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.]

Hitchens on Deathbed Conversion. Did Hitchens just say he has a soul?

In a recent interview, which you can view here, Christopher Hitchens, who is dying from esophageal cancer, was anxious to dispel, ahead of time, any possibility that some religious groups might try to exploit a "supposed" death-bed conversion.  He wants to assure us that even if he should utter such a conversion, it would be the chemicals in his brain speaking rather than himself.  As he put it, “It would not have been made by me.  The entity making such a remark might be -- you know -- a raving, terrified person whose cancer has spread to the brain.”

So, he tells us we can rest assured that despite such an event, the real Hitchens is as unrepentant yesterday as he is today, and so shall he be forever.  Any such turn to Christ would be a "fake" C. Hitchens -- a Hitchens controlled by chemicals.  Which brings us to the inconsistency of Hitchens' claim. 

He acts and speaks as if there is a "real" C. Hitchens distinguishable from chemistry in his brain -- but on Hitchens' account of reality, "he" is only matter controlled by physical laws, and he has always been controlled by physics.  The only way to make sense of his statement is that he believes there is a part of himself that is independent of physical laws and immune to changes in his physical state, and "that" C. Hitchens  is the one he feels compelled to assert is real and unrepentant to the end. But such a part -- a persistent, rationally reasoning part that is independent of physical laws and material reality --   is an immaterial part that Christian theism calls his soul.

But that places him on Christian ground -- a ground that he irrationally denies.   Christopher Hitchens is still suffering from intellectual schizophrenia.  Such are the self-contradictions and the absurdities of atheism.

Authority and the "Heathen"

An agnostic friend has suggested that quoting Scripture in this blog is "preaching to the choir," and that if I really want to reach the heathen I should consider omitting it.  However, the theme of this blog is the presuppositional defense of Christianity.  Christian theism is defended as a whole, and is not a hypothesis to be established by anti-theistic and anti-Christian methodologies. Christian theism rests upon God's revelation in the Bible -- so I am perplexed as to how one can defend Christian theism without a Bible!  Would I first demonstrate the truth of the Bible based on a higher authority than God - an authority that exists independently of God, whether He exists or not?

My friend's suggestion is even more confusing given that he asserts, as do all agnostics, that there are no demonstrations or proofs of theism, or more generally that knowledge of God is not possible -- and so then, by a stronger argument, there could be no demonstrations or proofs of Christian theism.  On that view, don't quote the Bible and don't present any reasons for the defense of Christian theism, because the Bible may be false, reason is supreme and, thus, there is no defense of Christian theism.


That point of view sets up a game with a stacked deck.  How can one "reach the heathen" on such terms?  It's impossible!  On those terms, the heathen are unreachable -- by definition. Of course, the agnostic's assertion of "no proof" is itself a very huge claim about the nature of ultimate reality and of God's place (or non-place) in that reality (to be expanded at a later time).  As Van Til aptly put it, the issue is not between saying something about ultimate reality or saying nothing.  Rather, the issue is between saying one thing or saying something entirely different.  So then agnosticism, as a philosophy, is not "neutral" -- it has said everything about the type of God it might allow. And that God is emphatically not the true God of Christian theism. So much then for the supposed noble "open mindedness" of agnosticism.

You see, agnostics have an ultimate authority, too.  Agnosticism rests on the presupposition of the reliability and authority of autonomous human reason.  But when you challenge an atheist or agnostic to provide the basis for that authority, you will very likely be presented with a look of incredulity.   Some may even think you are denying logic and reason when you challenge them to provide the reasons (on the terms of their worldview) for the authority of reason. Of course Christians are not denying logic and reason.  Again, it is an issue of saying one thing or something entirely different.  On the agnostic's side we have autonomous human reason; on the Christian side we have reason as created in man's mind by God.  The latter is intelligible, the former is not.

Of course, material monism provides no basis for the existence of human reason.  In material monism -- in which all that exists is matter-in-motion evolving in time by way of random physical forces -- there is no room for human freedom.  And what is more, if there is no room for human freedom, there can be no room for free human thinking and reason, either.  So then, no matter how much Dawkins, Hitchens and others appeal to their "independent thinking" guided by the scientific method that led them to their "beliefs"  -- their "appeal"  is incredible and inexplicable.

Furthermore, material monism cannot account for human intentionality guided by adherence to abstract laws of logic/reason.  For in that view, all human "motions" are forced motions produced and determined by ultimate irreducible blind chance.  This "human reason" would have developed from a mindless and unguided universe of matter evolving by chance over time.  On that view, the material universe is mindless, purposeless, alogical, and absent of morals.  So then, materialism not only has no absolute morality and purpose (of all varieties), but it cannot even provide a basis for the existence of subjective morality and relative purpose that the atheist and agnostic alike fall back upon!

So then on the above analysis, neither atheists nor agnostics can account for the existence of reason and the scientific method that are their authorities.  A previous blog entry mentions Professor William Provine, an atheist who -- to his credit -- states openly that materialism leaves no room for human freedom.  As a typical atheist scientist who employs and  relies on the scientific method, he is an example of a walking, talking self-contradiction of atheism.  Professor Provine cannot, on one hand, be a free, independent thinker, guided by logic and the scientific method, and also be a purely and absolutely dependent physical system guided solely by mindless quantum mechanical chance. These two views are antithetical.  Materialism and physical laws are fundamentally a-teleological, while human planning and human reasoning via abstract logical principles are teleological.  Men do actions "in order to...."  Such are the internal contradictions of atheism.

Atheists and agnostics (the "heathen") are sinners in God's creation and need to be presented with their sin in all its manifestations.  Their prideful and irrational faith in autonomous reason and consequent unbelief and rejection of God is sin.  Whether they are "reached" is by grace -- and that grace comes from the God of the Bible.  So then, there are two issues at work here.  There is the apologetic task and there is evangelism -- both require the Bible.  It is true that in the course of the apologetic task, evangelism may also occur, but conviction and conversion are in the hands of God.

Should I not quote Scripture to defend the truth of Christian theism, and should I not quote Scripture to reach the heathen? What does God say?

"So then faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God."  Romans 10:17.

An "Honest" Atheist? Not quite.

In the movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, atheist William Provine of Cornell University unabashedly stated the logical consequence of his materialist atheism when he announced that there is no "free will."  BINGO! As Provine said, this conclusion "follows" rather easily from "belief in evolution."

On the materialist worldview, all processes are the result of random quantum actions at the subatomic level.  Provine's actions would be the determined effects of the "orderly universe"   -- hence there would be no human freedom from the laws of the physical universe (a human being is nothing more than a random collocation of atoms -- mere chunks or physical "subsystems" of the universe, the "Big System").

Is Provine an atheist with more depth of thought than Dawkins or Hitchens? Or at least more honesty?

What doesn't jibe on Provine's worldview is that if there is no "free will," there can be no "free thought," either.  And since honesty presupposes individual freedom from the tyranny of physical laws, Provine's conclusion would not exhibit "honesty."  In materialism, the mind and thoughts are an "epiphenomenon" -- mere effects.  There is no such thing as true mental causation, consequently, no free thinking and no free will.

This undermines Provine's entire exposition on how "reasoning" about Darwinism led him to rejection of God -- and then ironically to rejection of free will, and then necessarily to rejection of "free thought!"  Too bad the real Provine didn't  step forward to the microphone and announce that his "logical argument" or "reasoning" is inexplicable, since he has no free thought. I can understand why he would not, or why he has not thought of such, since that admission would undermine his whole argument, indeed, every word he utters.  It would sound absurd -- which of course it is!

There is irony in Provine's remarks regarding his students near the end of Expelled:

"I don't care what they end up as being.  I don't care if they end up being religious or a young earth creationist. If they have thought their way through the issues and get there -- I'm all for them."

Here Provine speaks as if there is such a thing as free thought, when he has denied such!  On Provine's worldview, Provine can't help himself -- nor can his students!

It seems that Provine is not a better "thinker" than his atheist friends, Dawkins and Hitchens, after all. Christians can legitimately say, that Provine -- a resident in God's universe, in which honesty is a real moral attribute -- exhibits a degree of intellectual honesty. This is more than Provine can say of himself since he denies the existence of morality and that he has any free intellectual actions.  Such is the absurdity of atheism.

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.

You Can’t Oppose Something with Nothing! (Part 2)

In a previous post, I briefly commented on the Hitchens-Wilson interview on Imus. No doubt the condensed exchange will not convince any atheist that atheism is irrationalism in its most advanced and refined form. But to those who know the truth and who “are ready always to give an answer to every man that asks a reason of the hope that is in you,” Hitchens' abject failure is palpable. In addition to failing to provide a rational account of how a naturalistic metaphysics justifies his epistemology and ethics, Hitchens commits several faux pas in the interview. The failure to provide rational accounts for the foundations of one's epistemology is the “epistemological loafing” of all atheists. The two faux pas are Hitchens ' blatant “unscientific science” (a symptom of his epistemological loafing) and faulty reasoning as to what constitutes “sufficient proof.” (I’ll pass commenting on the straw man of lumping all religions into one basket and using non-Christian beliefs to attack Christianity.)

Epistemological loafing.

Hitchens continues the myth that atheism need not prove anything – that it is the theist who must prove God’s existence. According to Hitchens, the theist has the “tougher job.” The theist must prove God’s existence and until such proof is presented, then Hitchens and his “reason” can exist quite well without God. The problem with this mistaken notion is that the atheistic “scientific” worldview purports to explain everything in terms of matter which is governed by the laws of physics (reductionism). But if that is so, then Hitchens must provide the reductionistic explanation for his “reason” (epistemology). An impossible task that Hitchens conveniently ignores!

Hitchens’ view is symptomatic of atheists and is a case of what Cornelius Van Til called “epistemological loafing.” Put succinctly it is the idea that epistemology requires no metaphysical foundations and that such realities as consciousness, minds, laws of logic or even mathematics and the scientific method require no explanation. Such a view just posits these as unexplained and unrelated brute facts. This is a view that is fundamentally at odds with the supposedly “scientific” atheist philosophy.

Scientific reductionism – that everything springs from matter in motion and physics – requires a scientific explanation tracing the observed realities of consciousness, minds, laws of logic, etc., back to the material foundation. Hitchens refuses to answer or explain how logic arises from “colliding billiard balls” (as Wilson described the reductionist world view) – and thus indeed Hitchens' epistemology is suspended from a quite unscientific “sky hook." Hitchens' methodological presuppositions are impossible in the godless reality posited by his metaphysical commitments. Again Hitchens continues the atheist tradition of ignoring such and refusing to address the tough questions.

Unscientific Science! Or Hitchens does believe in the “Sky Hook!”

Hitchens totally ignored Wilson’s “sky hook” challenge. In an amazing sequence, Hitchens’ defense of reason is nothing more than a statement of the empirical fact that he is reasoning! But the scientific method does not account for phenomena by merely restating the phenomena! That is no explanation and is a vicious circularity, which I demonstrate with a hypothetical example. My hypothetical neighbor is a radical “afordist” – that is he denies that there is a Ford Motor company. Yet he owns and drives a Ford motor vehicle. One day as my neighbor pulled into his driveway in his Ford, I challenged him to account for the existence of his Ford in his "Ford-Motor-Company-less" reality. He responded,“Speaking of Fords, nonetheless here I am driving one!” We would certainly be amazed at such a statement, and, no doubt, marvel at the audacity that such was proffered as an explanation! Yet, Hitchens offers the same response! An observation is not an explanation of an observation – science does not work that way. . . .So much for Hitchens ' “scientific” worldview. Reason is just a “brute fact!” Wilson is right – Hitchens believes in “sky hooks!”

Even worse, however, is Hitchens’ view of “reason,” which is even more bankrupt. Hitchens called his “reason”, a “dim candle” and called it the only candle he has. He then conceded that it may “yield paradoxes and contradictions”! And as above, Hitchens and all other atheists have yet to provide an account of how logic arises from the motion of matter. Logic, being non physical, cannot emerge from a long chain of physical processes. The physical only begets the physical – to believe otherwise is to believe in the impossible. Yet, unbelievers continue to believe in realities emerging from the “void,” rather than acknowledge God, their Creator.

Sufficient “Proof?”

Amazingly, Hitchens seemed to be pleased that the empirical fact of the many divergent and contradictory religions in the world is a “sufficient proof” of atheism. Wilson handily disposed of Hitchens by responding that the Biblical account of sin also explains the existence of divergent religions. So much for the “sufficiency” of Hitchens' “proof.” The important point: That Hitchens thinks this is a sufficient proof reveals much about the shallowness of his beliefs.


What is it about “Reductionism” that Hitchens doesn’t grasp?

Reductionism asserts that all that exists is the material universe governed by the laws of physics. So, it should go without saying that the only laws that exist are physical laws. According to reductionism, everything else is explained by, and emerges from, matter-in-motion.

Written in terms of scientific “disciplines,” we would have:
Physics –> Chemistry -> Biology -> Consciousness –> “Reason” / “Logic” –> Ethics/Morality, and so on.

The only laws are those at the bottom (i.e. physical laws). We have yet to see the explanation of how nonphysical immaterial realities such as mind, reason, laws of logic and mathematics, for instance, arise from the random collocation of physical matter (“clatter of billiard balls”). Wilson challenged Hitchens to explain such. Hitchens declined.


Innate Morality?

Hitchens would be closer to an intelligible statement if he claimed that the laws of physics are a brute fact and innate to matter – those laws being inviolable and universal in space and time. But as above, in the atheist reductionist worldview, the only reality is matter in motion (a la Wilson’s billiard ball illustration) and the only laws are the inviolable laws of physics – there are no moral “laws.” Wilson effectively rebutted Hitchens when he pointed out  that according to Hitchens evolutionary worldview there are no constant, universal moral laws; thus, in the evolutionary worldview there is no innate morality -- so Hitchens contradicts himself yet again.

According to physics, all that exists is a variety of physical activities of random material subsets of the universe. The random “moral” behaviors are the natural effects of random physical processes. Some subsets act one way, others some other way. We would expect diverse “biological” systems to exhibit diverse non-invariant, non-universal “norms.” For some female organisms, males are a tasty post-coital meal. And there are humans who eat other humans. Now Hitchens may object to such for humans (but arbitrarily so in his godless universe), but it is clear such is not “innate” in the world Hitchens posits. There is nothing reprehensible or commendable about physical systems evolving according to strict physical laws. One man likes Coca-Cola, another likes Pepsi – some men consume other men, some men don’t. So then, there may be behaviors of atoms that are what Hitchens would like to call “moral” – but such is mere nominalism. Such “laws” change through time, and vary in different locales. Thus, there are no absolute moral “laws” – societal norms are arbitrary and relative to the local society – one man’s law is another man’s oppression, one group’s “good” is another group’s “evil.”

Such “laws” are, of course, violated repeatedly, both within and between “societies” (and necessarily so, since such “violations” are caused by the underlying inviolable physical laws)! In the atheist worldview all we have is one piece of the universe “complaining” about the physically determined “behavior” of another piece of the universe. This is absurd. Such moral “concepts” are, at rock bottom, meaningless in the atheist worldview.

Of course, men do have a sense of morality because they are created by God.  Hitchens relies on a perverted use of such when he rails against Christianity.  Hitchens, like all atheists, attacks Christianity using moral precepts that are only intelligible in the Christian wordlview.

Collision Highlights the Great Antithesis: A DVD Worth Having

David L. Bahnsen's review of Collision.

Collision Highlights the Great Antithesis: A DVD Worth Having