’s thoughts ‘after Him’?” he disregards the clear answer Scripture provides. Not even all believers think God’s thoughts after Him all the time. Has this point really been lost on Bahnsen Burner? The Bible is clear concerning the perfect nature of the thoughts and words of God. It is the sinful creature who does err and redemption found in Christ alone is the way out. An interesting question is what causes disagreement amongst those in the Objectivist camp and what is offered as a solution according to the same camp, but this will not be dealt with further here.
Bahnsen Burner writes,
“The descriptor ‘non-Christian’ could feasibly apply to a wide diversity of worldviews such as Hinduism, Shintoism, Buddhism, Taoism, Existentialism, Dialectical Materialism, Zoroastrianism, eastern occultism, animism, monotheism, deism, pantheism, rationalism, skepticism, etc., and yet the only thing that would hypothetically link these utterly different conceptions of the world together would be that they are not identical with the flavor du jour of Christianity preferred by the defending apologist, which is certainly not a fundamental.”
Only part of this statement is correct. The term “non-Christian” does apply to all of these. This is the only part of the statement that is correct. All of these views of the world are in fact the same in terms of their rejection of the Christian worldview, which is sufficient to warrant the non-Christian label (duh), and this is most important for the present discussion. As a side note, the non-Christian nature of these various manifestations of the non-Christian worldview is most certainly not “the only thing that would hypothetically link these utterly different conceptions of the world together”, mostly because it often turns out that they are not so “utterly different”. There are only so many ultimate questions available to any worldview with a finite number of “possible” answers. It may be inferred that many answers to ultimate questions provided by different conceptions of the world will overlap with one another and when studying them such is found to actually be the case. For example, major differences between Eastern and Western thought are often highlighted in textbooks, but this would not be if it were not for the similarity of certain schools of thought within each of these geographical locations.
The illustration of the two worldviews, Christian and Non, is critiqued based on Objectivist presuppositions, obviously entailing that the two parties involved in the discussion are not going to agree! “Metaphysical primacy” is assumed to be at the “fundamental level of philosophy” and, so far as one can tell, to be the main emphasis of an epistemological discussion. It is said that Christians mistakenly assume the primacy of consciousness which is defined as “the view that consciousness holds metaphysical primacy over objects distinct from itself in one capacity or another (or, in the case of the Christian god, in all capacities)”. Bahnsen Burner would thus offer a presuppostional model of his own based upon Objectivism. It is this presuppositional model which he uses in critiquing the aforementioned illustration which gave rise to this discussion.
More to come…
Bahnsen Burner argues (http://bahnsenburner.blogspot.com/2005/07/only-two-worldviews.html) that assuming “the whole spectrum of philosophies can be divided into two fundamentally opposed categories, that which is Christian in nature…and that which is not Christian in nature…implies a global uniformity within Christianity that simply does not exist”. It should be forthrightly acknowledged that there is not a “global uniformity” within Christianity, but it should at the same time be pointed out that global uniformity within a worldview is not necessary for the presuppositionalist’s purposes. Just because a particular person or group might identify him/her/itself as Christian does not mean that the identification is correct, nor does it mean that the presuppositionalist must extend the Christian worldview to accommodate sub-biblical views. It is no secret that presuppositional apologists such as Van Til and Bahnsen were very forward with their adherence to the specifically Reformed camp of Christianity as it is the truest expression of what Scripture teaches. Recognizing this significantly narrows the term “Christian worldview” in the context of presuppositional apologetics. On a pragmatic level those things which Christians would take to be fundamental aspects of their worldview and are agreed upon by virtually every individual referring to him or herself as a “Christian” are often all that are appealed to in a presuppositional encounter with an unbeliever anyway. Bahnsen Burner’s pointing out that that there are minor disagreements within the Christian worldview is hardly an argument against Christianity, especially when this disagreement may be accounted for within the context of the Christian worldview. Disagreement, even amongst believers, stems from sin. When Bahnsen Burner asks, “Are the thought patterns of the ‘original knower’ so tangled that its mouthpieces should be caught up in endless internal bickering when ‘thinking’ the original knower’s thoughts ‘after Him’?” he disregards the clear answer Scripture provides. Not even all believers think God’s thoughts after Him all the time. Has this point really been lost on Bahnsen Burner? The Bible is clear concerning the perfect nature of the thoughts and words of God. It is the sinful creature who does err and redemption found in Christ alone is the way out. An interesting question is what causes disagreement amongst those in the Objectivist camp and what is offered as a solution according to the same camp, but this will not be dealt with further here.
Bahnsen Burner writes,
“The descriptor ‘non-Christian’ could feasibly apply to a wide diversity of worldviews such as Hinduism, Shintoism, Buddhism, Taoism, Existentialism, Dialectical Materialism, Zoroastrianism, eastern occultism, animism, monotheism, deism, pantheism, rationalism, skepticism, etc., and yet the only thing that would hypothetically link these utterly different conceptions of the world together would be that they are not identical with the flavor du jour of Christianity preferred by the defending apologist, which is certainly not a fundamental.”
Only part of this statement is correct. The term “non-Christian” does apply to all of these. This is the only part of the statement that is correct. All of these views of the world are in fact the same in terms of their rejection of the Christian worldview, which is sufficient to warrant the non-Christian label (duh), and this is most important for the present discussion. As a side note, the non-Christian nature of these various manifestations of the non-Christian worldview is most certainly not “the only thing that would hypothetically link these utterly different conceptions of the world together”, mostly because it often turns out that they are not so “utterly different”. There are only so many ultimate questions available to any worldview with a finite number of “possible” answers. It may be inferred that many answers to ultimate questions provided by different conceptions of the world will overlap with one another and when studying them such is found to actually be the case. For example, major differences between Eastern and Western thought are often highlighted in textbooks, but this would not be if it were not for the similarity of certain schools of thought within each of these geographical locations.
The illustration of the two worldviews, Christian and Non, is critiqued based on Objectivist presuppositions, obviously entailing that the two parties involved in the discussion are not going to agree! “Metaphysical primacy” is assumed to be at the “fundamental level of philosophy” and, so far as one can tell, to be the main emphasis of an epistemological discussion. It is said that Christians mistakenly assume the primacy of consciousness which is defined as “the view that consciousness holds metaphysical primacy over objects distinct from itself in one capacity or another (or, in the case of the Christian god, in all capacities)”. Bahnsen Burner would thus offer a presuppostional model of his own based upon Objectivism. It is this presuppositional model which he uses in critiquing the aforementioned illustration which gave rise to this discussion.
More to come…
Your Thoughts Welcome...
The illustration here is one I use for teaching presuppositional apologetics. Feel free to comment on what may not be correct, how it can be improved upon, etc. I realize that it is not necessarily self-explanatory, but then if you read some of the other posts here or watch the recent videos you may get a better grasp of what I intend to communicate through this illustration.
Traditional Proofs
For centuries people have tried to settle the issue of whether or not God exists. One of the methods used by Christians in the past and present has been to formulate philosophical "proofs" for the existence of God. There are serious problems with some of the traditional approaches to this endeavor.
Traditional proofs for the existence of God do not require that God exists. Instead, they show that the existence of God may be possible or even probable. God is not seen as the only ultimate all-conditioning cause of everything that happens.
In the Garden of Eden Adam and Eve interpreted creation through the things that God told them directly. God is the only Being who knows all of the facts of existence and has properly interpreted them. Humanity knows things as they are only when it thinks God's thoughts after Him. Traditional proofs for the existence of God assume that humanity can understand the facts without God. It is not true that looking at God's revelation in nature can be properly understood without reference to God. It is also calling God a liar when a proof is used that starts with nature and then comes to the conclusion that God's existence is "probable". This is because God's revelation of Himself in nature is clear and it is man who sinfully concludes that it is not so that only "probability" is assumed. God has provided abundant and clear evidence for His existence and tells us so in His Word.
Traditional proofs for the existence of God deny the self-attesting authority of the Word of God. Arguments from human reasoning and experience are thought to be able to properly judge whether or not God's Word is God's Word. God's Word is thought to be unable to identify itself as God's Word, so it is up to man to decide what is God's Word and what is not. The authority of scripture takes second place to the authority of humanity. How then can God's Word be the final authority if humanity gets to make the decision as to whether or not it is what it says it is?
The idea that human reason was left untouched by the results of the Fall of humanity is unbiblical and a poor foundation for communicating with unbelievers. Humanity is created in the image of God and is not independent of God, but traditional proofs for the existence of God often deny this in methodology. In reality humanity has to think God's thoughts after Him or else have no knowledge at all.
Humanity is totally depraved, meaning that every part of every man and woman was affected by the Fall. This includes thoughts and attitudes as well. The problem with humanity is not primarily an intellectual one; it is primarily a moral one. Traditional proofs do not take this into account as they should. The grace of God is the only way that anyone can be saved and remade in a way that knowledge is possible. People cannot use their reasoning and finally "find God" and jump into believing in Him because human reasoning has been corrupt and immoral ever since Eve thought of herself as an ultimate authority in weighing the Word of God against that of the serpent. A right use of reason comes only through salvation by the grace of God.
Traditional proofs for the existence of God do not require that God exists. Instead, they show that the existence of God may be possible or even probable. God is not seen as the only ultimate all-conditioning cause of everything that happens.
In the Garden of Eden Adam and Eve interpreted creation through the things that God told them directly. God is the only Being who knows all of the facts of existence and has properly interpreted them. Humanity knows things as they are only when it thinks God's thoughts after Him. Traditional proofs for the existence of God assume that humanity can understand the facts without God. It is not true that looking at God's revelation in nature can be properly understood without reference to God. It is also calling God a liar when a proof is used that starts with nature and then comes to the conclusion that God's existence is "probable". This is because God's revelation of Himself in nature is clear and it is man who sinfully concludes that it is not so that only "probability" is assumed. God has provided abundant and clear evidence for His existence and tells us so in His Word.
Traditional proofs for the existence of God deny the self-attesting authority of the Word of God. Arguments from human reasoning and experience are thought to be able to properly judge whether or not God's Word is God's Word. God's Word is thought to be unable to identify itself as God's Word, so it is up to man to decide what is God's Word and what is not. The authority of scripture takes second place to the authority of humanity. How then can God's Word be the final authority if humanity gets to make the decision as to whether or not it is what it says it is?
The idea that human reason was left untouched by the results of the Fall of humanity is unbiblical and a poor foundation for communicating with unbelievers. Humanity is created in the image of God and is not independent of God, but traditional proofs for the existence of God often deny this in methodology. In reality humanity has to think God's thoughts after Him or else have no knowledge at all.
Humanity is totally depraved, meaning that every part of every man and woman was affected by the Fall. This includes thoughts and attitudes as well. The problem with humanity is not primarily an intellectual one; it is primarily a moral one. Traditional proofs do not take this into account as they should. The grace of God is the only way that anyone can be saved and remade in a way that knowledge is possible. People cannot use their reasoning and finally "find God" and jump into believing in Him because human reasoning has been corrupt and immoral ever since Eve thought of herself as an ultimate authority in weighing the Word of God against that of the serpent. A right use of reason comes only through salvation by the grace of God.
Irrelevance
I was listening to a snippet of a debate this morning between the atheist Dan Barker and a Christian whose name I do not recall (sorry). Throughout much of the cross examination portion of the debate, Barker kept appealing to the audience with statements that essentially stated "you all know this is true" or "I know you would agree with me when I say ..." (While these are not exact quotes, they present the essence of what Barker was saying.) The tactic is a common one when trying to convince someone else of your opinion. The problem is, whether or not someone already agrees with you is entirely irrelevant to the truth or falsity of the point you are arguing for. Truth is not, after all, determined by majority rule.
Let me offer a more specific example of irrelevance - one that I see presented over and over again in debates between atheists and Christians.
Quite often a statement such as "well you believe in a book that was written thousands of years ago by people lacking the scientific insights we have today" is presented as a counter to a Christian's appeal to the Bible as a useful source of knowledge. The statement is typically made in passing, so as to not draw too much scrutiny, but I fear it often has it's intended impact nonetheless - namely to discredit the authority that the Christian is drawing on in their argument. The problem with this type of assertion is twofold.
First, it is irrelevant to the question normally under debate, namely whether or not the Christian God exists. Recall that the Christian's position is that God himself inspired these writers to write the words they penned, meaning that it wouldn't matter how much scientific knowledge the writers possessed. All they would need to be able to do is to write what God inspired them to write. The atheist that happens to follow this line of reasoning demonstrates either a lack of understanding of the claims that Christians make, or a complete disregard for the lack of relevance of the argument.
Second, it can be used against the atheist's own position. There are, as expected, examples of atheist writers in the far past - some as far back as 600 BCE. If not possessing the scientific knowledge we have today was a shortcoming of those penning the scripture of the OT and NT, then why would it also not be a shortcoming of those who held to a non-theistic position? To claim that Theistic writings during this time period are suspect due to lack of present-day scientific knowledge, but non-Theistic writings are not, is to hold a double-standard and be guilty of the fallacy of Special Pleading.
The fallacies of relevance are numerous - too numerous to cover in a short post on this blog. However, they are something each of us should be aware of. Not only for the sake of correcting others when they use them, but also to be certain that we do not fall into the trap of using them ourselves. We are not only interested in the end, but the means we employ as well.
BK
Let me offer a more specific example of irrelevance - one that I see presented over and over again in debates between atheists and Christians.
Quite often a statement such as "well you believe in a book that was written thousands of years ago by people lacking the scientific insights we have today" is presented as a counter to a Christian's appeal to the Bible as a useful source of knowledge. The statement is typically made in passing, so as to not draw too much scrutiny, but I fear it often has it's intended impact nonetheless - namely to discredit the authority that the Christian is drawing on in their argument. The problem with this type of assertion is twofold.
First, it is irrelevant to the question normally under debate, namely whether or not the Christian God exists. Recall that the Christian's position is that God himself inspired these writers to write the words they penned, meaning that it wouldn't matter how much scientific knowledge the writers possessed. All they would need to be able to do is to write what God inspired them to write. The atheist that happens to follow this line of reasoning demonstrates either a lack of understanding of the claims that Christians make, or a complete disregard for the lack of relevance of the argument.
Second, it can be used against the atheist's own position. There are, as expected, examples of atheist writers in the far past - some as far back as 600 BCE. If not possessing the scientific knowledge we have today was a shortcoming of those penning the scripture of the OT and NT, then why would it also not be a shortcoming of those who held to a non-theistic position? To claim that Theistic writings during this time period are suspect due to lack of present-day scientific knowledge, but non-Theistic writings are not, is to hold a double-standard and be guilty of the fallacy of Special Pleading.
The fallacies of relevance are numerous - too numerous to cover in a short post on this blog. However, they are something each of us should be aware of. Not only for the sake of correcting others when they use them, but also to be certain that we do not fall into the trap of using them ourselves. We are not only interested in the end, but the means we employ as well.
BK
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)