We must point out to them that univocal reasoning itself
leads to self-contradiction, not only from a theistic point of view, but from a
non-theistic point of view as well. It is this that we ought to mean when we say
that we must meet our enemy on their own ground. It is this that we ought to
mean when we say that we reason from the impossibility of the contrary. The
contrary is impossible only if it is self-contradictory when operating on the
basis of its own assumptions.[1]
I realize that philosophy students will argue that just
because Christian theism rules out other views, that does not mean that
Christian theism is vindicated. After all, two contrary propositions may both
be false. Moreover, others are ready to inform us that the proposition God exists is in fact not an analytic
statement and therefore predicate logic would show that two contraries can both
be false, and hence proving the impossibility of the contrary essentials proves
nothing. In addition, others will unwittingly take up Kant's position that
existence is not a property and argue along these lines. But I think all this
rambling is philosophical poppycock. It is the product of an undue influence of
pagan philosophy on a subject that rightly belongs to biblical theology.
Moreover, I do not think that Christians are under an ethical obligation to
answer the philosopher in a way that meets with the philosopher's approval. In
other words, we need not unduly concern ourselves with the fact that philosophers
and skeptics insist on a philosophical approach to our answer. Our concern is
with God's imperative in such matters, not the respect of pagan philosophers.
That being said, I would like to provide a different sort of defense for how Presuppositional Apologetics employs the transcendental argument.
First, I wish to talk about what the argument is not
claiming. Presuppositional apologetics is not claiming that the reason we
believe Christian theism is true is because of the impossibility of the
contrary. Logic is not the basis for faith. The basis for our faith is the
divine revelation given in Scripture. We place our faith in Christ, in God, on
the basis of the authority of His word as the Holy Spirit opens our eyes to
know and understand it.
Second, PA is not using logic to demonstrate the existence
of God. The argument is using God to demonstrate why logic is even possible.
Transcendental arguments take on (roughly) the following form: For x to be the
case, y must be the case because y is the necessary precondition of x; since x
is the case, y must be the case.[2]
For logic to be the case, God must exist because God is the necessary
precondition of logic. Since logic is the case, God must be the case. We can
apply this to the whole of human experience and state it this way: in order for
there to be intelligibility of human experience, God must exist since God is
the necessary precondition of all human experience. Human experience is
intelligible; therefore God must be the case. In other words, the only
plausible explanation for the phenomenon of laws of logic is Christian theism.
What the transcendental argument asks of the non-Christian
worldview is that it provide a rational basis for its understanding of human
experience. What must be true in order for the non-Christian worldview's claims
that human experience is intelligible apart from Christian theism? The
transcendental argument in Presuppositional apologetics uses a reductio ad absurdum to demonstrate that
the non-Christian worldview reduces to self-contradiction. It eventually
becomes rationally indefensible.
The solution to this problem is not located in philosophy.
Repeatedly, for some reason, Christian apologists think that it is. As a matter
of fact, it is not. The solution to this problem is revealed in Scripture,
believe it or not. Now, I realize to those intellectuals concerned with
academic respectability and for the rest that simply relish the idea of being smarter
than the rest of us, my suggestion likely rings hollow, naïve, and far too
simplistic to be of any value. In answer to that line of reasoning my response
is even simpler: I don't care. All I care about is providing a truthful answer
using a method that honors God. If that method happens to be simple, and not
wrought with one philosophical complexity after another, then so be it, or
maybe, even better!
Romans one and the indefensible position of the
non-Christian worldview.
ἀναπολόγητος
is a fascinating word used by Paul in Romans 1:20 to describe the status of the
arguments among those that either reject the existence of God or corrupt God's
existence as revealed in Scripture. The lexical sense of the word means inexcusable. In essence the word is the
negation of another Greek word ἀπολογίαν, which we know basically means to "defend
oneself" according to BDAG. Essentially, Paul is claiming that all men
have been given such clear understanding and knowledge of God's existence that
they are without any excuse not to embrace that truth. When Christian
apologists encounter non-Christians, the whole point is that the Christian
provides an answer or defense of his faith to the non-Christian while the
non-Christian is supposedly providing rational argumentation or a defense for
why he rejects Christian theism. That is the general thrust of what is taking
place in these exchanges be they one on one, or on the street corner, in the
tavern over a beer, at lunch, or in a formal debate.
Paul's approach
was to begin with God and then proceed to argue that there is not even evidence
to support the conclusion that God does not exist, or more precisely, the God
revealed in Scripture does not exist. Paul says that the non-Christian
worldview, in whatever shape of form it may take is so weak that it is without
a defense, without an apologetic if you will. When the presuppositionalist says
that Christian theism is true because of the impossibility of the contrary, it
is exactly this that he should mean. God says it is impossible to defend any
concept of God that is not distinctly based on His revelation, or the absolute
reality of His existence as it is. No man has ever lived that could ever defend
the proposition "God does not exist" or "the God revealed in
Scripture does not exist." It is impossible to provide an adequate defense
for such statement.
Biblical faith and epistemic certainty.
I will forego a discussion of the various concepts of
certainty in preference for a biblical view of faith and how a proper
understanding of the biblical concept of faith leads to certainty. Moreover, if
you are more impressed with the philosophically complex arguments of epistemic
and psychological certainty than you are with biblical certainty, I would
encourage you to examine your heart and schedule a meeting with your pastor.
Hebrews 11:1 tells us, "Faith is the assurance of
things hoped for and the evidence of things not see." Thus, it is best to
take the clause in 11:1 to have an objective sense with the meaning “faith
gives substance to what is hoped for,” and not a subjective sense that faith is
the assurance that what is hoped for will come to pass (although this latter
perspective is certainly true).[3] To
understand faith in the objective sense is critical to how we might answer the
question of certainty. Allen continues, As Lane pointed out, “faith” is
objective because it bestows upon the objects of hope a present reality,
enabling the believer to enjoy now the “full certainty of future realization.”
Faith is the objective grounds upon which subjective confidence may be based.
Such faith springs from a personal encounter with God. This kind of faith
enables one to venture into the future “supported only by the word of God.”[4]
The Hebrew word 'āman is no less significant. The Theological Workbook of the Old Testament
defines it in the following way: to confirm, support, uphold in the Qal, but in
the Hiphal, it means to be certain, to believe in. This very important concept
in biblical doctrine gives clear evidence of the biblical meaning of “faith” in
contradistinction to the many popular concepts of the term. At the heart of the
meaning of the root is the idea of certainty[5]
In the Hiphil (causative), it basically means “to cause to be certain, sure” or
“to be certain about,” “to be assured.” In this sense the word in the Hiphil
conjugation is the biblical word for “to believe” and shows that biblical faith
is an assurance, a certainty, in contrast with modern concepts of faith as
something possible, hopefully true, but not certain.[6]
This is quite contrary to the modern view of faith.
Conclusion
To claim that Christian theism is true because of the
impossibility of the contrary is to claim that only Christian theism provides
the necessary preconditions for the intelligibility of human experience. One by
one, the metaphysic, epistemology, and ethic of every attempt to explain human
experience outside of Christian theism reduces to absurdity. What you end up
with is philosophers claim things like "stones have a level of
perception," and every ethical system ever constructed apart from
Christian theism reduces to subjectivist views or are radically arbitrary. We
end up with brilliant minds claiming that we can't really know anything about
reality and constructing the most convoluted arguments you could imagine to
prove it. If that isn't a howler, nothing is.
"The unfolding of Your words gives light; It gives
understanding to the simple." Ps. 119:130
[1]
Cornelius Van Til, A Survey of Christian
Epistemology (The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company:
Phillipsburg, NJ, 1969).
[2]
See Michael Butler's article "The
Transcendental Argument for God's Existence."
[3]
David L. Allen, Hebrews, The New
American Commentary (Nashville, TN: B & H Publishing Group, 2010), 543.
[4]
David L. Allen, Hebrews, The New
American Commentary (Nashville, TN: B & H Publishing Group, 2010), 543.
[5] Jack
B. Scott, “116 אָמַן,” ed.
R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament
(Chicago: Moody Press, 1999), 51.
[6] Jack
B. Scott, “116 אָמַן,” ed.
R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament
(Chicago: Moody Press, 1999), 51.
