All worldviews have equal burden of proof. The frequent claim of atheists that Christian theism asserts something positive, i.e. the Triune God, while atheism (contrary to that) does not assert anything positive and has no burden of proof is false. Atheism positively asserts an incoherent plurality of unrelated brute facts which cannot account for themselves or for any fact of human experience whatsoever, be it knowledge, truth, morality, individual rational freedom, immaterial objects, etc. The list goes on and on.
The atheist, by his own contradictory presuppositions, is reduced to the absurdity of absolute skepticism -- all along challenging the Christian to account for knowledge based on the atheist's skepticism.1 The God of Christian theism does account for knowledge. That answer is intelligible and the atheist can understand that answer. The only objection the atheist has is he does not like that answer.
Contrary to the atheist we are not all on an epistemological Titanic. Only the atheist is on that ship.
1 By assuming everyone must be in the same epistemological situation the atheist has ascribed to the fallacy of pretended neutrality. That assumption is question begging. ↩
Showing posts with label Christian theism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Christian theism. Show all posts
Sunday, May 28, 2017
Sunday, November 20, 2016
Myth of Neutrality and a Prejudicial Challenge.
A reader responded to my previous blog
on Anti-theism and challenged me to show how I know that
God exists without relying on the Bible. It has been stated many times that such a proof is provided by the negative portion ("God exists because of the impossibility of the contrary") of the Transcendental Argument for God (TAG). However, we have mentioned that, as Christians, we defend Christianity as a whole; not a truncated metaphysical theism (or Deism). The God referred to in TAG is the Triune God of Christianity -- not a merely generic deity.
But first, we need to consider the nature of the unbeliever's challenge.
Such a challenge typically stems from metaphysical and epistemological biases -- i.e., unargued presuppositions. The challenge is certainly intellectually anti-Christian. It may be motivated by a false belief that the Bible is contradictory and unreliable or falsely assumes that Christians adhere to the Bible as an arbitrary authority in blind faith. But beyond that, it presupposes an unspecified method and some coordinate standard of knowledge by which the proof (or proof of anything) would be judged. Based on remarks of typical unbelievers, perhaps by "show" he means deductive argumentation.
Of course, it is well known that deductive arguments only produce what is already contained in their premises. (In other words, the conclusion is already contained in the asserted premises. That is why the conclusion is necessitated by the premises.) Or, he could mean "show" by the "scientific method" since he once intimated that only science produces "knowledge." TAG (being a transcendental argument) is not properly an empirical (inductive) nor a deductive argument (as those are understood by the opponents of theism) and thus would seem to be disallowed by assumption and stipulation as producing knowledge of the sort acceptable to the respondent's presupposed epistemology - a biased non-neutral theory of knowledge that is antithetical to the Christian theory of knowledge and thus precludes Christianity.1 So the correspondent's attempt to impose an assumed non-Christian methodology is illegitimate. But not all things are known by way of inductive empiricism (sense perception) or deductive syllogisms (as understood by anti-theistic philosophies).2 Perhaps he merely means (ambiguously) provide some presumably neutral "reasoning." One can fairly ask: What are the non-Christian assumptions behind this putative "neutral reasoning"?
Unbelievers merely presuppose "reason" without a ground. For them reason is conceivably just one more brute fact in a mindless and infinite sea of other unrelated brute facts. None of these brute facts are necessarily dependent on God, of course. Since it presupposes that human reason and rules of logic can exist apart from God it is, de facto, an atheist theory of knowledge. Such is blatantly not a neutral stance. The question is, ipso facto, a visible display of the "myth of neutrality" (or what Greg Bahnsen has called the "pretended neutrality fallacy"). In this regard, the unbeliever's underlying epistemology is patently non-neutral -- it is an atheist epistemology. An unbeliever views himself as the self-sufficient autonomous man; a man produced out of a sea of chance, by way of materialistic evolutionary processes, yet, nonetheless, now free from that very "chance" and using an ultimate and immaterial "eternal logic" to judge what can or cannot be the case. To an agnostic, maybe some sort of "god" may exist, but such a "god" is irrelevant to their use of reason and appeal to abstract logic. Again, that stance, in effect, presupposes atheism.
We again point out that on atheist (and agnostic) metaphysical presuppositions, there is no "reason for reasoning." Human minds, consciousness, rational autonomy, abstract immaterial concepts, truth and knowledge, in general, would not exist in the world of material monism -- where all that exists is matter moving according to physical causality. There is no justification for the atheist's appeal to induction and assumptions of causality (uniformity of nature), and no account of deductive logic or rational volitional minds springing from matter-in-motion. In general, there is no philosophically sound account of (merely presupposed) autonomous "reason" that comports with atheist metaphysical presuppositions. If man is produced by necessity and chance, and there is nothing that transcends the material, then how can man be autonomous? If man was created by chance and necessity, he still is controlled by chance and necessity.3 The necessity and chance of atheist monism (of all varieties) is antithetical to human autonomy. In the atheist universe all events are ultimately the result of chance and are acausal -- this is metaphysical irrationalism. In spite of these metaphysical presuppositions, the atheist attempts to build his "rational" house on an infinite sea of irrational chance. Since this ultimacy of the irrational provides no explanation or justification for either inductive reasoning or the universal validity of logic, it is futile, on their terms, to use these methods as the basis of any "explanation." Thus, on the atheist's presuppositions, not only would "reason" not exist -- nothing would be provable and nothing would be knowable. The conclusion is that the atheist knows nothing. Atheism resolves itself in an ultimate and irremediable skepticism. These are some of the many refutations of atheism (and, a fortiori, of agnosticism). But let us proceed.
So then, as Christian apologists, we defend the objective truth of the totality of Christian theism. Our positive argument takes Christian theism as a complete and coherent system, a total worldview, that is defended as a whole. That whole is based on, and thus includes, God's revelation and Christ testified to in the historical record in the Bible. We don't defend a theism without Christ. We defend Christian theism. This defense includes the Biblical doctrines of the Trinity, the deity of Christ, the virgin birth, Christ's death and bodily resurrection, and Christ's atonement for sin, and the redemption of sinners.
The respondent's challenge is somewhat akin to challenging a geometer to prove the theorems of Euclidean geometry without using Euclid's axioms.4 That would be rather silly. In the same way, the respondent's attempt to impose such a demand on Christians is, likewise, silly. The challenge is based on a presupposed anti-theistic standard of truth ("epistemic authority"), a standard that is based on a viciously circular philosophy and that is not self-verifying. It is a prejudicial, merely assumed and unproven standard, consequently, that standard is not normative.5 Further it is an epistemology that does not comport with the anti-theist's (whether atheist or agnostic) presupposed metaphysics. (In fact, as has been repeatedly shown, such merely asserted epistemological claims, such as "only science yields knowledge," are self-refuting.) At any rate, it is a truth that one cannot argue deductively from a false (inconsistent) system to a true (consistent) one, or from one system to its contrary.6 (This is one reason why one must argue transcendentally.)
Further, the God Who we know exists is not just a mere abstract concept ("the god of the philosophers") but the God of Christianity, the personal Triune God revealed in the Bible. The respondent's challenge imposes an unbelieving and non self-verifying epistemological framework (his "rules of the game") to assess Christian truth. It is an invalid invitation for Christians to step outside of our circle of authority and join him within his circle of authority. This challenge should be filed under, "Deducing Christian Theism from Atheism," right next to the file on "Squaring the Circle." As Scripture states: "Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him." (Prov 26:4).
In short, the challenge is: "I'll presuppose my worldview, but you can't presuppose yours!" But then, as Van Til has remarked, we treat the unbeliever better than he is willing to treat us. As Presuppositionalists, we do not impose any like demand on unbelievers. Rather, we challenge them to explicate and show the consistency of their worldview (metaphysics, epistemology and ethics) on their presuppositions.
So then, how do we know the Triune Christian God exists?
We know that the Triune Christian God exists because of the impossibility of the contrary. Positively, that the God of Christian theism -- revealed in the Bible and the creation -- is the necessary precondition for the intelligibility of human experience. This is the Transcendental Argument for God (TAG) in a nutshell, and we argue via transcendental critiques of the unbeliever's worldview that show their presuppositions are self-contradictory. This is necessary because of the radical and total antithesis of the opposing worldviews. In Christianity, every man and every fact is dependent on God. In atheism autonomous man is independent of God and no fact is dependent on God. So then there is no neutral ground, no neutral epistemology and certainly completely antithetical metaphysics. (The respondent's challenge is evidence of this. The challenge rejects Christian epistemology and embraces a groundless atheist epistemology and standards of truth.)
But first, we need to consider the nature of the unbeliever's challenge.
Such a challenge typically stems from metaphysical and epistemological biases -- i.e., unargued presuppositions. The challenge is certainly intellectually anti-Christian. It may be motivated by a false belief that the Bible is contradictory and unreliable or falsely assumes that Christians adhere to the Bible as an arbitrary authority in blind faith. But beyond that, it presupposes an unspecified method and some coordinate standard of knowledge by which the proof (or proof of anything) would be judged. Based on remarks of typical unbelievers, perhaps by "show" he means deductive argumentation.
Of course, it is well known that deductive arguments only produce what is already contained in their premises. (In other words, the conclusion is already contained in the asserted premises. That is why the conclusion is necessitated by the premises.) Or, he could mean "show" by the "scientific method" since he once intimated that only science produces "knowledge." TAG (being a transcendental argument) is not properly an empirical (inductive) nor a deductive argument (as those are understood by the opponents of theism) and thus would seem to be disallowed by assumption and stipulation as producing knowledge of the sort acceptable to the respondent's presupposed epistemology - a biased non-neutral theory of knowledge that is antithetical to the Christian theory of knowledge and thus precludes Christianity.1 So the correspondent's attempt to impose an assumed non-Christian methodology is illegitimate. But not all things are known by way of inductive empiricism (sense perception) or deductive syllogisms (as understood by anti-theistic philosophies).2 Perhaps he merely means (ambiguously) provide some presumably neutral "reasoning." One can fairly ask: What are the non-Christian assumptions behind this putative "neutral reasoning"?
Unbelievers merely presuppose "reason" without a ground. For them reason is conceivably just one more brute fact in a mindless and infinite sea of other unrelated brute facts. None of these brute facts are necessarily dependent on God, of course. Since it presupposes that human reason and rules of logic can exist apart from God it is, de facto, an atheist theory of knowledge. Such is blatantly not a neutral stance. The question is, ipso facto, a visible display of the "myth of neutrality" (or what Greg Bahnsen has called the "pretended neutrality fallacy"). In this regard, the unbeliever's underlying epistemology is patently non-neutral -- it is an atheist epistemology. An unbeliever views himself as the self-sufficient autonomous man; a man produced out of a sea of chance, by way of materialistic evolutionary processes, yet, nonetheless, now free from that very "chance" and using an ultimate and immaterial "eternal logic" to judge what can or cannot be the case. To an agnostic, maybe some sort of "god" may exist, but such a "god" is irrelevant to their use of reason and appeal to abstract logic. Again, that stance, in effect, presupposes atheism.
We again point out that on atheist (and agnostic) metaphysical presuppositions, there is no "reason for reasoning." Human minds, consciousness, rational autonomy, abstract immaterial concepts, truth and knowledge, in general, would not exist in the world of material monism -- where all that exists is matter moving according to physical causality. There is no justification for the atheist's appeal to induction and assumptions of causality (uniformity of nature), and no account of deductive logic or rational volitional minds springing from matter-in-motion. In general, there is no philosophically sound account of (merely presupposed) autonomous "reason" that comports with atheist metaphysical presuppositions. If man is produced by necessity and chance, and there is nothing that transcends the material, then how can man be autonomous? If man was created by chance and necessity, he still is controlled by chance and necessity.3 The necessity and chance of atheist monism (of all varieties) is antithetical to human autonomy. In the atheist universe all events are ultimately the result of chance and are acausal -- this is metaphysical irrationalism. In spite of these metaphysical presuppositions, the atheist attempts to build his "rational" house on an infinite sea of irrational chance. Since this ultimacy of the irrational provides no explanation or justification for either inductive reasoning or the universal validity of logic, it is futile, on their terms, to use these methods as the basis of any "explanation." Thus, on the atheist's presuppositions, not only would "reason" not exist -- nothing would be provable and nothing would be knowable. The conclusion is that the atheist knows nothing. Atheism resolves itself in an ultimate and irremediable skepticism. These are some of the many refutations of atheism (and, a fortiori, of agnosticism). But let us proceed.
So then, as Christian apologists, we defend the objective truth of the totality of Christian theism. Our positive argument takes Christian theism as a complete and coherent system, a total worldview, that is defended as a whole. That whole is based on, and thus includes, God's revelation and Christ testified to in the historical record in the Bible. We don't defend a theism without Christ. We defend Christian theism. This defense includes the Biblical doctrines of the Trinity, the deity of Christ, the virgin birth, Christ's death and bodily resurrection, and Christ's atonement for sin, and the redemption of sinners.
The respondent's challenge is somewhat akin to challenging a geometer to prove the theorems of Euclidean geometry without using Euclid's axioms.4 That would be rather silly. In the same way, the respondent's attempt to impose such a demand on Christians is, likewise, silly. The challenge is based on a presupposed anti-theistic standard of truth ("epistemic authority"), a standard that is based on a viciously circular philosophy and that is not self-verifying. It is a prejudicial, merely assumed and unproven standard, consequently, that standard is not normative.5 Further it is an epistemology that does not comport with the anti-theist's (whether atheist or agnostic) presupposed metaphysics. (In fact, as has been repeatedly shown, such merely asserted epistemological claims, such as "only science yields knowledge," are self-refuting.) At any rate, it is a truth that one cannot argue deductively from a false (inconsistent) system to a true (consistent) one, or from one system to its contrary.6 (This is one reason why one must argue transcendentally.)
Further, the God Who we know exists is not just a mere abstract concept ("the god of the philosophers") but the God of Christianity, the personal Triune God revealed in the Bible. The respondent's challenge imposes an unbelieving and non self-verifying epistemological framework (his "rules of the game") to assess Christian truth. It is an invalid invitation for Christians to step outside of our circle of authority and join him within his circle of authority. This challenge should be filed under, "Deducing Christian Theism from Atheism," right next to the file on "Squaring the Circle." As Scripture states: "Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him." (Prov 26:4).
In short, the challenge is: "I'll presuppose my worldview, but you can't presuppose yours!" But then, as Van Til has remarked, we treat the unbeliever better than he is willing to treat us. As Presuppositionalists, we do not impose any like demand on unbelievers. Rather, we challenge them to explicate and show the consistency of their worldview (metaphysics, epistemology and ethics) on their presuppositions.
So then, how do we know the Triune Christian God exists?
We know that the Triune Christian God exists because of the impossibility of the contrary. Positively, that the God of Christian theism -- revealed in the Bible and the creation -- is the necessary precondition for the intelligibility of human experience. This is the Transcendental Argument for God (TAG) in a nutshell, and we argue via transcendental critiques of the unbeliever's worldview that show their presuppositions are self-contradictory. This is necessary because of the radical and total antithesis of the opposing worldviews. In Christianity, every man and every fact is dependent on God. In atheism autonomous man is independent of God and no fact is dependent on God. So then there is no neutral ground, no neutral epistemology and certainly completely antithetical metaphysics. (The respondent's challenge is evidence of this. The challenge rejects Christian epistemology and embraces a groundless atheist epistemology and standards of truth.)
As Christians we do not engage in special pleading for Christian theism.
For the sake of argument, we allow atheists to stand on their own ground to
attempt to demonstrate the internal coherence of their
worldview. Every version of atheism (whether monist or
pluralist) fails, on its own presuppositions. They are self-contradictory and therefore false.
We allow the agnostics to stand on their own ground to attempt to demonstrate the internal coherence of their worldview. Every version of agnosticism fails on its own presuppositions.
In all of the above cases, this fair challenge to unbelievers, to present the coherence and intelligibility of their worldview on their presuppositions has never been answered. They are all false systems. Their answers, when examined critically, resort to question begging and special pleading. In addition, their philosophies all result ultimately in skepticism, provide no foundation for ethics, undermine truth, and render knowledge impossible -- on their account, it is not possible for them to know anything. It therefore devolves to the Christian apologist to question the unbelievers and to stand on the unbeliever's ground, for the sake of argument, to show the contradictions of their presuppositions. Each instance of these internal critiques, which is argued ad seriatim, is part and parcel of TAG. This conforms to Proverbs 26:5, "Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit."
As far as other non-atheistic philosophies (such as pantheism, eastern mysticism etc.) and non-Christian religions (e.g. Judaism, Islam), the apologetic procedure is methodologically the same. Each is internally incoherent, destroys the possibility of knowledge and is self-contradictory based on its own presuppositions. As Christian apologists, we do not impose external standards upon them; rather we critique them on their own ground.
In the end then, we present and defend the truth of Christianity as revealed in God's Word. The God that we know exists is not an abstract "god," not a mere "god of the philosophers," but the eternal, personal God, who revealed himself in the world and in His Word. The God who manifested himself in the flesh in the person of Jesus Christ, who died and rose again to redeem sinners. That is the God of the Bible. The God of the historical record preserved in the Bible. We defend Christian theism as a whole -- a complete worldview that is non-contradictory, is consistent, and accounts for all human experience. This conforms to Prov. 26:4, "Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him."
In short, only Christian theism is consistent; nothing else is. Those who reject the Bible choose to believe the absurd in its place.
In closing, unbelievers who reject the Bible, no doubt, view themselves as "innocent truth seekers" within an ultimately random and meaningless reality. They believe their unbelief has no moral consequences. They are mistaken. They are culpable in their unbelief and ignorance . Their every thought is enmity to God (Rom. 8:7). They are lost, sinful rebels in God's created universe and in need of a Savior. Among other sins, they are earning their death every day by the sin of unbelief.
Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
John 3:18-19 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
We allow the agnostics to stand on their own ground to attempt to demonstrate the internal coherence of their worldview. Every version of agnosticism fails on its own presuppositions.
In all of the above cases, this fair challenge to unbelievers, to present the coherence and intelligibility of their worldview on their presuppositions has never been answered. They are all false systems. Their answers, when examined critically, resort to question begging and special pleading. In addition, their philosophies all result ultimately in skepticism, provide no foundation for ethics, undermine truth, and render knowledge impossible -- on their account, it is not possible for them to know anything. It therefore devolves to the Christian apologist to question the unbelievers and to stand on the unbeliever's ground, for the sake of argument, to show the contradictions of their presuppositions. Each instance of these internal critiques, which is argued ad seriatim, is part and parcel of TAG. This conforms to Proverbs 26:5, "Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit."
As far as other non-atheistic philosophies (such as pantheism, eastern mysticism etc.) and non-Christian religions (e.g. Judaism, Islam), the apologetic procedure is methodologically the same. Each is internally incoherent, destroys the possibility of knowledge and is self-contradictory based on its own presuppositions. As Christian apologists, we do not impose external standards upon them; rather we critique them on their own ground.
In the end then, we present and defend the truth of Christianity as revealed in God's Word. The God that we know exists is not an abstract "god," not a mere "god of the philosophers," but the eternal, personal God, who revealed himself in the world and in His Word. The God who manifested himself in the flesh in the person of Jesus Christ, who died and rose again to redeem sinners. That is the God of the Bible. The God of the historical record preserved in the Bible. We defend Christian theism as a whole -- a complete worldview that is non-contradictory, is consistent, and accounts for all human experience. This conforms to Prov. 26:4, "Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him."
In short, only Christian theism is consistent; nothing else is. Those who reject the Bible choose to believe the absurd in its place.
In closing, unbelievers who reject the Bible, no doubt, view themselves as "innocent truth seekers" within an ultimately random and meaningless reality. They believe their unbelief has no moral consequences. They are mistaken. They are culpable in their unbelief and ignorance . Their every thought is enmity to God (Rom. 8:7). They are lost, sinful rebels in God's created universe and in need of a Savior. Among other sins, they are earning their death every day by the sin of unbelief.
Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
John 3:18-19 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
1 The stipulation to use an anti-Christian epistemology is to commit the fallacy of special pleading. As Bahnsen states in Presuppositional Apologetics: Stated and Defended, "There is no way to use non-Christian language and logic to arrive at Christian utterances, conclusions, and behavior.” The unbeliever needs to justify his epistemology before demanding it as the standard. ↩
2 For example, neither the inductive method nor the deductive method are known by way of induction or deduction. That would be a viciously circular argument (for example, one could only deductively argue for modus ponens by use of modus ponens). Thus, on the unbeliever's presuppositions, induction and deduction are just assumed by faith and cannot be said to be known. Further, the unbeliever being an "epistemological loafer" willfully ignores the ground for these in his worldview. They are taken as brute unexplained facts, and hence are not known -- this is the anti-metaphysical bias of modern "science." So, when considered in this light, the challenge to show how I know is self-defeating and impotent on the unbeliever's viewpoint (his "theory of knowledge"). It is in this regard that Van Til stated that unless God exists nothing is provable. ↩
3 To deny this is to smuggle in a principle of "discontinuity," contrary to the atheist's faith commitment to a presumed "uniformity of nature." On the other hand, the unbeliever maintains allegiance to his "uniformity of nature" to deny Christian miracles (cf. An Atheist's Miracle). ↩
4 In comparing Biblical Christianity to Euclidean geometry the point of contact I am making is that they are both systems of thought and that the Bible is integral and necessary to the complete system of Christian theism as are the Euclidean axioms to that complete system. I am not suggesting that the Bible is taken as a mere axiom.↩
5 On this point it is worth paraphrasing Greg Bahnsen's challenge to the unbeliever to explicate how they know that their claimed standard is the right standard. The unbeliever has the following options: (1) He can admit that his standard of evaluation has no justification. In this case, his position is arbitrary and irrational; (2) he can argue that his standard is established by some standard outside of itself. In this case he is admitting that a new standard is more ultimate, contradicting his previously claimed "ultimate" standard. Finally, he can keep seeking a more ultimate standard. In this case he is trapped in an infinite regress with the result that his standard is unknown and unknowable, and thus futile; or (3) he can point to a truly ultimate, intelligible and self-verifying standard that explains all else, in that it is the ultimate standard beyond which no appeal can be made (as in Christianity which points to God, Hebrews 6:13). The point is that the respondent's challenge is groundless. [cf. Pushing the Antithesis, pp. 121,2] ↩
6 In Presuppositional Apologetics: Stated and Defended, Greg Bahnsen states it this way: “There is no way to use non-Christian language and logic to arrive at Christian utterances, conclusions, and behavior.” ↩
Tuesday, August 26, 2014
They Don't Know What They Are Talking About!
In presuppositional apologetics, we show that the presuppositions, or the fundamental beliefs, of all who reject Christian theism are riddled with self-contradictions. Their metaphysical assumptions ("view of what exists and is real") provide no coherent foundation for their epistemology ("how they know") and ethics ("how they should live their lives"); and, considered jointly, their metaphysics, epistemology and ethics are mutually incoherent. This is a fact that most unbelievers do not confront, as they refuse to engage in self-reflection and critical examination of their beliefs. Even when confronted with these contradictions, unbelievers, unless convicted of their sin by the Spirit of God, will continue to irrationally hold to their self-styled "rational" unbelief, rather than turning to the only rational position, Christian theism.
For instance, unbelievers -- on the basis of the presupposed properties of a godless universe -- cannot give coherent accounts of their "knowledge," in general, or of their moral judgments.
In particular, when it comes to morals, the unbeliever has no basis whatsoever for making moral pronouncements. This follows directly from the typical belief of the so-called "scientific" worldview that only science yields knowledge. This viewpoint is called scientism. In that epistemology (based on the so-called "logical-empirical approach"), only things that are empirical or can be logically deduced are known1. Ipso facto, that belief excludes moral knowledge.
First, moral laws are not perceived via the senses (empirically). One cannot see, touch, taste, hear or smell moral laws. Moral laws (like laws of logic) are immaterial, they are not natural. They are not discovered "in a test tube." Second, moral laws are not logical tautologies. Thus, by the atheist's espoused (and non-self attesting) epistemology, moral laws are inaccessible to human knowledge. Moral laws are unknowable and unknown. This reduces the atheist to absolute moral skepticism.
The result is that for the unbeliever, moral pronouncements are arbitrary and matters of subjective opinion. Moral laws are, then, just social constructions, whether by custom or legislation. In the case of legislation, they are established by power -- either a consensus of a majority in democracies (political power then determines the morality of the age) or by brute force in totalitarian regimes and dictatorships. There are American secular norms; there are Islamic fascist norms, communist norms, Nazi norms -- all of which, inter alia, are arbitrary.
So far, we are discussing the self-contradiction of those who believe in "morality;" albeit an unknowable, subjective, non-absolute code of conduct. Of course, this means there really is no morality in any sense; there is only legality as encoded in arbitrary legislation and conformity (or non-conformity) to changing social customs dictated by individual tastes. Today's "evil" may be tomorrow's "righteousness." This further means the unbeliever has no basis for making a "legal/moral" dichotomy or the claim that there are "unjust laws" ("That may be legal but it is morally suspect").
In addition, we should mention that those who espouse the epistemology of scientism typically hold to some form of materialism. In that case, not only are moral judgments unknown, but morals would not exist. Morality does not exist (or inhere) within the laws of physics. So metaphysically, there is no foundation for morals in a materialist universe. It has oft been correctly stated that one cannot argue from "what is the case" (mere descriptions of the natural state, which is all science ever does) to "what ought to be." There is no "ought" in the laws of physics. All that "is" follows solely from physical processes obeying inviolable physical laws. In the atheist universe, everything "does what comes naturally." No "wrong" ever occurs; "right" and "wrong" are not properties of matter. Everything is merely matter in motion. [We should add that no mental freedom, volition, or rationality would occur either, as all "thoughts" and vocalization of such would also be the inviolable results of "what comes naturally."] The moral theory of the atheist is bankrupt, both metaphysically and epistemologically.
In conclusion, all of the above destroy the pretense of atheists and agnostics who claim to make "moral" pronouncements. When you hear a proponent of scientism make pronouncements on moral judgments, just remind him (that on his own terms): "You don't know what you are are talking about."
1 Of course, this presupposition of scientism is neither an empirical observation nor a logical tautology. It is, therefore, not a scientific statement and, thus, not an object of knowledge. It is self-refuting. ↩
For instance, unbelievers -- on the basis of the presupposed properties of a godless universe -- cannot give coherent accounts of their "knowledge," in general, or of their moral judgments.
In particular, when it comes to morals, the unbeliever has no basis whatsoever for making moral pronouncements. This follows directly from the typical belief of the so-called "scientific" worldview that only science yields knowledge. This viewpoint is called scientism. In that epistemology (based on the so-called "logical-empirical approach"), only things that are empirical or can be logically deduced are known1. Ipso facto, that belief excludes moral knowledge.
First, moral laws are not perceived via the senses (empirically). One cannot see, touch, taste, hear or smell moral laws. Moral laws (like laws of logic) are immaterial, they are not natural. They are not discovered "in a test tube." Second, moral laws are not logical tautologies. Thus, by the atheist's espoused (and non-self attesting) epistemology, moral laws are inaccessible to human knowledge. Moral laws are unknowable and unknown. This reduces the atheist to absolute moral skepticism.
The result is that for the unbeliever, moral pronouncements are arbitrary and matters of subjective opinion. Moral laws are, then, just social constructions, whether by custom or legislation. In the case of legislation, they are established by power -- either a consensus of a majority in democracies (political power then determines the morality of the age) or by brute force in totalitarian regimes and dictatorships. There are American secular norms; there are Islamic fascist norms, communist norms, Nazi norms -- all of which, inter alia, are arbitrary.
So far, we are discussing the self-contradiction of those who believe in "morality;" albeit an unknowable, subjective, non-absolute code of conduct. Of course, this means there really is no morality in any sense; there is only legality as encoded in arbitrary legislation and conformity (or non-conformity) to changing social customs dictated by individual tastes. Today's "evil" may be tomorrow's "righteousness." This further means the unbeliever has no basis for making a "legal/moral" dichotomy or the claim that there are "unjust laws" ("That may be legal but it is morally suspect").
In addition, we should mention that those who espouse the epistemology of scientism typically hold to some form of materialism. In that case, not only are moral judgments unknown, but morals would not exist. Morality does not exist (or inhere) within the laws of physics. So metaphysically, there is no foundation for morals in a materialist universe. It has oft been correctly stated that one cannot argue from "what is the case" (mere descriptions of the natural state, which is all science ever does) to "what ought to be." There is no "ought" in the laws of physics. All that "is" follows solely from physical processes obeying inviolable physical laws. In the atheist universe, everything "does what comes naturally." No "wrong" ever occurs; "right" and "wrong" are not properties of matter. Everything is merely matter in motion. [We should add that no mental freedom, volition, or rationality would occur either, as all "thoughts" and vocalization of such would also be the inviolable results of "what comes naturally."] The moral theory of the atheist is bankrupt, both metaphysically and epistemologically.
In conclusion, all of the above destroy the pretense of atheists and agnostics who claim to make "moral" pronouncements. When you hear a proponent of scientism make pronouncements on moral judgments, just remind him (that on his own terms): "You don't know what you are are talking about."
1 Of course, this presupposition of scientism is neither an empirical observation nor a logical tautology. It is, therefore, not a scientific statement and, thus, not an object of knowledge. It is self-refuting. ↩
Monday, September 16, 2013
The Apologetic Situation: Claims to Knowledge
In an apologetic
debate, the situation is not that both unbeliever and
believer have shared epistemological standards, and that we
are just to argue from supposed brute facts to a "best" or
"probable" conclusion concerning the existence of God. But,
sadly, this is the typical approach used by Christian
evidentialists in their approach to apologetics. In so
arguing, they have adopted the unbeliever's non-self-verifying standards and have adopted an antitheistic
presupposition. They have reduced themselves to the
skeptical position of the unbeliever in which there is no
certain knowledge of anything.
To be sure, there is a purely formal agreement between belief and unbelief regarding deduction, induction, and the scientific method -- but the similarity ends there. The disagreement is over the nature, source, and authority of these. The unbeliever has no justification for his principles of deduction or induction or why the scientific method works. They are all merely assumed in his worldview. They are also epistemological presuppositions that do not comport with his espoused metaphysics (e.g., how immaterial, abstract, unchanging laws of thought arise out of ever-changing material in flux.). The unbeliever can provide no reason for reason.
For instance, the unbeliever must assume the future will be like the past (uniformity of nature) in order for induction to proceed, but he has no proof of such. It is not a necessary truth, it cannot be deduced or demonstrated. Induction itself cannot be invoked to support induction. It is a circular argument. Past and present evidence provides no basis for extrapolation to the future. The only appeal is "so far, so good." It is a faith commitment. Hume's skeptical argument regarding induction remains unanswered. Further, the unbeliever cannot even assign a probability to the uniformity of nature. That would require him to know everything -- to have been everywhere for all time -- to be God.
The same problem exists with causation. Causation (continued necessary conjunction of causes and effects) itself assumes the uniformity of nature. This is a faith commitment. Unbelievers of a superficial scientific bent (which is the majority of unbelievers in this modern age of technology) have repeatedly said things of the sort: nature appears to be orderly, let's assume it's so.
Let's not. As Christians we do not. To assume this in vacuo is to assume the atheist presupposition that the material universe is the totality of reality -- self-existent with eternal inherent properties. This is the atheist's circular (and self-contradictory) faith commitment. The morally culpable unbeliever worships the creation rather than the Creator (Romans 1:25). But, the universe is not the totality of reality, it is not self-existent, and the idea of eternal physical matter is self-contradictory.
According to modern physics, the world is not quite as orderly as the scientifically naive say. The modern view of naturalistic science is that reality is a combination of both law (supposed invariant properties of matter) and lawlessness (irreducible and unknowable chance, i.e., metaphysical irrationalism). On this basis, the claim that nature is uniform is completely undermined since what occurs is, in fact, given by ultimate lawlessness (lack of causality) filtered through inexplicable law-like patterns (properties of matter). Some even assert that the laws themselves are also "flukes" and not necessarily invariant (e.g., John A. Wheeler's remark: "The only law is the law that there is no law," quoted in James Gleick, Genius: the Life and Science of Richard Feynman (1993), p.93). The unbeliever doesn't even know if additional undiscovered forces are "lurking in the unknown mysterious universe," only to be triggered by some catastrophic uncaused random event. In any case, the unbeliever, in the face of such, is devoid of knowledge. He cannot even claim he has a mind engaged in volitional reasoning. Whatever physical processes are occurring in his physical brain are also lawless random events filtered through a maze of patterns. His brain is nothing more than a quantum mechanical pachinko machine, in which every "thought" is nothing more than random effects -- the clatter of random motions of pachinko balls. There is nothing in those random processes that can be called a "mind" or the free exercise of "reason." There is nothing in his brain that corresponds to a self that is making arguments and logical choices. Yet, in the face of such analysis, the unbeliever asserts his freedom (autonomy) and personality, and holds that rationality is accounted for by the (nonexistent) mind of man -- not the mind of God. The unbeliever then presumes to argue against Christ by way of his (nonexistent in his worldview) "autonomous reason." An incredible example was Christopher Hitchens: "Nonetheless, here I am reasoning." [Hitchens-Wilson interview Imus in the Morning.] It is in the light of such evidence (atheists actually arguing against Christianity) that Bahnsen remarks that "if naturalism is true, the naturalist has no reason to believe it" and that the atheist has already lost the debate by showing up at the debate. That is: The unbeliever's worldview is self-contradictory and his actions do not comport with his metaphysical presuppositions.
So then, the unbeliever cannot account for and neither does he know these things (induction, uniformity of nature), and since he has no knowledge of them, anything derived from them is not knowledge. Therefore, with no knowledge, there is no certain foundation from which he can conduct a case to judge any fact or prove anything. In short, nothing in the unbeliever's worldview yields certain knowledge of the external world. And with that goes the claim of scientism: "only science yields knowledge." A claim that, we have mentioned before, is itself not a scientific truth, since it is neither deducible nor empirically observed. Thus, not being science, the claim declares itself to be not known.
The Christian does have justification for each of the above (deduction, induction, the uniformity of nature) in the absolute transcendent God, the eternal Sovereign Creator of the cosmos.
God has created man in His image with volition and a mind that has the capacity to think rationally according to the abstract laws of thought ("logic"). These laws of logic as constituted in man are a reflection of God's thoughts.
The law of induction works because God is the author of physical causation and the uniformity of nature, and according to his unchanging character, He maintains the creation; the laws he has created will be the same tomorrow as they are today and were yesterday. Only on the presupposition of the absolute personal God revealed in the Bible can a scientist make the claim to knowledge. Only on the basis of Christianity is there knowledge, and that knowledge is rooted in the certain knowledge of God.
To be sure, there is a purely formal agreement between belief and unbelief regarding deduction, induction, and the scientific method -- but the similarity ends there. The disagreement is over the nature, source, and authority of these. The unbeliever has no justification for his principles of deduction or induction or why the scientific method works. They are all merely assumed in his worldview. They are also epistemological presuppositions that do not comport with his espoused metaphysics (e.g., how immaterial, abstract, unchanging laws of thought arise out of ever-changing material in flux.). The unbeliever can provide no reason for reason.
For instance, the unbeliever must assume the future will be like the past (uniformity of nature) in order for induction to proceed, but he has no proof of such. It is not a necessary truth, it cannot be deduced or demonstrated. Induction itself cannot be invoked to support induction. It is a circular argument. Past and present evidence provides no basis for extrapolation to the future. The only appeal is "so far, so good." It is a faith commitment. Hume's skeptical argument regarding induction remains unanswered. Further, the unbeliever cannot even assign a probability to the uniformity of nature. That would require him to know everything -- to have been everywhere for all time -- to be God.
The same problem exists with causation. Causation (continued necessary conjunction of causes and effects) itself assumes the uniformity of nature. This is a faith commitment. Unbelievers of a superficial scientific bent (which is the majority of unbelievers in this modern age of technology) have repeatedly said things of the sort: nature appears to be orderly, let's assume it's so.
Let's not. As Christians we do not. To assume this in vacuo is to assume the atheist presupposition that the material universe is the totality of reality -- self-existent with eternal inherent properties. This is the atheist's circular (and self-contradictory) faith commitment. The morally culpable unbeliever worships the creation rather than the Creator (Romans 1:25). But, the universe is not the totality of reality, it is not self-existent, and the idea of eternal physical matter is self-contradictory.
According to modern physics, the world is not quite as orderly as the scientifically naive say. The modern view of naturalistic science is that reality is a combination of both law (supposed invariant properties of matter) and lawlessness (irreducible and unknowable chance, i.e., metaphysical irrationalism). On this basis, the claim that nature is uniform is completely undermined since what occurs is, in fact, given by ultimate lawlessness (lack of causality) filtered through inexplicable law-like patterns (properties of matter). Some even assert that the laws themselves are also "flukes" and not necessarily invariant (e.g., John A. Wheeler's remark: "The only law is the law that there is no law," quoted in James Gleick, Genius: the Life and Science of Richard Feynman (1993), p.93). The unbeliever doesn't even know if additional undiscovered forces are "lurking in the unknown mysterious universe," only to be triggered by some catastrophic uncaused random event. In any case, the unbeliever, in the face of such, is devoid of knowledge. He cannot even claim he has a mind engaged in volitional reasoning. Whatever physical processes are occurring in his physical brain are also lawless random events filtered through a maze of patterns. His brain is nothing more than a quantum mechanical pachinko machine, in which every "thought" is nothing more than random effects -- the clatter of random motions of pachinko balls. There is nothing in those random processes that can be called a "mind" or the free exercise of "reason." There is nothing in his brain that corresponds to a self that is making arguments and logical choices. Yet, in the face of such analysis, the unbeliever asserts his freedom (autonomy) and personality, and holds that rationality is accounted for by the (nonexistent) mind of man -- not the mind of God. The unbeliever then presumes to argue against Christ by way of his (nonexistent in his worldview) "autonomous reason." An incredible example was Christopher Hitchens: "Nonetheless, here I am reasoning." [Hitchens-Wilson interview Imus in the Morning.] It is in the light of such evidence (atheists actually arguing against Christianity) that Bahnsen remarks that "if naturalism is true, the naturalist has no reason to believe it" and that the atheist has already lost the debate by showing up at the debate. That is: The unbeliever's worldview is self-contradictory and his actions do not comport with his metaphysical presuppositions.
So then, the unbeliever cannot account for and neither does he know these things (induction, uniformity of nature), and since he has no knowledge of them, anything derived from them is not knowledge. Therefore, with no knowledge, there is no certain foundation from which he can conduct a case to judge any fact or prove anything. In short, nothing in the unbeliever's worldview yields certain knowledge of the external world. And with that goes the claim of scientism: "only science yields knowledge." A claim that, we have mentioned before, is itself not a scientific truth, since it is neither deducible nor empirically observed. Thus, not being science, the claim declares itself to be not known.
The Christian does have justification for each of the above (deduction, induction, the uniformity of nature) in the absolute transcendent God, the eternal Sovereign Creator of the cosmos.
God has created man in His image with volition and a mind that has the capacity to think rationally according to the abstract laws of thought ("logic"). These laws of logic as constituted in man are a reflection of God's thoughts.
The law of induction works because God is the author of physical causation and the uniformity of nature, and according to his unchanging character, He maintains the creation; the laws he has created will be the same tomorrow as they are today and were yesterday. Only on the presupposition of the absolute personal God revealed in the Bible can a scientist make the claim to knowledge. Only on the basis of Christianity is there knowledge, and that knowledge is rooted in the certain knowledge of God.
For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. (Colossians 1:16-17)So then, the unbeliever, in sinful rebellion, takes himself as the final authority and presumes to explain reality by means of his own merely assumed and inexplicable non-self-verifying principles. He rejects God's revelation surrounding him and within him by his assumed incoherent philosophy of necessity, chance, and his own autonomy. As his own final authority, he asserts his freedom and personality. He presumes to interpret himself, his existence (as uncreated by God), and the facts of a godless and impersonal random universe (of which he, too, is just a random fact). He falsely takes himself as an innocent truth seeker and in no need of a Redeemer. Christians believe none of that. Our final authority is the self-attesting and self-authorizing absolute God who is the Creator of man and the cosmos; it is in terms of God's revelation in the Bible and in nature that we interpret ourselves and the cosmos. From that we have the assured basis of true knowledge, human reason, deduction, induction, and the scientific method. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge.
God... hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; (Hebrews 1:1-3)
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. (John 1:1-3)
Saturday, August 10, 2013
Heideggerian Nonsense. Asking the Wrong Questions Revisited.
In a discussion over the certain existence of the Christian God, an
interlocutor, who admitted that his position had been poked full of holes (a refreshingly honest response), attempted the diversion: "Rather than
asking about the existence of God, one should ask why there is
something rather than nothing." This is sheer desperation and atheism unadulterated.
That question is Heidegger's famous question (or pseudo-question).
As Michael Inwood has written in his book Heidegger: A Very Short Introduction, depending on whom you ask,
So then: The issue is not that there is "something"; the issue is the nature of that eternal and ultimate "something." Both sides in the debate have an ultimate. The ultimate "something" of atheism of the material monist variety is eternal impersonal matter 2. Material monism explains nothing. This worldview of a "godless material universe" is self contradictory (e.g., eternal matter is incoherent as discussed here), and further, it cannot account for immaterial abstract entities such as logic, absolute morality, minds, human free agency, or rationality. . .none of which can emerge from mere "matter in motion."
There are also the atheists of the pluralist sort, those who merely posit a plurality of eternal, incoherent co-ultimates. This incoherent reality is populated with such things as realms of abstract logic and abstract moral laws, chance, matter, minds, space-time, and a whole host of other brute facts. This is, essentially, atheistic Platonism. This incoherent philosophy explains nothing, as well as violates the principle of Ockham's razor, of which most atheists are very fond -- unless it applies to them. These Platonic brute-fact worlds of the pluralist interact magically via Platonic mysteries! These are even more brute facts. This is a great deal of question begging. We will deal with this version of atheism in a future essay.
All varieties of atheism contradict themselves and resort to question-begging presuppositions and special pleading. They end in futility and destroy the possibility of knowledge. So then, we know God exists because of the impossibility of the contrary (transcendental argument or apagogical argument via internal critique). Since atheism, on its own presuppositions and its epistemological "standard," is self-refuting, there is a God.
In Christian theism, ultimate reality is the personal Triune God who is the Creator and who sustains the universe. He is the source of all life, morality, rationality and the whole of creation. Again, it is ONLY Christian theism which is consistent and provides the foundations for all of human experience.
That question is Heidegger's famous question (or pseudo-question).
As Michael Inwood has written in his book Heidegger: A Very Short Introduction, depending on whom you ask,
"He [Heidegger] was (with the possible exception of Wittgenstein) the greatest philosopher of the twentieth century. He was (with the possible exception of Hegel) the greatest charlatan ever to claim the title of 'philosopher', a master of hollow verbiage masquerading as profundity."To ask Heidegger's question (a prejudicial question that, in itself, presupposes a reality of pure contingency) is to deny it. To ask "why . . . rather than . . ." is to ask for a causal agency, and such a causal agent is then itself "something." The question is meaningless and self-contradictory, pure and simple -- empty verbiage masquerading as profundity. The venerable maxim "Ex nihilo nihil fit"1 has no exceptions. Heidegger was a charlatan.
So then: The issue is not that there is "something"; the issue is the nature of that eternal and ultimate "something." Both sides in the debate have an ultimate. The ultimate "something" of atheism of the material monist variety is eternal impersonal matter 2. Material monism explains nothing. This worldview of a "godless material universe" is self contradictory (e.g., eternal matter is incoherent as discussed here), and further, it cannot account for immaterial abstract entities such as logic, absolute morality, minds, human free agency, or rationality. . .none of which can emerge from mere "matter in motion."
There are also the atheists of the pluralist sort, those who merely posit a plurality of eternal, incoherent co-ultimates. This incoherent reality is populated with such things as realms of abstract logic and abstract moral laws, chance, matter, minds, space-time, and a whole host of other brute facts. This is, essentially, atheistic Platonism. This incoherent philosophy explains nothing, as well as violates the principle of Ockham's razor, of which most atheists are very fond -- unless it applies to them. These Platonic brute-fact worlds of the pluralist interact magically via Platonic mysteries! These are even more brute facts. This is a great deal of question begging. We will deal with this version of atheism in a future essay.
All varieties of atheism contradict themselves and resort to question-begging presuppositions and special pleading. They end in futility and destroy the possibility of knowledge. So then, we know God exists because of the impossibility of the contrary (transcendental argument or apagogical argument via internal critique). Since atheism, on its own presuppositions and its epistemological "standard," is self-refuting, there is a God.
In Christian theism, ultimate reality is the personal Triune God who is the Creator and who sustains the universe. He is the source of all life, morality, rationality and the whole of creation. Again, it is ONLY Christian theism which is consistent and provides the foundations for all of human experience.
1 Out of Nothing Comes Nothing.↩
2 The term "monism" is actually a verbal ruse, which I
plan to address in a future blog post.↩
Monday, November 26, 2012
Pride and Prejudice - The Sins of Dogmatic Agnosticism
Recently, I was surprised in a conversation when an agnostic
suggested that I may be suffering from the "sin of pride" in regard
to my knowledge of and certain proof of the existence of God. He
expressed it something like this: "You seem to have all the
answers." The agnostic also remarked that he was more likely to
listen to someone if he were more modest or humble in his
assertions. Now, I wonder if he would entertain such an attitude
toward an accountant keeping track of his money. This is an example
of the agnostic's false prejudice. He thinks that science yields
knowledge -- nothing else does. Of course, this prejudice is
neither a tautology nor an empirical fact, so it is not scientific
and hence, to the agnostic, not knowledge. But it is his article of
faith; totally subjective -- pure and unalloyed.
My friend's remarks betray the inconsistent and self-refuting presuppositions of dogmatic agnosticism - founded on human pride and prejudice.
The agnostic's axiom of faith (yes, agnosticism is irrational fideism) is that in the religious realm there is no truth -- or if there is, it cannot be known. A corollary of this is that God - if there be one - is incapable of revealing himself or that he has done so incompetently (the usual and erroneous complaint is that there are contradictions in the Bible) -- and thus cannot be known.
Agnosticism itself is a religious stance, and thus the agnostic declares his own agnosticism to be not a fact of knowledge. He is thus a fideist, even though he maintains his agnosticism on supposed "facts." He operates on these "facts" using the machinery of logic and the scientific method -- two abstract principles which he cannot account for or justify on his own presuppositions. This makes him an irrationalist, too. But such is the religion of "scientism" that boasts of its rationality and reason!
The end result of all this is that the agnostic's skeptical religion has already made big claims about reality. That is the prejudice. As Cornelius Van Til has written:
And as to the agnostic's supposed "humbleness" Van Til continues:
Such is the agnostic's pride.
To the agnostic, it is the impersonal "unknown" that has endowed him with autonomy, thought and rationality and set him on the sovereign throne as the ultimate arbiter of everything. Man is the measure of all things. No matter that such things as thought and rationality would not exist in a godless reality. The agnostic's stance is that he is the center of all things -- whether there be a God or not. As C.S. Lewis summarized, pride is ". . . the complete anti-God state of mind." (Mere Christianity)
So, contrary to my friend's charge that the Christian who claims certitude and knowledge of God is guilty of pride, it is my friend who is guilty of pride. In fact, his charge is absurd since God tells us that such knowledge is certain -- and God is the judge of what is pride, not the agnostic's subjective and arbitrary pronouncement. The agnostic has no basis for the charge, nor does he realize that his charge of "sin" presupposes God. The agnostic's charge of pride -- having no moral justification and basis for the existence of sin -- is self-refuting and futile.
But then. . . all anti-theistic thought is self-contradictory and futile.
Proverbs 16:18 18 Pride goes before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.
2 Corinthians 10:3-5 3 For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh: 4 (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;) 5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
My friend's remarks betray the inconsistent and self-refuting presuppositions of dogmatic agnosticism - founded on human pride and prejudice.
The agnostic's axiom of faith (yes, agnosticism is irrational fideism) is that in the religious realm there is no truth -- or if there is, it cannot be known. A corollary of this is that God - if there be one - is incapable of revealing himself or that he has done so incompetently (the usual and erroneous complaint is that there are contradictions in the Bible) -- and thus cannot be known.
Agnosticism itself is a religious stance, and thus the agnostic declares his own agnosticism to be not a fact of knowledge. He is thus a fideist, even though he maintains his agnosticism on supposed "facts." He operates on these "facts" using the machinery of logic and the scientific method -- two abstract principles which he cannot account for or justify on his own presuppositions. This makes him an irrationalist, too. But such is the religion of "scientism" that boasts of its rationality and reason!
The end result of all this is that the agnostic's skeptical religion has already made big claims about reality. That is the prejudice. As Cornelius Van Til has written:
". . . the point we should be most anxious to drive home is that in trying to be agnostic, and in trying to say that they have no need of metaphysics, they have already given one of the two possible answers to every question of epistemology that may be asked. They have, as a matter of fact, said that all the facts . . . exist apart from God and are able to get along without God. They think they have said nothing at all about ultimate matters, while as a matter of fact they have in effect said everything that could be said about them, and, we believe, more beside. They have tried to be so modest that they did not dare to make a positive statement about anything ultimate, while they have made a universal negative statement about the most ultimate consideration that faces the mind of man. " (Van Til, A Survey Of Christian Epistemology) .
And as to the agnostic's supposed "humbleness" Van Til continues:
"Incidentally, we may point out that, in addition to being psychologically and epistemologically self-contradictory, the agnostic is morally self-contradictory. His contention was that he is very humble, and for that reason unwilling to pretend to know anything about ultimate matters. Yet he has by implication made a universal statement about reality. He therefore not only claims to know as much as the theist knows, but he claims to know much more. More than that, he not only claims to know much more than the theist, but he claims to know more than the theist’s God. He has boldly set bare possibility above the theist’s God and is quite willing to test the consequences of his action. It is thus that the hubris of which the Greeks spoke so much, and upon which they invoked the wrath of the gods, appears in new and seeming innocent garb." (Van Til, A Survey of Christian Epistemology).
Such is the agnostic's pride.
To the agnostic, it is the impersonal "unknown" that has endowed him with autonomy, thought and rationality and set him on the sovereign throne as the ultimate arbiter of everything. Man is the measure of all things. No matter that such things as thought and rationality would not exist in a godless reality. The agnostic's stance is that he is the center of all things -- whether there be a God or not. As C.S. Lewis summarized, pride is ". . . the complete anti-God state of mind." (Mere Christianity)
So, contrary to my friend's charge that the Christian who claims certitude and knowledge of God is guilty of pride, it is my friend who is guilty of pride. In fact, his charge is absurd since God tells us that such knowledge is certain -- and God is the judge of what is pride, not the agnostic's subjective and arbitrary pronouncement. The agnostic has no basis for the charge, nor does he realize that his charge of "sin" presupposes God. The agnostic's charge of pride -- having no moral justification and basis for the existence of sin -- is self-refuting and futile.
But then. . . all anti-theistic thought is self-contradictory and futile.
Proverbs 16:18 18 Pride goes before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.
2 Corinthians 10:3-5 3 For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh: 4 (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;) 5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
Monday, July 25, 2011
Invasion of the Atheist Robots, Part II
In my previous blog posting regarding the logical consequences of material monism, I showed that it is self-contradictory because it asserts that all of human experience is merely the compelled effects of the physical properties of matter. I also mentioned my latest discovery in the blogosphere of Sam Harris' assertion that he is a robot -- a mindless automaton of the universe. But there are more.
A second example of an atheist robot is found in the writings of Stephen Hawking. A material monist, such as Hawking, believes there are no "minds," just physical brains. So then, it is no surprise, when in the following link, (Hawking: There is No Heaven), Hawking declares that we are merely "meat computers," i.e., we are just like our familiar desktop computers, except that our brains are composed of meat rather than silicon.
To my knowledge, Hawking has not disavowed man's free agency, though he openly sacrifices his rationality on the altar of the goddess Tyche ("chance"). Hawking states in the above article, "Science predicts that many different kinds of universe will be spontaneously created out of nothing. It is a matter of chance which we are in."
Science predicts no such thing.
We have already pointed out previously (here) that the "nothing" of Hawking is most definitely something. It is a configuration of quantum fields (which is something) that have a total energy balance of zero -- but to say that a configuration of matter with zero energy (and even the reference point for zero energy is conventional) is "nothing" would be akin to saying the assets of a person with net worth zero is "nothing" in spite of the fact that it is merely that the value of his many assets is equal to the amount of his debts. It is remarkable what nonsense such brilliant men will utter!
Then we also have Hawking's appeal to "chance." "Chance," of course, is the correlate of lawlessness, the unexplained, or stuff from the surd. As it turns out, no physical experiment has shown the existence of "chance." Atheists worship it nonetheless. Be that as it may, if it were "chance" that decided in which universe Hawking found himself, it is also "chance" that dictates his every action -- Hawking can have no waivers. It would follow that Hawking's "reasoning" itself would be the result of random events dictated by quantum dynamics. He would not be a "free thinker"-- as many atheists tout -- but a mindless robot uttering random propositions dictated by lawless "chance." So much then for Hawking's rationality and denial of God.
The same analysis applies to all self-contradictory freedom-denying atheist "robots." On the atheist worldview, there is no transcendent reality -- the material universe is all there is. In this case, man is nothing more than a part of the material universe and thus totally governed by material laws. Mindless matter grants no waivers.
In Christianity, on the other hand, there is an ultimate reality that transcends the world -- the Transcendent Triune God. Only on the presupposition of theism is man free from physical determinism, since he is the creation of a transcendent living Triune God who has created the physical world and has created man with a nature that is not totally physical -- but physical and spiritual. Man's created spirit is not ruled by material laws and his will is independent of those laws. It is the seat of rationality, of self, and of the will. Christian theism is the only worldview that accounts for all of human experience, that breaks the shackles of material monism, and accounts for the rationality of man.
A second example of an atheist robot is found in the writings of Stephen Hawking. A material monist, such as Hawking, believes there are no "minds," just physical brains. So then, it is no surprise, when in the following link, (Hawking: There is No Heaven), Hawking declares that we are merely "meat computers," i.e., we are just like our familiar desktop computers, except that our brains are composed of meat rather than silicon.
To my knowledge, Hawking has not disavowed man's free agency, though he openly sacrifices his rationality on the altar of the goddess Tyche ("chance"). Hawking states in the above article, "Science predicts that many different kinds of universe will be spontaneously created out of nothing. It is a matter of chance which we are in."
Science predicts no such thing.
We have already pointed out previously (here) that the "nothing" of Hawking is most definitely something. It is a configuration of quantum fields (which is something) that have a total energy balance of zero -- but to say that a configuration of matter with zero energy (and even the reference point for zero energy is conventional) is "nothing" would be akin to saying the assets of a person with net worth zero is "nothing" in spite of the fact that it is merely that the value of his many assets is equal to the amount of his debts. It is remarkable what nonsense such brilliant men will utter!
Then we also have Hawking's appeal to "chance." "Chance," of course, is the correlate of lawlessness, the unexplained, or stuff from the surd. As it turns out, no physical experiment has shown the existence of "chance." Atheists worship it nonetheless. Be that as it may, if it were "chance" that decided in which universe Hawking found himself, it is also "chance" that dictates his every action -- Hawking can have no waivers. It would follow that Hawking's "reasoning" itself would be the result of random events dictated by quantum dynamics. He would not be a "free thinker"-- as many atheists tout -- but a mindless robot uttering random propositions dictated by lawless "chance." So much then for Hawking's rationality and denial of God.
The same analysis applies to all self-contradictory freedom-denying atheist "robots." On the atheist worldview, there is no transcendent reality -- the material universe is all there is. In this case, man is nothing more than a part of the material universe and thus totally governed by material laws. Mindless matter grants no waivers.
In Christianity, on the other hand, there is an ultimate reality that transcends the world -- the Transcendent Triune God. Only on the presupposition of theism is man free from physical determinism, since he is the creation of a transcendent living Triune God who has created the physical world and has created man with a nature that is not totally physical -- but physical and spiritual. Man's created spirit is not ruled by material laws and his will is independent of those laws. It is the seat of rationality, of self, and of the will. Christian theism is the only worldview that accounts for all of human experience, that breaks the shackles of material monism, and accounts for the rationality of man.
Monday, June 27, 2011
Invasion of the Atheist Robots
In recent postings, I have written on the logical consequences of material monism. Material monism is self-contradictory -- it asserts that all of human experience is merely the compelled effects of the physical properties of matter. But this is the same as the assertion that things turn into their opposites -- by way of magic. Examples are: life from lifeless matter, minds from mindlessness, logic and mathematics from a-logical and a-mathematical matter, and morals from amoral matter. And for some, freedom emerges from physical compulsion.
There are two types of these "rational" monists.
The first type of monist (of which Richard Dawkins is an example), is one who asserts that he is free. We have dealt with that conceit here. The other group (of which William Provine is an example, discussed here) follows the logical consistency of their presuppositions, reject the miracle of Dawkins, and deny that they are free. This follows easily, since once a mechanism. . .always a mechanism. Thus, they use their rationality to deny their freedom, and so deny their own rationality. In short, they use rationality to deny rationality!
In perusing the blogosphere, it appears that the ranks of atheists promoting man as a mere robot without freedom from physical determinism are swelling.
The newest self-proclaimed robot I have discovered is Sam Harris. Harris's rejections can be found here:
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/free-will-why-you-still-dont-have-it/
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/morality-without-free-will/
In both of those essays, Harris supposes he is engaging in a rational argument. . .but one compelled by physics! Remarkable! In the second article above, Harris argues for morality compelled by physics! Yet another absurd miracle! To say that a purely material system (such as Harris in Harris's atheistic materialism) is logically and morally obligated to act a certain way is absurd. Matter is only "obliged" to act according to physical laws. Because of this, robots cannot exhibit moral or rational acts. Nonetheless, Harris asserts that he is a robot. And all of this is arrived at via a viciously circular argument rooted in the metaphysical bias of material monism.
A particularly muddled remark occurs at the end of the first article, viz., "the illusion of free will is itself an illusion."
Here by Harris's analysis, we have a supposedly rational conclusion which is itself an illusion compelled by physics. But what could it mean? If the illusion is an illusion, then on the normal meaning of the word "illusion," the "false appearance of free will" is itself a false appearance -- normal usage would either take Harris as contradicting himself or suggesting a rather nonsensical infinite regress of illusions. He has committed a faux pas -- perhaps though (in analogy with his illusion illusion), he would prefer he had committed a faux faux pas.
The issue of human freedom from physical causation extends deeper than ethical issues, such as the repudiation of moral choices and human responsibility. Even Searle in Rationality in Action has written, inconsistently with his naturalism, that rationality presupposes free will. To state it briefly: Naturalism cannot even account for the illusion of rationality, as there would be no “reason.” Yet, Harris expects us to rationally follow his reasoning -- or maybe he doesn't. Could it be that Harris is not the author, but rather a mindless robot?
But such is the absurdity to which atheism descends -- rather than worshiping their Creator, they worship "omnipotent" matter by way of their prideful faith in the "rationality" of "omnipotent" science. A rationality and science which is inexplicable in a purely material reality.
Romans 1:18-19 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.
Romans 1:25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
There are two types of these "rational" monists.
The first type of monist (of which Richard Dawkins is an example), is one who asserts that he is free. We have dealt with that conceit here. The other group (of which William Provine is an example, discussed here) follows the logical consistency of their presuppositions, reject the miracle of Dawkins, and deny that they are free. This follows easily, since once a mechanism. . .always a mechanism. Thus, they use their rationality to deny their freedom, and so deny their own rationality. In short, they use rationality to deny rationality!
In perusing the blogosphere, it appears that the ranks of atheists promoting man as a mere robot without freedom from physical determinism are swelling.
The newest self-proclaimed robot I have discovered is Sam Harris. Harris's rejections can be found here:
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/free-will-why-you-still-dont-have-it/
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/morality-without-free-will/
In both of those essays, Harris supposes he is engaging in a rational argument. . .but one compelled by physics! Remarkable! In the second article above, Harris argues for morality compelled by physics! Yet another absurd miracle! To say that a purely material system (such as Harris in Harris's atheistic materialism) is logically and morally obligated to act a certain way is absurd. Matter is only "obliged" to act according to physical laws. Because of this, robots cannot exhibit moral or rational acts. Nonetheless, Harris asserts that he is a robot. And all of this is arrived at via a viciously circular argument rooted in the metaphysical bias of material monism.
A particularly muddled remark occurs at the end of the first article, viz., "the illusion of free will is itself an illusion."
Here by Harris's analysis, we have a supposedly rational conclusion which is itself an illusion compelled by physics. But what could it mean? If the illusion is an illusion, then on the normal meaning of the word "illusion," the "false appearance of free will" is itself a false appearance -- normal usage would either take Harris as contradicting himself or suggesting a rather nonsensical infinite regress of illusions. He has committed a faux pas -- perhaps though (in analogy with his illusion illusion), he would prefer he had committed a faux faux pas.
The issue of human freedom from physical causation extends deeper than ethical issues, such as the repudiation of moral choices and human responsibility. Even Searle in Rationality in Action has written, inconsistently with his naturalism, that rationality presupposes free will. To state it briefly: Naturalism cannot even account for the illusion of rationality, as there would be no “reason.” Yet, Harris expects us to rationally follow his reasoning -- or maybe he doesn't. Could it be that Harris is not the author, but rather a mindless robot?
But such is the absurdity to which atheism descends -- rather than worshiping their Creator, they worship "omnipotent" matter by way of their prideful faith in the "rationality" of "omnipotent" science. A rationality and science which is inexplicable in a purely material reality.
Romans 1:18-19 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.
Romans 1:25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Philosophical Houses of Glass
As the saying goes, "People living in circular philosophies should not toss circular objections" -- or something like that.
A frequent charge against Presuppositional Apologetics is that it is a circular argument -- it presupposes Christian theism in order to prove Christian theism.
This objection comes from atheists -- who live in an irrational and circular philosophy -- but, amazingly, also comes from Christians.
This objection has been put forward by "Classical" Christian apologist Professor William Lane Craig. Craig writes in Five Views on Apologetics (p. 232-3):
To add to the perplexity, in Craig's criticism above, he pays a somewhat begrudging compliment to presuppositionalism, viz.
But there is a deeper hidden inconsistency in Craig's objections. When Craig says presuppositionalism is guilty of a "logical howler" we should ask, "To what logic is he appealing?" If he is presupposing logic as constituted in man by God, then he is presupposing Christian theism and is guilty of the same "logical howler." If he is not, then he is presupposing "neutral" logic -- in that case Craig is presupposing atheist logic, contrary to his Christian profession -- either way Craig's assertion is incoherent. Of course, we know this because presuppositionalism, contra Craig's "classical" apologetic, is consistently Christian. On the other hand, Craig's "classical" apologetic is blatantly anti-theistic. As Van Til repeatedly illustrated in his writings, Craig's apologetic adopts the unbeliever's standards of objectivity and the unbeliever's commitment to his autonomous reasoning as the ultimate authority. So then, Craig is not only arguing in a vicious circle, he is arguing from within the unbeliever's viciously circular presuppositions.
Bahnsen has addressed this false charge of circular argument repeatedly. Let me conclude with Greg Bahnsen's, succinct analysis from Pushing the Antithesis (p.123-5). Here is a corrected quote (omitted text is enclosed in brackets):
A frequent charge against Presuppositional Apologetics is that it is a circular argument -- it presupposes Christian theism in order to prove Christian theism.
This objection comes from atheists -- who live in an irrational and circular philosophy -- but, amazingly, also comes from Christians.
This objection has been put forward by "Classical" Christian apologist Professor William Lane Craig. Craig writes in Five Views on Apologetics (p. 232-3):
"As commonly understood, Presuppositionalism is guilty of a logical howler: it commits the informal fallacy of petitio principii, or begging the question, for it advocates presupposing the truth of Christian theism in order to prove Christian theism…A Christian theist himself will deny that question-begging arguments prove anything…But at the heart of presuppositionalism lies an argument, often not clearly understood or articulated, which is very powerful. This is an epistemological transcendental argument…"C.L. Bolt, on Choosing Hats has posted an analysis of William Lane Craig's objections to presuppositionalism (quoted above) in his post, William Lane Craig's Inconsistent Objections to Presuppositional Argument. In summary, C.L. Bolt points out the glaring inconsistency of Craig's objection: Craig claims on one hand that TAG has never been "spelled out" adequately but then asserts that TAG is circular ("guilty of a logical howler").
To add to the perplexity, in Craig's criticism above, he pays a somewhat begrudging compliment to presuppositionalism, viz.
"But at the heart of presuppositionalism lies an argument, often not clearly understood or articulated, which is very powerful. This is an epistemological transcendental argument…"So then, apparently TAG has been spelled out sufficiently for Craig to recognize the power of TAG. If TAG is powerful, then one wonders how it is committing a "logical howler!" Craig cannot have his cake and eat it too, as another famous saying goes.
But there is a deeper hidden inconsistency in Craig's objections. When Craig says presuppositionalism is guilty of a "logical howler" we should ask, "To what logic is he appealing?" If he is presupposing logic as constituted in man by God, then he is presupposing Christian theism and is guilty of the same "logical howler." If he is not, then he is presupposing "neutral" logic -- in that case Craig is presupposing atheist logic, contrary to his Christian profession -- either way Craig's assertion is incoherent. Of course, we know this because presuppositionalism, contra Craig's "classical" apologetic, is consistently Christian. On the other hand, Craig's "classical" apologetic is blatantly anti-theistic. As Van Til repeatedly illustrated in his writings, Craig's apologetic adopts the unbeliever's standards of objectivity and the unbeliever's commitment to his autonomous reasoning as the ultimate authority. So then, Craig is not only arguing in a vicious circle, he is arguing from within the unbeliever's viciously circular presuppositions.
Bahnsen has addressed this false charge of circular argument repeatedly. Let me conclude with Greg Bahnsen's, succinct analysis from Pushing the Antithesis (p.123-5). Here is a corrected quote (omitted text is enclosed in brackets):
"Before moving to our next response against the anti-metaphysical bias, you should be aware of a possible response that the unbeliever will bring against you. He will complain that you are engaging in circular reasoning or the informal logical fallacy of begging the question. That is, since we assert that God is self-verifying, we are assuming God in order to prove God. However, we should note in response to this objection:
(1) We are not engaged in special pleading for the Christian worldview. We are simply asking which system makes human experience intelligible. For sake of argument, we will grant the unbeliever his system with whatever foundations he adopts in order to see if it can justify its truth claims. But then he will have to grant us ours (for sake of argument) to see if we can justify our truth claims. By the very nature of our God as the self-existing, eternal Creator, our worldview self-justifies its starting point. (We will later explain this two-step procedure of worldview critique.)
(2) All systems must ultimately involve some circularity in reasoning. For instance, when you argue for the legitimacy of the laws of logic, you must employ the laws of logic. How else can you justify laws of logic? This is a transcendental issue, an issue that lies outside of the temporal, changing realm of sense experience. Laws of logic do not change: they are universal, invariant, abstract principles.
(3) "Circularity" in one's philosophical system is just another name for 'consistency' in outlook throughout one's system. That is, one's starting point and final conclusion cohere with each other. Here it is more fully explained:
The "circularity" of a transcendental argument is not at all the same as the fallacious 'circularity' of an argument in which the conclusion is a restatement (in one form or another) of one of its premises. Rather, it is the circularity involved in a coherent theory (where all the parts are consistent with or assume each other) and which is required when one reasons about a precondition for reasoning. [Because autonomous philosophy does not provide the preconditions for rationality or reasoning,] its "circles" are destructive of human thought--i.e. "vicious" and futile endeavors.(4) The unbeliever has no defensible standard whereby he can judge the Christian position. His argument either ends up in infinite regress (making it impossible to prove), has no justification (rendering it subjective), or engages in an unjustifiable same-plane circularity (causing it to be fallacious). Without a self-verifying standard, he has no epistemological way out. And only the Christian worldview has such a self-verifying standard.
Sunday, April 17, 2011
The Abolition of Morality, the Abolition of Man
In issue #82 of Philosophy Now, there is a series of articles on atheistic moral theories. These are categorized as the familiar "moral relativism" and "moral skepticism." These theories deny objective or absolute morality and embrace subjective and relative moral judgment ("different strokes for different folks").
Nevertheless, at bottom, all of these atheistic theories have a common presupposition of human autonomy and, thereby, a teleological (action for the sake of an end) basis for their ethos -- be it the variety of pragmatism, utilitarianism, relativism, errantism, or fictionalism. All of the discussion depends upon man having the ability to be guided by utilitarian goals (an act is "good" based on what it achieves) and ability to choose among alternative actions according to subjective (dependent upon the subject) or relative rules (such as mere societal conventions).
But! Since atheistic monism and human autonomy are antithetical, none of these philosophical discussions are rational. They are irrational at their very core! On their worldview, man cannot make choices, but only acts as he must. Therefore, the teleology that their moral theories assume is merely a phantom.
Of particular note is the article by Richard Garner titled, "Morality, the Final Delusion." Garner bites the bullet and compares the existence of morality with the existence of God. Taking his lead from Richard Dawkins, he is bold enough to say that belief in morality is the "Morality Delusion!" Thus we see that in the end, the atheist makes his bold assertions concerning his metaphysics using the supposed power of "his" autonomous reason. But such "rationality" -- which, again on his worldview, can only be the irresistible effect of matter obeying the fundamental laws of quantum mechanics -- is not reason following resistible fundamental laws of logic. There are no fundamental laws of logic in a universe ruled solely by the fundamental laws of physics.
The atheist's irrational faith in his rational autonomy is the final and only area of philosophy he will maintain to the bitter end. It would be remarkable if Garner would logically assert the concept of the "Logic Delusion!" To assert such is obviously delusion in itself. But it is the inescapable consequence of monism. Such are the pretensions and self-contradictions of atheism.
Nevertheless, at bottom, all of these atheistic theories have a common presupposition of human autonomy and, thereby, a teleological (action for the sake of an end) basis for their ethos -- be it the variety of pragmatism, utilitarianism, relativism, errantism, or fictionalism. All of the discussion depends upon man having the ability to be guided by utilitarian goals (an act is "good" based on what it achieves) and ability to choose among alternative actions according to subjective (dependent upon the subject) or relative rules (such as mere societal conventions).
But! Since atheistic monism and human autonomy are antithetical, none of these philosophical discussions are rational. They are irrational at their very core! On their worldview, man cannot make choices, but only acts as he must. Therefore, the teleology that their moral theories assume is merely a phantom.
Of particular note is the article by Richard Garner titled, "Morality, the Final Delusion." Garner bites the bullet and compares the existence of morality with the existence of God. Taking his lead from Richard Dawkins, he is bold enough to say that belief in morality is the "Morality Delusion!" Thus we see that in the end, the atheist makes his bold assertions concerning his metaphysics using the supposed power of "his" autonomous reason. But such "rationality" -- which, again on his worldview, can only be the irresistible effect of matter obeying the fundamental laws of quantum mechanics -- is not reason following resistible fundamental laws of logic. There are no fundamental laws of logic in a universe ruled solely by the fundamental laws of physics.
The atheist's irrational faith in his rational autonomy is the final and only area of philosophy he will maintain to the bitter end. It would be remarkable if Garner would logically assert the concept of the "Logic Delusion!" To assert such is obviously delusion in itself. But it is the inescapable consequence of monism. Such are the pretensions and self-contradictions of atheism.
Saturday, December 18, 2010
Inexplicable! And That's No Lie!
Every fact of human experience is proof of theism and, therefore, a disproof of atheism and, thereby, also of agnosticism. This is the transcendental argument for the existence of God -- God exists because of the impossibility of the contrary.
The other day I was pondering the slogan that some people make about our former President, "Bush lied, people died."
But what is this human act called "lying"?
First, lying requires intentionality. A lie is to knowingly utter a statement contrary to the truth in order to deceive. In this regard, the slogan above is a claim that Bush intentionally said there were WMD in Iraq, while he knew there were none. Thus, the slogan is an extraordinary claim since most of the world's leaders and intelligence agencies believed Iraq possessed WMD. Regardless of why the nearly worldwide agreement on intelligence data was faulty, without that moral dimension, speaking or believing a falsehood is not a lie -- it is merely an error. Otherwise, students answering examinations incorrectly are the biggest group of liars in all of creation.
Moreover, lying is a sin! Sin is the breaking of God's commands. But for atheists, lying could not be considered a sin, since to them, there is no God. In that case lying becomes "good" or "bad" according to situational relativism. Of course "good" or "bad" is not absolute to the atheist -- "good" or "bad" means "good" or "bad" in terms of consequences for oneself or the conventions of one's social group.
For many of the godless, lying is a means to an end. But this brings us to the crux of the problem for atheists.
The laws of physics have the property that they have no memory of the past and no goal for the future. They are "ignorant" of the past and "blind" to the future (to use the usual anthropomorphizing of an insensate material universe) . The atheist worldview of materialism embodied in the laws of physics states that the future depends only upon the state of reality now. This implies two things:
It is further inexplicable that man as an absolute physically determined system can utter a false description of reality in order to deceive and attempt to alter, influence or otherwise elicit a desired response from other humans to achieve a self-centered goal. Man's mental states, being no more than mere results of "random" quantum mechanical fluctuations, can then have no causal efficacy -- they cannot cause electrons to swerve from their paths. Mental states are to the physical brain as a person's shadow is to the body. As a result "mental" states cannot alter physical brain states, just as the body's shadow cannot produce body motions.
"Lying" as an immoral act rests upon the presuppositions of mental causation, logical laws, human free agency, intentionality, and moral laws, none of which would exist in a purely physical reality.
The very act of lying is impossible and inexplicable in a Godless reality. So then, the human act of lying is proof of God. On the other hand, the atheist believes in things -- such as lying -- that his fundamental presuppositions deny. Such are the contradictions of atheism and its self-refuting pretensions.
The other day I was pondering the slogan that some people make about our former President, "Bush lied, people died."
But what is this human act called "lying"?
First, lying requires intentionality. A lie is to knowingly utter a statement contrary to the truth in order to deceive. In this regard, the slogan above is a claim that Bush intentionally said there were WMD in Iraq, while he knew there were none. Thus, the slogan is an extraordinary claim since most of the world's leaders and intelligence agencies believed Iraq possessed WMD. Regardless of why the nearly worldwide agreement on intelligence data was faulty, without that moral dimension, speaking or believing a falsehood is not a lie -- it is merely an error. Otherwise, students answering examinations incorrectly are the biggest group of liars in all of creation.
Moreover, lying is a sin! Sin is the breaking of God's commands. But for atheists, lying could not be considered a sin, since to them, there is no God. In that case lying becomes "good" or "bad" according to situational relativism. Of course "good" or "bad" is not absolute to the atheist -- "good" or "bad" means "good" or "bad" in terms of consequences for oneself or the conventions of one's social group.
For many of the godless, lying is a means to an end. But this brings us to the crux of the problem for atheists.
The laws of physics have the property that they have no memory of the past and no goal for the future. They are "ignorant" of the past and "blind" to the future (to use the usual anthropomorphizing of an insensate material universe) . The atheist worldview of materialism embodied in the laws of physics states that the future depends only upon the state of reality now. This implies two things:
- There is absolutely no teleology in physical systems -- there is no goal-orientated direction.
- The future is compelled by laws of physics channeled via irrational quantum chance.
It is further inexplicable that man as an absolute physically determined system can utter a false description of reality in order to deceive and attempt to alter, influence or otherwise elicit a desired response from other humans to achieve a self-centered goal. Man's mental states, being no more than mere results of "random" quantum mechanical fluctuations, can then have no causal efficacy -- they cannot cause electrons to swerve from their paths. Mental states are to the physical brain as a person's shadow is to the body. As a result "mental" states cannot alter physical brain states, just as the body's shadow cannot produce body motions.
"Lying" as an immoral act rests upon the presuppositions of mental causation, logical laws, human free agency, intentionality, and moral laws, none of which would exist in a purely physical reality.
The very act of lying is impossible and inexplicable in a Godless reality. So then, the human act of lying is proof of God. On the other hand, the atheist believes in things -- such as lying -- that his fundamental presuppositions deny. Such are the contradictions of atheism and its self-refuting pretensions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)