Kelly James Clark levelled the following criticism against
Covenantal Apologetics: “Whenever I read presuppositionalists I almost always
think, “Saying it’s so doesn’t make it so.” Saying that Christianity is the
criterion of truth (whatever that could mean), that Christian belief is the
most certain thing we know, that Christian faith is not defeasible, and that
Scripture supports these views, does not make it so. There are few apologetic
approaches that are so long on assured proclamations and so short on argument.”
[Clark, Five Views On Apologetics, 371]
The charge levelled by Clark, “saying it is so does not make
it so,” really depends on one’s view of reality. For the Christian, when God
says it is so, it is so. Moreover, if Christian theism is actually true, then
it is so whether we say it or not. The central problem with Clark’s criticism
is in fact the problem of the criterion. For Christianity, justification begins
and ends with God. Knowledge is revelational in nature. Faith provides the
basis for all human predication, science, and logic. We do not subject the
Christian faith to unbelieving criteria. It is entirely inappropriate for
apologists to permit unbelievers to subject Christian faith to the unbelieving
criteria of human reason. Christian theism is the only way we can account for
the intelligibility of human experience. Contrary to Clark’s criticism,
Covenantal Apologetics does a little more than just say it is so. The
transcendental argument for God (TAG) destroys all speculations and every
pernicious thought raised against the knowledge of Christ. Not only does it
demonstrate that the Christian worldview is necessarily true, it refutes the
non-Christian worldview in every form it takes by reducing that view to
absurdity. TAG accomplished this by refusing to surrender the ultimate
authority of Scripture and by performing an internal critique of every
competing worldview. It shows that only the Christian worldview provides the
precondition of human experience.
Non-Christian reasoning leads to self-contradiction. As Van
Til points out in his Survey of Christian Epistemology, this is not only
true from a theistic perspective, but from a non-theistic point of view as
well. This is exactly what covenantal apologists mean when they say that we
must reason from the impossibility of the contrary. What TAG seeks to do is
show that it is logically impossible to account for the uniformity of nature
(scientific knowledge) and the laws of logic (rational thought) within the
non-Christian worldview. TAG takes the most basic assumptions of the non-Christian
worldview and subjects those assumptions to a brutal and devastating internal
critique.
The non-Christian scientist, for example, claims that the
universe was not created. There is no purpose behind or meaning within the
universe. It is simply there. But in order for the scientist to do science,
she requires uniformity. She needs the laws of science, such as gravity. With
these scientific laws in hand, she is free to set about working with the
particulars of natural phenomena and work toward scientific discovery. This is
how the scientist attains knowledge about the physical universe. The
necessary presupposition that is indispensable in order science to work is the uniformity
of nature. Without this uniformity, the process of induction collapses.
The scientist relies on the validity of inductive reasoning
in order to do science. However, the scientist embraces basic
presuppositions about the universe that in no way can account for the
uniformity of nature. There is no scientific basis explaining why there is such
a relationship between the general and the particular. Without the relationship
between the general and the particular, induction becomes impossible. This is a
basic problem of science that remains unsolved to this day. Moreover, this is
not an ancillary issue for science. It is foundational to the entire field.
Hence, one would think that science would have come up with a better answer
than the one it presently offers: that’s just the way it is. Carried to its logical
end, science becomes impossible if it is true that the universe has no
intelligent cause.
Taken on its most basic presupposition, science cannot even
account for its most basic claims. Hence, science is unable to provide for an
intelligible account for how the scientist knows anything at all. Therefore,
science is reduced to absurdity on its own terms. What TAG argues is that the
existence of the Christian God is the necessary precondition of such
experiences. And it proves this by demonstrating the impossibility of the
contrary. [Michael Butler, The Transcendental Argument for God’s Existence, article]
In other words, TAG says for science to be possible, God must exist since God
is the precondition for all science. Science exists therefore, God exists.
The transcendental argument observes ordinary human
experience and asks, “What must be true in order for that experience to be
possible.” In contradistinction to this, classical arguments, such as the one
from causality, do not take this form. The causal argument states that there
are causes in the world. There cannot be an infinite number of causes. Since
there are a finite number of causes in the world, there must be a first cause. The
argument concludes that God must be that first cause. TAG states that for
causality to be possible, God has to exist since the existence of God is the
precondition of causality. Since there is causality, God exists. [From Butler’s
article mentioned above]
The wheels upon which TAG moves is simply this: the
non-Christian worldview cannot account for the intelligibility of human
experience given its most basic presuppositions. If the world is intelligible
without reference to God, then Christian theism is false. That is precisely
what the unbeliever knows and seeks to demonstrate. We don’t need God in order
to possess knowledge about the world is the drumbeat of the unbeliever. When
the apologist allows the unbeliever to pretend this is the case, he has no way
of recovering his position. The minute he assumes that the unbeliever can make
sense of reality without God, he assumes that his position is wrong. TAG
refuses to compromise this basic fact and takes a much different approach.
First, God created all things to include how we know anything at all.
Therefore, knowledge about the universe apart from God is actually impossible.
Second, every stripe of the non-Christian worldview fails to survive basic
internal critiques. That is to say, their most foundational beliefs cannot rise
to their own standards for justified belief. This is the basic and simplified
approach of TAG.
Richard Howe thinks that he has found a way around
covenantal apologetics via the rules of human language. What Howe fails to see
is that TAG would state the argument thus: For language to be possible, God has
to exist because God is the precondition of language. Since there is language,
God exists. Covenantal apologetics would not concede that language could be
accounted for apart from presupposing the existence of God. Again, if language
could be accounted for apart from God, Christian theism is proven false. This
is because Christian theism argues that God is the necessary precondition of
all experience, and because God is the source of all that has come to exist, it
is impossible to account for anything at all without presupposing God’s
existence. TAG would insist that the non-Christian worldview defend human
language within the framework of their own metaphysical and epistemological
commitments. This is the very thing the non-Christian worldview, in all its
versions, cannot do.
http://tiribulus/htdocs/index4.html
ReplyDelete2+2 does not equal 4 without God because two, plus, equals and four all have no meaning without Him. The statement I just made has no meaning without Him. Every upcoming protestation to the contrary has no meaning without Him. As my man Van Til was fond of saying. “God is Himself the emplacement upon which men mount the very weapons they attempt to use to destroy Him”. They can't help it,
Pagans jump and down, stamp their feet with red face glowing while they demand there be no circular reasoning. That is humorous at best. When forced to face the foundation of their alleged beliefs, every time it comes down to the laws of logic. Laws which are invisible, immaterial, absolute and universal. Sounds rather suspiciously like a god does it not? When I demand proof of the validity of the laws of logic they are trapped either re-appealing to those same laws which is circular or hypothetically looking somewhere else which destroys their authority.
Of course I also engage in circular reasoning (from the autonomous perspective) and make no pretense otherwise because ALL finite reason is by definition and in the nature of the case eventually circular. It never reaches the termination point of ultimate resolution because it's like finite see? The dead logic of unbelievers circles around THEM and hence never ultimately explains anything whatsoever. Mine circles around an infinite intellect and ultimately explains everything. They by utterly preeminent unconditional faith in themselves and their sinful use of finite and fallen atunomous reason loudly proclaim what they fallaciously perceive as the brilliance of their own unavoidably content-less existence. Pure uncertain skepticism if they attempt consistency. I by utterly preeminent unconditional faith in the utterly uncontingent triune God of Christianity loudly proclaim HIS brilliance and rest assured that He is the explanation for everything. Even that which He forbids and detests
It's not that unbelievers do not advance true knowledge and hence contribute much good to the world. Of course they do, but they do it in spite of and not because of their own foundational beliefs. It's only because my foundational beliefs are true that anything they think or do, works or bears fruit. They hate that. They hate God. They are His enemies. Same as I was. That's why Paul told us in Romans 1 that they "suppress" or as the Greek has it, they "hold under" the truth in their unrighteousness. Picture a beach ball in the water. They keep holding it down, while it keeps popping up. That's how they attempt to hide from their true selves and the God who created them. Paul says they are without excuse. God has reveled Himself unavoidably EVERYWHERE and especially IN themselves as created in His very image, fractured though it is in sin.
THAT is the discussion that has to happen or any quibbling about this or that particular proof or evidence has no genuine framework to even legitimately take place.
"
Thanks for the comment Greg. Good points!
ReplyDeleteThanks for the informative post! Would you say that other world religions like Mormonism and JWs are able to account for some features of human experience like induction and laws of logic in theory, since they are consistent in some regards to Christian Theism?
ReplyDeleteSince Christian theism must be taken as a system or not at all, I would say no. In the end, these systems ape Christian theism but are still reduced to absurdity. Both religions have their ultimate source of authority in unreliable men who have long been discredited. However, the challenge to any and all comers is to disprove Christian theism. Unless Christian theism can be disproved, we have no need to work through all systems one by one. Any system contradicting Christian theism is shown to be false when Christian theism is shown to be true. So they would not be able to account for such things as they ought, since they reject the ontological trinity of Christian theism. He, and only He is the source of such relationships in the human experience.
ReplyDelete