Within Christian apologetics, there are various schools of methodologies. One such school is presuppositionalism, which argues that one must assume a conceptual framework or ultimate standard of truth in order to make any sense of reality. In other words, there are no "brute facts" that exist in the universe apart from an understanding of God. Because of this, we cannot attempt to persuade the unbeliever through an appeal to evidence. As Christians, it is vital that when we engage the lost world we do so knowing that there is no such thing as neutrality. Due to the Fall, sin has infiltrated man's mind, will, and emotions. The noetic effects of sin (sin's effect on our reasoning) prevents man from evaluating evidence objectively. Although man is depraved and altogether helpless, the image of God is not completely destroyed in him. He still has a sense of right and wrong and is capable of employing logic. Nonetheless, the unbeliever's rejection of God prevents him from understanding any fact truly. Like a Jenga game of sorts, when the unbeliever builds his worldview apart from God as the foundation, the rest of it falls apart.
What exactly is a worldview? A worldview is a network of presuppositions through which a person interprets reality. Everyone has one. We operate in it without even knowing we are doing so. The unbeliever, in an attempt to make sense of reality, must borrow from the believer's worldview. The objective of a presuppositional apologist then is to demonstrate to the unbeliever that he cannot account for such things as the laws of logic, ethics, the uniformity of nature, or beauty apart from belief in God. As such, the presuppositionalist employs the Transcendental Argument, which states that every fact in the universe is not meaningful apart from a preconditioning belief in God. To demonstrate the Transcendental Argument, I will examine the laws of logic.
The three most commonly known laws of logic are: 1) the law of identity, 2) the law of non-contradiction and 3) the law of the excluded middle. These laws of logic are general propositions that guide human thought. They are not laws of thought but are presuppositions of coherent thinking. Most recently, I have engaged in a discussion with an atheist concerning how he, in his worldview, accounts for the laws of logic. He has been unable to give me an answer for that. The reason the unbeliever cannot account for the laws of logic is because of his belief in Logical Positivism. Logical Positivism depends upon empiricism, or the belief that only knowledge that comes through the senses and is observable is true knowledge. The laws of logic cannot be tested or observed for they are universal, immaterial invariants. The unbeliever may try to resolve this predicament by claiming the laws of logic are not universal invariants but that they are conventions of thought. However, this only serves to put the unbeliever in a more difficult position as he cannot explain why not all men agree on the laws of logic.
The fact remains that for the unbeliever to engage in a meaningful way with the world, he must presuppose the laws of logic. And for the unbeliever to account for the laws of logic, he must presuppose the existence of God. The chance and randomness foundations of the universe in the unbeliever's worldview cannot account for the existence of universal, immaterial invariants. He may try to explain why the universe is founded on chance, which will mean he will have to employ the laws of logic demonstrating the contradiction in his worldview.
The Christian's foundation for the laws of logic rests in the fact that it is reflective of God's unchanging character. Logic exists because God exists and the coherency in our world if reflective of the coherency found in God. While critics may claim that this is circular reasoning, it is important to point out that worldview level examinations should be circular because this demonstrates internal cohesion. Greg Bahnsen gives two criteria for determining the internal cohesion of a worldview:
1) Internal Consistency: This is to say that the statements made by the worldview do not contradict one another or are not internally contradictory. Logical Positivism, which I alluded to earlier, fails this test because it says, "a belief is valid only if it is empirically verifiable." This belief itself is not empirically verifiable and as such fails the test of internal consistency. Moral relativism would fall into the same category.
2) Arbitrariness: This criteria means that a worldview statement must not be believed out of convenience. Many people claim to believe something because a warm, positive feeling that comes with it. This is fallacious because it is a statement that someone of any worldview could make.
With this in mind, it is important that we, as Christians, continue to be, in the words of Van Til, "epistemologically self-conscious" by reminding ourselves of our ultimate arbiter of truth: the Word of God. When we live with this standard in mind, we realize that impossiblity of the contrary, the fact that no other worldview coherently accounts for reality. May we continue to expose the absurdity of the unbelieving worldview then but with gentleness and reverence (cf. 1 Pet. 3:15). Soli deo gloria!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Ha! You believe me an atheist? I do not fit your definition of gnosis of the one true faith, of the true son of the all-Father, unchanging and unalterable from now until the end of Ragnarok?
A question for YOU: why do not all men agree on God? For if you are to put logic into the crosshairs, it is only fair for you to put its' replacement there as well. Why are there religions that also preach their unity, their righteousness, their indefatigability from now until their end of time, and why YOU are going to hell (or its equivalent) if you do not obey their dictates?
For certainly mathematics does not change by cultural upbringing, nor does cause-and-effect economics alter based upon geographic and ethnic difference... how much BETTER is Christianity at explaining logic than, well, logic?
I would also like to point out that i am NOT a logical positivist. I enjoy objectivism and some economics theory, but i do not know WHAT i am. That is, i refuse to define myself ex parte and thus restrict myself to a definition that may not fit in the future.
The interesting point to note is that i do not fail to exist or be moral, or even fail to be logical when i have thus refused to align myself with a particular philosophical party. In fact, i find it quite freeing to be able to reason simply, as myself, without the claptrap of demagoguery inherent in such political factionalism.
"Logic exists because God exists"? Logic = God? Are you just defining God into human affairs, like saying "Nuts exist because God exists. God is nuts." You can say that ANYTHING exists because "God" exists, but without a coherent definition of "God," you have no logical basis upon which to make your claim.
What, in your argument, is "God"?
"The Christian's foundation for the laws of logic rests in the fact that it is reflective of God's unchanging character."
1) Internal consistency: Is "God" known by anything other than a text which purports to be the "Word of God"? Which text is authoritative, and what parts of it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alleged_inconsistencies_in_the_Bible
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html
2) Arbitrariness: If the "Word of God" is not the only Word of God available, which word of God are we to use? And what translation? What edition? If the Word of God is not the way by which we "know" God, what is? "A warm feeling," often called faith, grace, witnessing of the Divine, perhaps?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo_effect#Placebo_effect
Perhaps we can come up with another definition... religious positivism? How would that be defined?
Religious positivism: "Religious Positivism depends upon faith, or the belief that only knowledge that comes through the senses and is only observable is true knowledge if correlated in one's own particular religious dogma. The laws of logic cannot be tested or observed for they are universal, immaterial invariants based in the immutability and invariability of their unchanging Lawgiver deity. The believer may try to resolve this predicament by claiming the whims of various faiths are not universal invariants but that they are conventions of thought of those not apparently "exposed" to the one true belief. However, this only serves to put the unbeliever in a more difficult position as he cannot explain why not all men agree on the laws of his, or even their own, particular god, goddess, or pantheon."
Sound about right? Aren't you glad i started posting on here?
"Nonetheless, the unbeliever's rejection of God prevents him from understanding any fact truly. Like a Jenga game of sorts, when the unbeliever builds his worldview apart from God as the foundation, the rest of it falls apart."
Do you have any evidence for this statement, "the rest of it falls apart"? Any representative example? Because mathematics has been in operation for nearly 8000 years, and there is not one principle, theorem, or value that can be accurately termed "God." Therefore, by your own argument, mathematicians do not have "God" as their foundation (in fact, they have no reference to a God-value in their entire discipline! what heathens!); when do you predict that the entire discipline of mathematics will "fall apart"?
"While critics may claim that this is circular reasoning, it is important to point out that worldview level examinations should be circular because this demonstrates internal cohesion."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning
Now, i'm not a philosopher, nor a logician, but this website here gives a pretty good definition of circular reasoning, a fallacy called petitio principii (you like Latin, i assume?), or "begging the question."
From the website, "Begging the question is related to the fallacy known as circular argument, circulus in probando, vicious circle or circular reasoning. The first known definition in the West is by the Greek philosopher Aristotle around 350 BC, in his book Prior Analytics." I know you don't like Aristotle... he didn't have an Unnamed God like Plato's concept of Socrates, but take him at his word. "In contemporary usage, "begging the question" often refers to an argument where the premises are as questionable as the conclusion."
This is represented logically later in the argument, as such:
1) p implies q.
2) suppose p. Therefore,
3) q.
These can be pretty reductive, so i'll give a non-fallacious example first:
1) Trevor Almy reads the Bible.
2) The Bible says God exists.
3) Trevor Almy believes the Bible.
4) Trevor Almy believes God exists.
Now let's make that something so fallacious that it literally begs the question of how it could possibly be true!
1) The Word of God says that the Word of God is factually true.
2) The Word of God says that God exists. Therefore,
3) God exists.
See the problem with premise 1 up there? Not hard to point out, and again, i'm not a philosopher or logician, but it sounds like you're allowing a freedom of fallacy among yourself and your followers that you do not allow of the "unbelievers," or whatever you call your political enemies. Do you still think it's a good idea having me rant along here to my heart's content?
"The noetic effects of sin (sin's effect on our reasoning) prevents man from evaluating evidence objectively. Although man is depraved and altogether helpless, the image of God is not completely destroyed in him. He still has a sense of right and wrong and is capable of employing logic."
If you could, could you please tell me where sin is in the human body? I know about the cardiovascular, adrenal, limbic, homeostatic, inverse and transverse, but so far I have not heard of the sin system in the body as of yet. Please explain what this "sin" is that "prevents man from evaluating evidence objectively."
Or is sin... man? If he cannot evaluate evidence precisely BECAUSE he is human, then why did God make him that way? Because genetic traits cannot be altered, except with the highest chemistry, of which we were not capable millions of years ago when we first arose as a species. So the only one who could have encoded our DNA with sin, of course, was God. Is this our "punishment" for disobeying his command to remain in ignorance? Can we not completely void the "sin" of knowledge of good and evil by simply not teaching our children anything, letting them fend for food in the forest with the foxes? (like the alliteration there!)
And if sin is a choice, why is it a choice we are simply unable not to make? As you said, man "has a sense of right and wrong and is capable of employing logic," but yet we are "depraved and altogether helpless." How can we be both mindful and capable of righteous action and yet be "altogether" incapable of enacting it? How do you intend to resolve this contradiction?
If this "sin" is from God, how do you account for God's goodness? Because sin can result in eternal punishment in hell, which you say we are helpless to avoid, though not helpless to notice. Sin is eternal, passed down through generations that had no hand in the offending action, a vengeance enacted, say, unfairly upon innocent individuals? Sin is also contradictory: how was God not sinning when he drowned millions of people for being unable to rectify his punishment (which you admit they could not do by themselves)? How was God not sinning when he selectively punished Sodom and Gomorrah for committing acts they were "helpless" to resist? And what about the innocents who die believing in Gods other than "God"? Are they inherently sinful for following their own sinlessness, or did God intentionally deceive them by allowing lesser beings to prey on their helplessness?
I simply can't figure out what this "sin" is that you are peddling, but it sounds like a bad deal to me. All pain, no gain, and you can't even kill yourself to avoid it!
Post a Comment