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.

TAG at 25

As 2010 draws to a close, it seems hard to believe that it has been 25 years since Greg Bahnsen’s presuppositional apologetic first laid waste to atheistic philosophy in his debate with Gordon Stein. It was in that debate that Bahnsen referred to Van Til’s presuppositional approach as the "Transcendental Argument for God" or TAG.  The short sloganized version of the argument is Van Til’s statement that the Christian God exists because of the impossibility of the contrary.

Since that time there has been plenty written about TAG – a lot of it more noise and confusion based on a total misapprehension of the issues involved in the argument. To understate it, TAG is misunderstood by many. In fact, a lot of the noise surrounding TAG has come from Christian apologists of the so-called “classical” and "evidentialist" schools of apologetics. The most frequent of these charges is that TAG is circular. As well, this is a charge that occasionally comes from the man-in-the-street as a first-blush objection.

To dispel the mistaken charge of circularity, we should note first that historically Bahnsen’s debate opponents, Gordon Stein and Michael Martin, never made such a charge. Stein, for one, realized he had no answer to TAG and after the debate stated that he was working on a rebuttal; Stein never published a rebuttal. If the rebuttal were that TAG was circular, it is rather remarkable that an educated and intelligent man such as Stein never produced it. Then there is the professional philosopher, Michael Martin.  Martin has not charged TAG with circularity. If it were, Martin, too, would have had no problem producing the proof of circularity.

An oft-quoted aphorism states that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Martin, in fact, attempted to mimic TAG with his failed TANG (Transcendental Argument for the Non-existence of God). TANG, though not properly transcendental, attempted to be – and, as such, is a testament that Martin clearly understood the issues involved in TAG and recognized TAG’s power. But TANG, as Martin stated it, is intended to be a “counterexample” to TAG that thereby “logically” establishes that TAG is unsound. Therein lies the rub. Providing a supposed counterexample is not a transcendental refutation and is rather simply a restatement of an opposing worldview. To construct a transcendental argument, we must ask what are the contents of a worldview, and are they coherent, intelligible and not self-contradictory or self-refuting? In short, do they withstand the transcendental critique of being internally consistent (non-self contradictory) and non-arbitrary. Indeed Martin's worldview contents do not!  In fact the pluralistic godless world of Martin's TANG describes an impossible world which, in turn, proves God's existence!

In Martin’s case, his worldview is atheistic pluralism which he posits as the “necessary preconditions” for the non-existence of God. Of course, if God does not exist, he has no properties whatsoever (or whatever properties Martin wants God to have so that he would not exist under the postulates of his atheistic pluralism). The co-ultimate components of Martin’s pluralistic universe are nature, logic and morality. The God Martin describes in TANG is like one who awoke after an eternal nap and discovered himself surrounded by nature, logic and morality. In other words, physics, logic and morality are all ultimate and God is not. Such a God is not the God of Christian theism. The God of Christian theism is the ultimate being – and He is as He has revealed himself. To construct a counterexample based on a being who is not ultimate is simply a straw man, a logical fallacy, and misrepresents Bahnsen's point. So much for TANG being a counterexample to TAG and invalidating TAG!

So in the end, we have that TAG is not circular in the trivial manner that is charged – and this from the examples of atheists of repute among atheists.

What still remains then is the challenge of TAG to unbelievers, such as Martin, who merely posit the existence of one or more of the eternal uniformity of nature, morality, and abstract realities such as logic and mathematics. This is an incoherent mix of eternal impersonal ultimate things with no essential relation to each other. (And this does not include the additional challenge against the metaphysical irrationalism of the atheistic interpretation of quantum mechanics which calls into question any ultimate uniformity of the physical universe.)   Martin's incoherent mixture multiplies unrelated particulars and compounds unexplained irrational mysteries (for example, what is the source or basis of interactions between, physics, logic, and moral laws?).  On top of all this are the internal contradictions that spring from this mixture of "co-ultimates."

Since Martin is unable to provide an intelligible account of his absolutely independent and non-interacting eternal brute facts, he is unable to argue against Christianity on any ground whatsoever – whether it be morality, science, or logic.

For one example, Martin wants to appeal to “abstract logic” in TANG. But logic is a formalization of laws of thought -- that is of valid deduction -- and as such, logic presupposes a mind, and then a thinking being.  To postulate eternal mindless laws of thought is an absurdity.  But Martin doesn’t tell us where, when or how a mind came into being, whether there was always a mind (an eternal personal mind is something that is too close to theism for him, no doubt) or that it was born from matter-in-motion.

If Martin appeals to reality as just eternal matter and that the laws of physics are just expressions of the inherent properties of matter, one should see that the laws of logic are not inherent properties of matter. And if minds sprang out of matter, they are not free, and rather are always subject to the laws of physics – laws of thought nowhere enter the picture.

Without human free agency, one cannot provide an account of how matter obeying physical laws can generate actions that appear to conform to laws of logic, such as modus ponens, as just one example.  If someone would violate a law of logic in an argument and reach a false conclusion (compelled by physics, of course) it would be ridiculous to say the laws of physics were in error.  But such is one of the many contradictions of atheism.  Atheism is still transcendentally refuted by TAG.

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:

1.   There is absolutely no teleology in physical systems -- there is no goal-orientated direction.  
2.   The future is compelled by laws of physics channeled via irrational quantum chance.

This means that if man is purely a material system, as atheism claims, there can be no "means to an end."  And to the atheist, since man is quantum mechanically predetermined -- and his acts ultimately produced by irrational randomness -- even describing lying as a "means to an end" is inexplicable. 

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.

An Atheist's Miracle

The miraculous is the suspension or violation of natural laws.    For Christians,  miracles are the result of the supernatural agency of God.  It should go without saying that atheists of the material monist variety -- for which all that exists are material systems obeying natural laws -- deny miracles.  Prominent examples are Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and the recently discussed William Provine.

Here, we want to examine the atheism of Richard Dawkins.   Dawkins describes himself as a "dyed-in-the-wool monist."  A monist believes there are no "minds," just physical brains, and much like a computer, there are "brain states."  Man, being a purely physical system, must always be subject to purely natural laws.  The brain, too, is a physical system, controlled by the underlying natural laws -- thought being a mere passive epiphenomenon, with no causal agency.   It is a theorem of this worldview then, that man, as such,  cannot be free from natural laws, and, thus, there can be no human freedom.   William Provine can see this easily (as he has said), and -- as an almost-consistent naturalist --  asserts the absence of "free will." To deny this conclusion is to accept a supernatural suspension of natural law -- a miracle -- which Provine, consistent with his unadulterated material monism, rejects.

Which brings us to Richard Dawkins, who says:

"I am very comfortable with the idea that we can override biology with free will. Indeed, I encourage people all the time to do it."  (Counterbalance Foundation Interview) 

What we have here is an unabashed atheist miracle.  After millennia of being subject to physical causation, a physical system called "man" evolved by natural law and then spontaneously broke the shackles of natural law, violated the natural laws, thereby becoming henceforth "free."   Man's brain also became "free" to employ abstract (non-physical) logical principles and to reason.  This is an absurd and irrational miracle.   Dawkins can override biology at will and encourage others to do so, too.   Quite a miracle -- a physical system violating physical laws every second of every day.

Christian miracles are intelligible since God, the rational Being who created and upholds natural law, can intercede according to His will.  Likewise, Christians as dualists (man has both a material body and an immaterial soul), deny man is causally determined by physics.  So then, belief in Christian miracles is rational. . .Dawkins' belief in his atheist miracle of "free will" is irrational.

Richard Dawkins describes Christians as "dyed-in-the-wool-faith-heads" who are "immune to argument." He could not be more wrong -- Dawkins the self-styled "dyed-in-the-wool monist " with a belief that a natural system called man can override biology (which is just physics, after all)  is the one immune to reason.  Dawkins' faith in his atheist creed makes him a "dyed-in-the-wool-faith-head."  He will accept an irrational atheist "miracle," but deny the rational Christian miracles.

And to think Dawkins subtitled his website "...Reason and Science,  A Clear-Thinking Oasis."  Contrary to that slogan, Richard Dawkins is a most muddle-minded irrational "scientist," and that is saying a lot.

C.S. Lewis' Transcendental Argument

I am unaware if C.S. Lewis was familiar with Cornelius Van Til's apologetic work. Nevertheless, Lewis' realization of the futility of his objection to Christianity is a concise example of a transcendental critique that is at the core of the presuppositional defense of Christianity.  The transcendental critique of antiChristian philosophies is that they are all self-destructive -- and thus, there is no philosophical standoff between Christianity and antitheistic and antiChristian philosophies such as atheism, agnosticism and other religions.  C.S. Lewis saw that the presupposition of evil and injustice did not comport with his atheism, and thus his attack on Christianity was, in actuality, a fatal self-inflicted wound to his atheism.  Here is his argument in Mere Christianity:

My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such a violent reaction against it? A man feels wet when he falls into water, because man is not a water animal: a fish would not feel wet.  Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too--for the argument depended on saying the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my fancies. Thus, in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist - in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless - I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality - namely my idea of justice - was full of sense. Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple.  If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never have known it was dark. Dark would be without meaning. [Mere Christianity, pp.38-9.]

Asking the wrong question.

At the end of the movie Collision, Hitchens was asked whether he believes there is “cosmic justice” at the end of time. Hitchens – being somewhat consistent with his materialist worldview – replied that there is none. However, this is not really the right question to ask him, because such a question presupposes that there is such a thing as justice and does not challenge Hitchens to account for justice on his presuppositions.

The question should be not whether there is such a thing as justice whose demands are not satisfied, but rather that in Hitchens' materialist atheism, the world is intrinsically and fundamentally amoral. There is no such thing as "right" and "wrong" inherent in physical processes, and, hence, there is no such thing as justice. Period.

Hitchens – when he attempts to attack Christianity as immoral – is appropriating absolute moral laws which would not exist according to his material atheism.

That was one point Cornelius Van Til made regarding unbelievers – they finance their worldview / philosophy using the borrowed capital of Christian theism. They oppose Christianity by adopting the truths of Christianity. However, such opposition is thereby self-defeating.

When Hitchens attempts to use logic/reason to attack Christianity, he is again using Christian capital to assail Christianity. Logic does not exist in the atheist's world of material monism.

Hitchens' materialist world is not only amoral, it is also a-logical, and a-mathematical. It is impossible to climb the ladder of physicalism -- in which every rung is physical causation via inviolable physical laws – and reach the non-physical “Platonic” heaven of logic and mathematics. Such realities cannot emerge from physical processes. There is an infinite, insurmountable gap.

The alternative, some form of Platonic atheist pluralism (as held by atheist Michael Martin)- in which there are equal absolutely independent ultimates of matter, logic, moral laws, and mathematics - is just as contradictory and incoherent.

Atheism – whether of the material monism variety or a godless pluralism – is irrational belief in the impossible. But more on that another time.