As a hypothetical, consider that there is a person who holds to a unique religion and derives his worldview from this religious belief. Let’s say that in this religion, there is a triune, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent god who created the world in eight days and rested on the ninth; this god created a good world that was corrupted by his crowning creation, man, who sinned by drinking from the pool of self-authority; the god chose the man Obadiah to be the father of his special people, Murima; the nation of Murmia continually fell away from this god, even though he sent many prophets to bring them back to him; and this god sent his son, the second person in the godhead, named Klitsmar, to be born of a virgin, grow up, be tempted, teach the people, and die the terrible death of being flayed alive to redeem his people from their sins. Would such a religion, and the worldview resulting from it, provide a foundation for the preconditions of intelligibility?
Obviously, all I did was base this religion (let’s call it “Klitsmaranity”) directly on Christianity, only I changed many of the historical details. All of the ideas from Christianity that are necessary for the preconditions of intelligibility (a transcendent creator god who is just and requires a penalty for sin, a creation corrupted by the creation itself, and a substitutionary death by the son of god for his chosen people) remain intact. So while Klitsmaranity is not Christianity, like Christianity it would also be capable of providing a basis for the preconditions of intelligibility. Therefore, based on presuppositional apologetics, wouldn’t one have to conclude that Klitsmaranity is or could be true?
Obviously, Klitsmaranity is not a religion, and it isn’t even a particularly novel religion. So it would be rejected as truth because there is no evidence that a book detailing Klitsmaranity exists, that anyone follows Klitsmaranity, or that any of the events or people described every happened or existed.
I made up Klitsmaranity to illustrate why I do not think that presuppositional apologetics is the ultimate apologetic method. Klitsmaranity can not be discredited because it is self-contradictory or is arbitrary: the only thing that can is an examination of physical and historical evidence. To put it another way, I do not think that the Bible can be treated merely as a book with a collection of words, phrases, sentences, and statements in it, whose words, phrases, sentences, and statements alone are significant to prove itself true. The Bible came to mankind over time in history, and as such, we have to look at where the Bible came from. In similar fashion, Klitsmaranity is discredited because of where it comes from (a goofy theory put forward in a blog).
I think Klitsmaranity illustrates that there are other possible worldviews that are also capable of accounting for the preconditions of intelligibility and the way to discriminate between these worldviews is using something other than presuppositional apologetics. To reiterate, I am not suggesting that man can discriminate between religions autonomously, I am saying that the ability to discriminate comes from God to begin with, whether that is recognized or not. So a Christian would not have to appeal to worldly assumptions to show that something such as Klitsmaranity is false, he would only have to appeal to the preconditions of intelligibility, which the world holds to not knowing where they come from.
Saturday, October 2, 2010
Thoughts on Presuppositional Apologetics, Part 2
I have a couple questions about presuppositional apologetics. First, what is the reason why every other worldview, aside from the Biblical worldview, illogical? I have heard or read explanations for why some worldviews are illogical (materialism says only material things exist yet logic and reason are non-material, empiricism says only things that can be tested can be true yet it is impossible to test the preconditions of intelligibility), but there are lots of worldviews and probably many more possible worldviews that have not yet, or may never be articulated.
As an analogy, compare the Biblical worldview to a curve described by a single equation. Logic, reason, uniformity, and reliance on senses can be points on the curve. These points are going to be used (or will attempted to be used) by other worldviews, since any worldview will have some structure to it, and that structure will incorporate the preconditions of intelligibility. Now, it is possible to take several points from one curve and create a different curve that fits those exact same points. It is true that the more points that are borrowed from the original curve, the more complex the equation for the second curve becomes.
Might a similar thing work for worldviews? Any other worldview will borrow points from the Biblical worldview (namely, the various preconditions of intelligibility), but wouldn’t it be possible to construct a worldview that fits those points, even if it is a convoluted, complicated worldview? If it is possible for another worldview to fit the preconditions of intelligibility, then this worldview would not be inconsistent or hold to the preconditions of intelligibility arbitrarily, which are the two critiques presuppositional apologetics makes of all worldviews aside from Christianity.
My second question is, if logic, reason, uniformity, and the reliability of senses are derived from an understanding of God, even if that understanding of God is suppressed, wouldn’t it be possible to start with those things and work toward a demonstration of the validity of the Biblical worldview? Now, I am not suggesting that the Biblical worldview be constructed from an autonomous foundation of logic and reason. What I am suggesting is using logic and reason, which come from God whether it is acknowledged or not, to show how the world and history conform to the Biblical worldview. For instance, how can it be demonstrated that the Bible’s claim to be the Word of God is true? From my understanding of presuppositional apologetics, some would claim that the only legitimate way that does not question God’s authority would be to accept the Bible as the Word of God and then demonstrate its consistency.
But what about another method? Historical documentation shows that the Bible is a reliable historical document whose text has not been changed since its original writing. So the Bible can not be rejected as a recently constructed fable. The question still remains, how can the Bible’s claim to be the Word of God be demonstrated? Well, as the Bible was being written, many of the human authors of the Bible demonstrated their claim to be the mouthpiece of God by performing miracles. For instance, Moses demonstrated that God was working through him by turning Aaron’s rod to a serpent (Ex. 7:8-10) and Elijah showed he was a prophet of the true God by the showdown at Mt. Carmel (I Kings 18:36-37). Even Jesus demonstrated His authority by using miracles (Matt. 9:1-8, particularly verse 6). There may not be prophets today whom God is speaking through and using to perform miracles, but there is a record of these events in the Bible, and if the Bible is a reliable historical document, then these events, and others recorded therein, can be used as a credible witness to the claim that the Bible is the Word of God. I want to point out that I am not suggesting that the Biblical worldview be independently verified. Rather, I am suggesting that a remnant of general revelation (the preconditions of intelligibility) granted by God applied to demonstrations of God’s power (miracles recorded in the historically reliable Bible) can be used to demonstrate that God truly is God. I do not see this as subjecting God to a human test, I see it as God confirming Himself, insofar as humans assume the preconditions of intelligibility (whether it is rational or irrational, the assumption comes from general revelation), and we can use those preconditions of intelligibility to look at history (the Biblical record) to determine that God is God.
As an analogy, compare the Biblical worldview to a curve described by a single equation. Logic, reason, uniformity, and reliance on senses can be points on the curve. These points are going to be used (or will attempted to be used) by other worldviews, since any worldview will have some structure to it, and that structure will incorporate the preconditions of intelligibility. Now, it is possible to take several points from one curve and create a different curve that fits those exact same points. It is true that the more points that are borrowed from the original curve, the more complex the equation for the second curve becomes.
Might a similar thing work for worldviews? Any other worldview will borrow points from the Biblical worldview (namely, the various preconditions of intelligibility), but wouldn’t it be possible to construct a worldview that fits those points, even if it is a convoluted, complicated worldview? If it is possible for another worldview to fit the preconditions of intelligibility, then this worldview would not be inconsistent or hold to the preconditions of intelligibility arbitrarily, which are the two critiques presuppositional apologetics makes of all worldviews aside from Christianity.
My second question is, if logic, reason, uniformity, and the reliability of senses are derived from an understanding of God, even if that understanding of God is suppressed, wouldn’t it be possible to start with those things and work toward a demonstration of the validity of the Biblical worldview? Now, I am not suggesting that the Biblical worldview be constructed from an autonomous foundation of logic and reason. What I am suggesting is using logic and reason, which come from God whether it is acknowledged or not, to show how the world and history conform to the Biblical worldview. For instance, how can it be demonstrated that the Bible’s claim to be the Word of God is true? From my understanding of presuppositional apologetics, some would claim that the only legitimate way that does not question God’s authority would be to accept the Bible as the Word of God and then demonstrate its consistency.
But what about another method? Historical documentation shows that the Bible is a reliable historical document whose text has not been changed since its original writing. So the Bible can not be rejected as a recently constructed fable. The question still remains, how can the Bible’s claim to be the Word of God be demonstrated? Well, as the Bible was being written, many of the human authors of the Bible demonstrated their claim to be the mouthpiece of God by performing miracles. For instance, Moses demonstrated that God was working through him by turning Aaron’s rod to a serpent (Ex. 7:8-10) and Elijah showed he was a prophet of the true God by the showdown at Mt. Carmel (I Kings 18:36-37). Even Jesus demonstrated His authority by using miracles (Matt. 9:1-8, particularly verse 6). There may not be prophets today whom God is speaking through and using to perform miracles, but there is a record of these events in the Bible, and if the Bible is a reliable historical document, then these events, and others recorded therein, can be used as a credible witness to the claim that the Bible is the Word of God. I want to point out that I am not suggesting that the Biblical worldview be independently verified. Rather, I am suggesting that a remnant of general revelation (the preconditions of intelligibility) granted by God applied to demonstrations of God’s power (miracles recorded in the historically reliable Bible) can be used to demonstrate that God truly is God. I do not see this as subjecting God to a human test, I see it as God confirming Himself, insofar as humans assume the preconditions of intelligibility (whether it is rational or irrational, the assumption comes from general revelation), and we can use those preconditions of intelligibility to look at history (the Biblical record) to determine that God is God.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Thoughts on Presuppositional Apologetics, Part 1
This post, and the next few following it, will be centered around presuppositional apologetics. To summarize, presuppositional defends the Biblical Christian faith by starting with the Bible to demonstrate that the Bible is consistent while all other worldviews are illogical. Yes, this is circular reasoning, but it is necessary. A person’s metaphysics (criteria they use to judge something as true) and epistemology (things regarded to be true) are inter-related: you can’t take get one without the other. Therefore, any determination of the truth of a person’s metaphysics and epistemology must be judged on the metaphysics and epistemology itself. The question then is whether this circular reasoning is consistent or not. In practice, presuppositional apologetics is accomplished by showing how Christianity is the only worldview that provides a basis for the preconditions of intelligibility. The preconditions of intelligibility are those assumptions every person must make in order for thinking to occur. For instance, the laws of logic are preconditions of intelligibility: they are assumptions that are made in order to make sense of the world. Other preconditions of intelligibility are reliance on senses (the assumptions that one’s senses actually convey real, consistent information) and the principle of uniformity (the idea that the same laws of logic and nature apply everywhere in the world in time and space). Christianity provides a support for these preconditions of intelligibility in the nature of God and His act of creation. Since God is eternal, omnipresent, and unchanging, we can be assured that His creation will also be consistent. Since God made us to have dominion of His creation, and since God does not lie (is not deceptive), we can trust the senses He gave to us. Since God is eternal, wise, and just, we can rely on the unchanging nature and consistency of the laws of logic. In contrast, all other worldviews are either unable to account for the preconditions of intelligibility (and thus must adhere to these preconditions arbitrarily) or are contradictory to the preconditions of intelligibility, the resulting conclusion being that all other worldviews are inherently illogical.
That is a very brief summary of presuppositional apologetics. Of course, there is a whole lot more that can be said about it. If you are interested in learning more about presuppositional apologetics, I would recommend the book The Ultimate Proof of Creation: Resolving the Origins Debate by Dr. Jason Lisle, published in 2009 by Master Book. This is a fairly easy read. A more in depth book is Presuppositional Apologetics: Stated and Defended by Dr. Greg L. Bahnsen, edited by Joel McDurmon, published in 2008 by American Vision Press and Covenant Media Press. Also, there is a CD series, Defending the Christian Worldview Against all Opposition by Dr. Greg L. Bahnsen.
As you may notice from some of the titles that were given, presuppositional apologetics is presented as the end-all to all apologetics: presuppositional apologetics is unassailable and capable of defeating all other worldviews. In addition, it appears that presuppositional apologetics is presented as the only apologetics that a Christian should use; that all other apologetic arguments end up defeating Christianity, rather than supporting it. I am unclear as to the extent of this latter statement. For instance, I do not know whether a design argument for the existence of a Creator is seen as a faulty argument that should be rejected or is merely a weak argument that can only be supported by presuppositional apologetics. The unassailability and singular usage of presuppositional apologetics is the topic of the following posts.
That is a very brief summary of presuppositional apologetics. Of course, there is a whole lot more that can be said about it. If you are interested in learning more about presuppositional apologetics, I would recommend the book The Ultimate Proof of Creation: Resolving the Origins Debate by Dr. Jason Lisle, published in 2009 by Master Book. This is a fairly easy read. A more in depth book is Presuppositional Apologetics: Stated and Defended by Dr. Greg L. Bahnsen, edited by Joel McDurmon, published in 2008 by American Vision Press and Covenant Media Press. Also, there is a CD series, Defending the Christian Worldview Against all Opposition by Dr. Greg L. Bahnsen.
As you may notice from some of the titles that were given, presuppositional apologetics is presented as the end-all to all apologetics: presuppositional apologetics is unassailable and capable of defeating all other worldviews. In addition, it appears that presuppositional apologetics is presented as the only apologetics that a Christian should use; that all other apologetic arguments end up defeating Christianity, rather than supporting it. I am unclear as to the extent of this latter statement. For instance, I do not know whether a design argument for the existence of a Creator is seen as a faulty argument that should be rejected or is merely a weak argument that can only be supported by presuppositional apologetics. The unassailability and singular usage of presuppositional apologetics is the topic of the following posts.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Why is this a Land of Plenty?
Last week, President Obama made this statement:
Long before America was even an idea, this land of plenty was home to many peoples. The British and French, Dutch and Spanish, to Mexicans, to countless Indian tribes. We all shared this same land.
Obama has been rightly mocked for saying that Mexicans were here before America was, but I am most offended by the implication that this land is naturally plenteous, we just happen to be the ones living here. Americans MADE this land plentiful. The founders of America, starting with the Pilgrims, did not come over here and find a land bursting at its seams with plenty. They found a land of opportunity and they mde the most of that opportunity to make this land prosperous. But will Obama ever credit the prosperity of this land to American ideals? Of course not, because that runs counter to his ideology, which sees America as robbing resources, not creating resources.
Long before America was even an idea, this land of plenty was home to many peoples. The British and French, Dutch and Spanish, to Mexicans, to countless Indian tribes. We all shared this same land.
Obama has been rightly mocked for saying that Mexicans were here before America was, but I am most offended by the implication that this land is naturally plenteous, we just happen to be the ones living here. Americans MADE this land plentiful. The founders of America, starting with the Pilgrims, did not come over here and find a land bursting at its seams with plenty. They found a land of opportunity and they mde the most of that opportunity to make this land prosperous. But will Obama ever credit the prosperity of this land to American ideals? Of course not, because that runs counter to his ideology, which sees America as robbing resources, not creating resources.
Monday, September 20, 2010
Predictions and Consequences
If someone predicts the unexpected and it comes about, he’s a genius.
If someone predicts the unexpected and it doesn’t come about, he’s an idiot.
If someone predicts the expected and it comes about, he’s doing his job.
If someone predicts the expected and it doesn’t come about, he’s an idiot.
If someone predicts the unexpected and it doesn’t come about, he’s an idiot.
If someone predicts the expected and it comes about, he’s doing his job.
If someone predicts the expected and it doesn’t come about, he’s an idiot.
Four Political Groups and their Views on God
People can be categorized according to their view of government. As a person’s view of government is affected by their view of God, these categories can be characterized by their view of God. Here are four of them:
To conservatives, God is God.
To liberals, society is god.
To libertarians, the individual is god.
To the ruling class, they are god.
Notice that none of these groups are characterized as seeing government as god. This is because all four ideologies accept a role of government: their god simply defines the limits of that government. Also notice that the last three are all variations on the same thing: liberals, libertarians, and the ruling class all see man as supreme, they only differ as to which man or group of men is supreme.
To conservatives, God is God.
To liberals, society is god.
To libertarians, the individual is god.
To the ruling class, they are god.
Notice that none of these groups are characterized as seeing government as god. This is because all four ideologies accept a role of government: their god simply defines the limits of that government. Also notice that the last three are all variations on the same thing: liberals, libertarians, and the ruling class all see man as supreme, they only differ as to which man or group of men is supreme.
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Are Men Socialized for Murder?
There was a report on the front page of the Wichita Eagle on Sunday titled “Far more men kill women than vice versa,” by Hurst Laviana and Tim Potter. The article centered around a statistic which showed that in Kansas, between 1985 and 2006, 63 women ages 12 to 21 were the victims of murders. Of these 63 victims, in 42 cases, men were the suspect, in one case, a woman was the suspect, and in 20 cases, the gender of the suspect was unknown. I thought it interesting that the article pointed out that in the same time period, 157 men age 12 to 21 were murdered, in 120 cases, the suspect was a man, in 6, the suspect was a woman, and in 31, the gender of the suspect was unknown. So maybe a better title for the report would be, “Men kill other men far more than they kill women,” or something, rather than insinuating that there was some sort of sexist bias among murderers.
The report went on and quoted Kathy Williams, the director the Wichita Are Sexual Assault Center, as saying, “Unfortunately, we socialize men to be big and strong and not show emotion.” Basically, it is society’s fault that men kill women, therefore Williams suggested that men need to be womanized (she actually said that “men need to learn to love and care in the broad sense, and they need to learn to respect the dignity of others.”).
There were so many flaws in this article, it is astounding. First of all, society doesn’t make men big, strong, and emotionless, men are big, strong, and emotionless by nature. It is therefore stupid to think that “training” men will help stop the murder of women.
Second, the fact that we men are big, strong, and emotionless is actually an advantage. If men were all womanized, who would defend society by fighting foreign enemies and catching criminals (and I don’t mean determine the identity of the criminal using amazing forensics, I mean, chase, catch, knock down, slap on handcuffs, and throw in a patrol car)?
Some might say, if all men were womanized, there would be no wars to fight or criminals to catch (and if pigs flew, bacon transportation costs would go down). The premise of this idea is ridiculous. What are we going to do, womanize terrorists at the same time we womanize America? And what if a few men slip through the cracks and are not successfully womanized? It isn’t even remotely feasible to train every single man on the planet at the same time.
Aside from protection against foreign and domestic enemies, the strength and aggression of men has other benefits. Roads, tools, furniture, and machines, to name a few things, need physical strength to be built. Aggression benefits men who are exploring the edges of a dangerous frontier. And competition driven by aggression can be beneficial as well. To put it simply, being size, strength, and aggression are not negative qualities, they are qualities that can be beneficial to the individual and the society the individual belongs to.
Third, and most important, blaming the aggression and strength of men for the murder of women is like blaming baseball bat manufacturers for busted kneecaps. While men may be more capable of committing murder, murder never occurs without a motive. That is what distinguishes murder from manslaughter: one is driven by a motive, the other is an accident. Murder happens because men (and occasionally women) break laws (both God’s and man’s) in order to kill someone out of anger, to solve a problem, or for fun. The disregard for laws is a problem all humans face and can only be solved by Jesus Christ. So the strength and lack of emotion in men isn’t even the root problem.
The report went on and quoted Kathy Williams, the director the Wichita Are Sexual Assault Center, as saying, “Unfortunately, we socialize men to be big and strong and not show emotion.” Basically, it is society’s fault that men kill women, therefore Williams suggested that men need to be womanized (she actually said that “men need to learn to love and care in the broad sense, and they need to learn to respect the dignity of others.”).
There were so many flaws in this article, it is astounding. First of all, society doesn’t make men big, strong, and emotionless, men are big, strong, and emotionless by nature. It is therefore stupid to think that “training” men will help stop the murder of women.
Second, the fact that we men are big, strong, and emotionless is actually an advantage. If men were all womanized, who would defend society by fighting foreign enemies and catching criminals (and I don’t mean determine the identity of the criminal using amazing forensics, I mean, chase, catch, knock down, slap on handcuffs, and throw in a patrol car)?
Some might say, if all men were womanized, there would be no wars to fight or criminals to catch (and if pigs flew, bacon transportation costs would go down). The premise of this idea is ridiculous. What are we going to do, womanize terrorists at the same time we womanize America? And what if a few men slip through the cracks and are not successfully womanized? It isn’t even remotely feasible to train every single man on the planet at the same time.
Aside from protection against foreign and domestic enemies, the strength and aggression of men has other benefits. Roads, tools, furniture, and machines, to name a few things, need physical strength to be built. Aggression benefits men who are exploring the edges of a dangerous frontier. And competition driven by aggression can be beneficial as well. To put it simply, being size, strength, and aggression are not negative qualities, they are qualities that can be beneficial to the individual and the society the individual belongs to.
Third, and most important, blaming the aggression and strength of men for the murder of women is like blaming baseball bat manufacturers for busted kneecaps. While men may be more capable of committing murder, murder never occurs without a motive. That is what distinguishes murder from manslaughter: one is driven by a motive, the other is an accident. Murder happens because men (and occasionally women) break laws (both God’s and man’s) in order to kill someone out of anger, to solve a problem, or for fun. The disregard for laws is a problem all humans face and can only be solved by Jesus Christ. So the strength and lack of emotion in men isn’t even the root problem.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
