The Dilemma of Western Thought

Eph. 4:17-19 provides the following insight and instructions:

“So this I say, and affirm together with the Lord, that you walk no longer just as the Gentiles also walk, in the futility of their mind, being darkened in their understanding, excluded from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the hardness of their heart; and they, having become callous, have given themselves over to sensuality for the practice of every kind of impurity with greediness.”

“Modern man must be challenged to forsake his sinful and therefore futile effort to find meaning in life in terms of himself as a law unto himself.” [Van Til, A Christian Theory of Knowledge] Since the fall, man has been desperately searching for meaning and knowledge, but he has presupposed that he can discover meaning and knowledge apart from God. In fact, bound up in the fall of man is the idea that truth may be accessed apart from God. Man can determine for himself if truth exists, what truth is, and how truth should be accessed.

The apostle Paul provides a vivid description of the state of the unregenerate. He describes the unregenerate condition as 1) futility of their mind, 2) darkened in their understanding, 3) excluded from the life of God, 4) ignorant, 5) a hardened heart, 6) callous, 7) given over to sensuality.

Knowledge is like the tree we see outside our window. It existed once as a seed. Without the seed, the tree would not be possible. In other words, knowledge from nothing is impossible. What this means is that knowledge depends on knowledge. Apart from some prior knowledge, knowledge in any meaningful sense is impossible. How does one account for “the why” and “the how” where it concerns human knowledge about reality? What is the epistemic seed necessary for knowledge? What are the necessary preconditions for knowledge? As Van Til would put it: what are the necessary preconditions for the intelligibility of human experience?

In his book, Problems of Knowledge, Michael Williams lists five problems confronting the idea of knowledge. The analytic problem concerns how knowledge is to be distinguished from mere belief or opinion. The problem of demarcation is related to what knowledge actually is and whether or not it has boundaries and what those boundaries involve. Another problem concerns that of method. How do we obtain knowledge? There is also the problem of skepticism. Is knowledge even possible? Finally, there is the problem of value. Is knowledge even something worth having? If so, why? Indeed, these are some very important questions and worthy of consideration. Christians must learn to use their minds differently in the 21^st century, especially in Western culture, and especially in America. The absence of deliberation, contemplation, critical analysis has placed us in a very challenging and embarrassing predicament. The good news is that it is never too late to reverse the course. But it is critical that such a course must be reversed and it must be reversed today.

Human beings exist in and are part of, reality. Reality is what God says it is. Therefore, the existence of human beings is what God says it is. All that remains is to examine and understand what God says about human existence in this thing we call reality. This argument represents a way of thinking about human existence that is antithetical to Western culture in general, and American culture in particular.

Insanity is defined as a state of mind that prevents normal perception, behavior, or social interaction. The very definition of insanity then presupposes the existence of God. If insanity is to have a state of mind that prevents normal perception, behavior, or social interaction, then there must be a normal state of mind. And if reality is what God says it is, then God must have already defined what a normal state of mind actually is. The text I referenced above indicates that the Apostle Paul positions Christianity as the only sane worldview in existence today. All other worldviews, being the product of godless, and therefore, abnormal thinking, are the products of insanity, if Christianity is to be taken seriously. It is unfortunate, though not surprising, that all humans have fallen in varying degrees into a pit of insanity. Holding mindlessly to false beliefs, failed hypotheses, and unjustifiable ideas, each individual is left clinging for life to any root, branch, or outcropping that will prevent his plummeting descent into the dark abyss of folly. [Jonah Haddad, Insanity: God and the Theory of Knowledge]

American culture has fallen into such inanity, head to toe. She has marched off the cliff of the rationally coherent, and plunged headfirst into the chasm of madness with the irrational impulsiveness of a teenager on prom night. Driven by blind pleasure alone, she has purged herself of anything remotely resembling healthy, intellectual interchange, preferring only the intense love affair she has with a postmodern hedonism, rapidly moving along, with more speed and power than any locomotive ever engineered in the history of mankind. In short, no mountain on God’s green earth seems big enough to deter the end goal of American society: ˜God (no God).

Recently, there has been a dustup in American culture over the North Carolina “bathroom law.” There are many supposedly smart people, intelligent people, who think that a person can not only self-identify whatever gender they wish, but that such people should be able to use the public rest room of their choice. A man can use a woman’s rest room if he self-identifies as a woman. But isn’t it possible he could be wrong? Isn’t it possible he could be lying? How could we know if he is either? Is there a certification process in place, and an I.D. card issued to people that have been through some sort of scientific assessment, thus, validating and certifying that they are in fact properly identifying themselves as “x” gender? What is to protect women and girls from being subjected to dangerous perverts of all sorts? No one seems to be asking those questions or worse, no one seems to be even slightly interested in that question. I wonder why.

Paul tells us that the unregenerate walk in the futility of their mind. This Greek word mataios means that the unregenerate mind is useless, and lacking in content. He tells us in Romans 1:21 that they became futile in their speculations. How much more futile can you get when you think that a man ought to be able to use a woman’s restroom, and anyone who dares to disagrees with that concept is, well, not engaged or debated, but dismissed as a hateful bigot who doesn’t even deserve the right to gainful employment. Curt Schilling was fired for posting his view regarding the homosexual issue on his own Facebook page. Apparently, employers now have the right to discriminate against people with religious beliefs that are contrary to their own. The message is simple: either reject your Christian worldview and adopt our worldview, or you are a bigot with no rights to support your family. That is basically what it comes down to. Dr. Eric Walsh, a medical doctor and lay minister in Georgia was fired from his position in the Department of Public Health recently after the state demanded he turn over his sermon which took contrary positions on issues related to marriage, creation, and sexuality. Did you read that? In America, a man was fired because of a sermon he preached in his own church. This is indeed, insane! But it is exactly what the rest of our brothers and sisters have faced throughout the world for centuries. Hey Christians in America; welcome to the party! The Christian persecution party.

Peter tells us that we were redeemed from a “futile way of life.” We have been redeemed from a way of life that is useless, without fruit, pointless. Western thought, being thoroughly autonomous, refusing to acknowledge dependence on God is doomed from the start. We see this argument expressed in Scripture without ambiguity. The unredeemed mind is hopelessly futile. We cannot, in any way, allow the unbeliever to establish his own criterion for what passes as knowledge. Having rejected God from the start, he has rejected knowledge from the start. Attempting to build his house of knowledge on a foundation of autonomy, he only builds upon quicksand. The Christian message is indeed good news. It is a message of grace, of peace, of hope, of forgiveness, and of redemption and restoration. But that message comes to us as a message of divine demand, informing us, reminding us, of an obligation to our Creator that we would rather ignore. Apart from God, knowledge cannot even get started. The skeptic carries the day so long as we ignore God or even if, for some reason, we pretend there is no God when we interact with the unbelieving pagans. The gospel demands that men acknowledge the Creator. We know, being contemporary eyewitnesses, that Western thought degenerates into insanity because it attempts to do what no one, in the history of the world, has yet been able to do: provide the necessary preconditions for the intelligibility of human experience apart from God.

The gaze of God is both what we fear and what we can’t do without. Scripture makes it clear that apart from God’s coming to us and opening our eyes, we cannot know him truly. Talk about epistemic difficulties! For us to know him, he must know us first. Our knowing is warped, especially when it comes to knowing God, because of human rebellion against God. There is something inside us that doesn’t want to know him, even as another part of us does. Our blindness thus requires the terror of his meeting us. [Meek, Esther Lightcap, Longing to Know]

Intelligent Design, Causality, and Apologetics

Recently I read a couple of posts over at Anchor Apologetics that deal with ID and the principle of causality. The articles in question were posted by two different people on two separate occasions. Both articles are a perfect example of what has gone wrong in Christian apologetics. As a consequent of the ID article, I found myself disputing the concept of a supernatural origin of all things that exist with a professing Christian of all things. This points up to the fact that the Church needs to get its head on square and remove faithless men who are filled with arrogance and contradictory ideas out of the community if they refuse to repent. The purpose of this post is to spend a few words on the terribly flawed approach of the use of ID and Causality in our attempt to defend Christian theism.

First, I want to examine the Intelligent Design argument. Intelligent Design (ID) says nothing more than that the universe displays the characteristics of intelligent design. That is all the theory itself claims. Scientists examine the workings of the physical universe and conclude that it gives the appearance that it was designed by an intelligent mind or minds. It can say nothing more than this. The article over a Anchor Apologetics makes the point that (presumably positive) ID should not be accused of being religiously oriented. It is science. It is not based upon some religious text. Now, Melissa Cain Travis, Assistant Professor at Houston Baptist University, implies that it is a positive thing that ID has no religious skin in the game, so to speak. She says ID is based on evidence from nature, not from a religious text. This argument is intended to answer opponents who call ID religion in disguise.

Professor Travis then moves to her second point, namely, that ID is not inconsistent with evolutionary theory. One can hold to both. ID only denies that life came to be spontaneously and without design. In other words, God could have created things exactly the way science claims. The attempt to appease science seems to be readily apparent by this point. We can have evolution and God seems to be the point of Travis' argument. Travis believes she has defended ID, evolution, and Christianity all at the same time. It is a lofty goal to attempt to defend evolution and Christianity at the same time and in the same article. Does Travis succeed in her attempt?

First of all, is ID even consistent with Christian theism? What do Christians believe about creation? What do we believe about God? ID is only consistent with the view that the universe appears to have been designed by some intelligent thing(s). It does not prove this to be the case. ID has nothing to say about the Christian God of the Bible. It makes no claims as to who this designer was. ID makes no claims about the nature of this designer other than it was powerful enough or smart enough to create our universe.  The question any Christian should ask is this: how could such a weakened and inferior view of the Divine ever lend support to what we already have in divine revelation? ID is such a weak hypothesis about the designer of the universe that it is several steps removed from the God revealed in Scripture.

Second, the real goal here is to accommodate evolution, not prop up Christian theism. Since evolution is the demand of the day, anyone rejecting evolutionary theory is immediately marginalized. In order to neutralize this marginalization, the approach is to make Christianity and evolution compatible with one another. However, such a move is devastating to the Christian faith. Time does not permit me to list all the reasons why this is the case. But I will provide one of the most basic reasons for my position. Scripture is clear that death entered the world through sin. It was by sin that death passed upon all living creatures in the physical world. ID, in its attempt to accept evolutionary theory must deny the basic Christian tenet that death came by sin. Evolutionary theory claims that death existed prior to human beings. But if Scripture is correct, this is impossible. Christ came to redeem from sin and to give life, life that sin had taken. The ripple effect for redemption is more like a Tsunami. Christian doctrine collapses if evolutionary theory is correct. Hence, we either must reject ID or pervert the clear and plain teachings of Scripture if we are to accept ID. This is precisely what the Christian cannot and will no do. Since ID requires the Christian to give a fundamental tenet of the faith, how could any apologist ever consider it a good tool for the apologetic toolbox? Since ID cannot reconcile evolutionary theory and Christian theism with destroying Christian theism and replacing it with a sort of agnostic, general theism, it should be rejected as a viable alternative for any Christian to embrace.

The second article I wanted to comment on concerns the supposed support for Christian theism from the principle of causality. The first problem with causality is that there is no way to draw a line from cause to God regardless of how clever one might be. It is rationally impossible to leap from cause to, therefore, God. Second, that there cannot be an infinite series of causes is not without controversy. Some claim that there could be such a series. In addition, why does the cause of the universe have to be infinite and eternal? In addition, as Mike Butler points out in his article on this subject, there is no reason for us to suppose that there is only one cause of the universe. There could be two or a thousand. Philosophically and logically speaking, there is no reason for one to reduce such a cause to one. And if we are going to reason along these lines, Butler also points out that every unique event could have its own unique cause. Why do all the events have to trace back to one ultimate cause?

Christian theism is built upon the fact of divine revelation. We are confronted with the divine self-disclosure in nature each and every day. This disclosure is both external, in the world all around us, and internal, pressed indelibly upon the human conscience. Christians are privileged in the fact that they have been especially enlightened by the act of special disclosure in Scripture. That God is present everywhere about us, and that human knowledge of His presence is inescapable is attested by Scripture in the most plain and reasonable sense possible. Christians do not need to default to inferior arguments of finite human reason in order to defend the faith. Doing so demonstrates a seriously weak faith in my estimation. One that seemingly says I cannot or will not take God at His word. There is no higher proof for the truth of Christian theism that can be found outside of the proof of divine revelation in Scripture.

Sovereignty and Apologia

God has the absolute, supreme right as sovereign Lord over all that is, to be acknowledged, honored, feared, loved, and worshipped at all times, in all places, by all men, who have absolutely no right whatever to refuse God His right or to call into question this right for any reason, in any place, at any time, be they young, old, rich, poor, noble, common, lettered, not lettered, psychologists, doctors, lawyers, judges, politicians, philosophers, and especially clergy.

It is here that the Christian evangelist, apologist, and pastor must begin if they are to communicate the gospel, defend the faith, and shepherd the sheep in such a way as to honor the very God of Christian theism they claim to serve. We must never be soft in how we position the message of repentance, or remotely apologetic of the fact that our Lord and Christ, our God that is, is a demanding God with inalienable rights. Let there be no misunderstanding here. God is not sitting in heaven wringing his fingers hoping you will eventually come to your senses and realize how wonderful He is and finally place your faith and trust in Him. According to Scripture, the situation is profoundly different. God is not sitting in heaven hoping and praying (to whom?) that you will find a way to just believe in Jesus so that you will not suffer eternal torment when all is said and done.

The apostle Paul provided a wonderful case study in Christian apologetics in Acts 17. From the start, one should notice that Paul was not indifferent toward the idolatry in which the city was absorbed. Luke describes Paul as being provoked in his spirit due to the idolatry he witnessed in Athens. Often, we operate on the misgiven assumption that respectful replies in apologetics mean that we are not emotionally drawn into the situation. Luke's description of Paul in Athens helps us realize that this is a false dichotomy. We can be both moved emotionally and invested in the situation as well as reply with gentleness and respect.

More important than this, Paul never once hinted at compromising or loosening his view that God has an absolute right to be acknowledged by all men, as well as feared and obeyed. After opening his rhetoric with a compliment of the Athenian philosophers, he immediate turns their attention to God with a thunderous statement that pointed the philosophers up to the concept of divine sovereignty.

From the standpoint of reality, knowledge, ethics, meaning, and truth, God stands at the very beginning, the fountainhead of all these areas. Philosophers are far from agreed on the nature of reality, human theories of knowledge, the description of morality, the meaning and purpose of being, and the concept of truth. But the one thing most of them can agree on is that it cannot possibly be as Christian theism contends. Human philosophy begins with the sovereignty or autonomy of human reason. Human philosophy refuses to acknowledge God. It refuses to render to God what is rightfully His. Christian apologetics, evangelism, and shepherding must confront the philosopher, not only in his godless philosophical speculations, but right here, where the philosopher claims sovereignty for his or her own.

The idea that human beings can know anything apart from God reduces to absurdity. The problem of knowing the self is a perfect example. What is the self and how exactly do we gain knowledge of it? In order to know anything objectively about the self, it seems one has to step outside the self. But such a move is impossible. Is the self the soul? Or is self purely a physical entity evolved from a common primordial ancestor? What is the self and how do we know? Indeed, knowledge of what we are seems prerequisite to any knowledge at all. If we do not know what we are, how can we know what anything else is? We know ourselves in terms of what we are not. But if we do not know what we are, how can we know we are not something else? And if we do not know that, how can we know anything about the other? Hence, it seems readily apparent that a knowledge of self is essential if we are truly going to know anything about anything.

Jer. 17:9 informs us that the human heart is more deceitful than all else, and is desperately sick (morally), who can know it? If we take Jeremiah at face value, it seems that human beings in and of themselves cannot actually know themselves. We often hear the English idiom, "trust your heart." Jeremiah contradicts that without hesitation or doubt. The answer lies in v. 10. God searches and knows the very heart, the self, of every human being. God, who searches and knows the self, according to Christian theism, reveals such knowledge as He deems fitting, to His creation.

"This far, the course of thought has run smoothly. Knowledge of God is the crown of all that can be known. Knowledge of God is inconceivable, except it is imparted to us by God Himself." [Abraham Kuyper, Encyclopedia of Sacred Theology, 229] The answer then is that if knowledge is to be had, it must be revealed by God. If knowledge of self is necessary to knowledge at all, then the question must be asked how one is to know the self. Philosophers of all stripes disagree how and if such a thing is even possible. The reason is simply due to a groundless and indefensible dismissive attitude toward Christian theism from the start.

Calvin writes, "Nearly all the wisdom we possess, that is to say, true and sound wisdom, consist of two parts: the knowledge of God and of ourselves." [Calvin, Institues, I.i.1, 35] Calvin understands well the necessity of human knowledge and breaks it down into two parts. He goes even further when he writes, "Again, it is certain that man never achieves a clear knowledge of himself unless he has first looked upon God's face, and then descends from contemplating him to scrutinize himself." [Ibid. I.i.2, 37] Solomon wrote, "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge." (Prov. 1:7) Notice that Solomon did not say that the fear of the LORD leads to knowledge. He said it is the very beginning of knowledge. In other words, if you desire knowledge, a prerequisite is to fear God.

God, speaking through Moses said, The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever, that we may observe all the words of the law. (Deut. 29:29) God is sovereign over all that is, to include human knowledge. We know because the transcendent God of Christian theism created men and then revealed Himself. Knowledge is only possible because God sovereignly chose to reveal. Had He chose otherwise, humanity would remain ignorant, in the dark, without any hope of knowledge. Human knowledge is an expression of God's common grace.

Richard Howe's Critical Thoughts on Presuppositionalism: Part 2 of 2

In his second point, Howe says, “He [Van Til] seems to think that unless the nonbeliever correctly links the elements of his knowledge of the world to the Creator of those elements, he has not understood any of those elements at all.” Once again, Howe’s paper would have at least been considered respectable had he fairly represented Van Til and Bahnsen. Being a student of presuppositional apologetics, I can say with absolute confidence that Howe has either, failed to interact with their materials, or he is deliberately misrepresenting them. This is unfortunate, but not surprising. What presuppositionalism says is not that the nonbeliever has no knowledge at all. Rather, it says that he does not know things, as he ought to know them and he ought to know them as being the objects of the creation of the one triune God. Howe criticizes Van Til’s epistemological approach but fails to lay out his method for how humans can and do know anything at all about reality.

Howe leaves me with the impression that what he fails to see, is not that presuppositionalism gets its ontological and epistemological wires crossed, but rather that presuppositionalism accuses classical apologetics of refusing to begin with basic presuppositions and instead, it proceeds to direct arguments that rest upon the very presuppositions it should first call into question. In other words, Classical Apologetics waits until it is too late in the game, if ever, to challenge the basic presuppositions of the non-Christian worldview. “A direct argument is possible between two people who share relevant assumptions.”[1] Howe conveniently ignores this very basic aspect of presuppositionalism, or so it seems. Howe then charges that the only difference between the theist and atheist is in terms of their degree of knowledge. But this is patently false. It is not just a matter of degree. Instead, it is more a matter of quality. The noetic effects of sin have had devastating epistemological consequences from which man cannot recover on his own. In addition, the knowledge that unbelievers do possess of the world around them is revelational in nature and is derived only as a product of God’s common grace. God has not left us entirely ignorant.

Howe argues that unbelievers need a map, his analogy for arguments and proofs, in order to know God exists while Van Til and Bahnsen argue that unbelievers already knows that God is there. “The knowledge that all men have of God because of natural revelation provides the framework or foundation for any other knowledge they are able to attain.”[2] I do not need a map in order to know that Atlanta exists. I knew Atlanta existed long before I ever saw a map of it. I don’t need a map of the universe in order to know that I am on this planet.

Howe then contends that just because man may be estranged from God, it does not follow that he is estranged from reality itself. Howe argues that this reality may serve as a reference point for the non-Christian to find God. I would contend that God is not lost to the non-believer and that is precisely the difference between us. The Psalmists said that even if he makes his bed in hell, God would be there. Additionally, I cannot help but wonder what Howe means when he says reality. Does he think that there is such a thing as reality that does not require human interpretation? Does Howe believe that brute facts exist? Can man’s interpretation of reality actually be neutral? There is no such thing as neutral reality. Brute facts are a myth. Every fact must be interpreted. If every fact must be interpreted, then that interpretation must take place as an act of the human mind. The mind is involved in interpretation. And if the mind is darkened by sin, blind, and ignorant, then how does that not skew one’s interpretation of reality? Does Howe think that it doesn’t? He seems to think precisely that.

The final point I want to address is Howe’s criticism of TAG. Howe argues that the argument from the impossibility of the contrary is not a logically valid way in which to demonstrate the truth of Christian theism. Howe points out that in “Standard categorical logic, while contraries cannot both be true, they can both be false.” Does Howe really think that Van Til or Bahnsen have the traditional square of opposition in mind in their argument for God? The problem with Howe’s analysis is that he understands Presuppositionalism to employ the “impossibility of the contrary” in a very technical sense. This may or may not be the case. Either way, I think Howe is seriously mistaken. Howe is correct when he says that contraries cannot both be true but they both could be false. For instance, one could say that WV will beat Marshall, and another could say that Marshall will beat WV. Both of these statements could be false but they cannot both be true. The game could end in a tie. This is what we mean by contraries. However, there is a problem with understanding Presuppositionalism in this way. A necessarily true proposition cannot possibly be false and so cannot have a contrary, because two propositions can only be contraries if they can both be false.[3] Hence, contraries only apply to contingent propositions.

If necessarily true statements cannot be false, then this begs the question, what is a necessarily true statement? A necessarily true statement is true by definition. All circles are round. All squares have four sides. These are necessarily true statements. What does Presuppositionalism mean when it says that Christian theism is true because of the impossibility of the contrary? “The presuppositional challenge to the unbeliever is guided by the premise that only the Christian worldview provides the philosophical preconditions necessary for man’s reasoning and knowledge in any field whatever…Any position contrary to Christian theism, therefore, must be seen as philosophically impossible.”[4] The impossibility of the contrary refers to the impossibility of making human experience intelligible, to include reasoning and doing philosophy. That human beings experience and that we reason are necessary truths. You cannot deny them without engaging in them. That God exists is also a necessary truth. You cannot deny Him without affirming Him. This is the crux of presuppositional apologetics. Therefore, Howe is simply mistaken in his accusation that presuppositionalism commits this logical blunder.

The final objection I wish to address is Howe’s assertion that Presuppositionalism only works if the laws of logic are antecedent to Christianity. Howe contends that if presuppositionalism argues that the truth of Christian theism must be presupposed in order for the laws of logic to be valid, then one cannot use the laws of logic to show Christianity to be true. This line of argument is based on Howe’s misunderstanding of how presuppositionalism traverses along the apologetic map. Presuppositionalism does not call upon the laws of logic to prove that Christian theism is true. Presuppositionalism calls upon Christian theism to explain why the laws of logic work the way they do. Secondly, presuppositionalism indeed calls upon and makes swift use of the laws of logic in its dismantling of the non-Christian worldview in all its appearances, reducing it to absurdity in all its renderings. Howe is attempting to place presuppositionalism in a simple dilemma. But it is a false dilemma. We take the one horn of the dilemma and respond that we do not rely on the laws of logic in order to establish the truth of Christian theism. Rather than the laws of logic being antecedent to Christian theism, presuppositionalism contends that God is antecedent to the laws of logic.

In summary then it seems to me that Howe does not quite understand the nature of Presuppositionalism. If he understood the nature of this approach, he would not have expected presuppositional apologists to assume they are mistaken for argument’s sake. While he never came out directly and made this request, the general tone and overall thrust of his criticism certainly carries that force. Presuppositional apologetics indeed argues that God is necessary in order for one to deny His existence. One cannot even begin to talk about the non-existence of God without presupposing the God that is necessary to the very experience they intend to drawn upon in order to deny Him. If the non-Christian worldview cannot demonstrate how it can make the connection between the general and the particular, it cannot even find the entrance ramp for philosophical discussion, let alone defend its truth claims. Classical apologists, like Richard Howe, ignore this critically important component of the apologetic discussion. Only Christian theism can make sense of the relationship between the general and the particular. Unless we presuppose the truth of Christian theism, human experience is wholly unintelligible.

---

[1]. Greg L. Bahnsen, Van Til's Apologetic: Readings & Analysis (Phillipsburgm NJ: P&R Publishing, 1998), 485.

[2]. Ibid., 181.

[3]. Irving M. Copi, Carl Cohen, and Kenneth McMahon, Introduction to Logic (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2011), 177.

[4]. Bahnsen, Van Til's Apologetic: Readings & Analysis, 5-6.