The Futility of Unbelief
In the last installment, I issued that in defending the faith the Christian is not to give up their Bible, nor their biblical worldview, and attempt to reason from the standpoint of the unbeliever. The reason being, Christians severely hamper themselves when they give up their sword. The unbelievers/atheist mind is darkened (Ephesians 4:18-19) and to place ourselves into that position will most likely not yield any fruit. The power for the darkened human mind and heart to be enlightened comes by way of the Holy Spirit and through the preaching of the gospel.
I posited that, in defending the truth of Christianity the Christian needs to do an internal critique of the unbeliever’s worldview.
Every worldview is a system of thought that will have a self-verifying authority, an ultimate standard that will authorize itself. The Christian will assume their ultimate standard, the Bible, and the atheist will assume their ultimate standard, empiricism. Let us ask, which worldview makes human experience intelligible?
Most hold to an empirical mindset. Empiricism is the belief that all truth and knowledge is gained by our perception through the five senses. Now firstly, indeed we do utilize our senses to convey information to our brains and we trust that information as we function daily. However, how many times have our senses deceived us? When you place a drinking straw into a glass of water and it gives the appearance of having a bend, do we really trust what our eyes are telling us? No. We reason that what we perceive is an optical illusion. Secondly, in making the assertion “All true knowledge is gained by our perception through the five senses”, a truth claim is stated. How can that truth claim actually be verified by its own standard? Which one of the senses can prove the proposition “All true knowledge is gained by our perception through the five senses”? Can that assertion even be subjected to the five senses for validation?
It cannot…
Empiricism results in a self-referentially absurd position. It actually defeats itself due to its inability to justify its own prescriptive standard.
The same can be said about scientism, “True knowledge is gained through the scientific method.” In the face of this assertion, the question becomes “What scientific experiment can prove this assertion as true?” Of course there is no scientific experiment that can prove Scientism. Those holding to scientism will sometimes also make the claim, “I let the evidence speak for itself”, offering that they are taking a neutral position. However, this is disingenuous in that they are attempting to assert that individual facts can speak for themselves. When in actuality, facts in order to be intelligible must be placed within a context and interpreted within the same by an intelligent mind holding pre-existing presuppositions. To deny this and maintain that facts speak for themselves is to engage in the fallacy of reification.
When atheists engage in holding to such a position, they end up in circular reasoning and question begging. Sense perception can only tell us something about reality, not what in reality, is in fact true. The movie “The Matrix” makes for a good example. Neo, the main character, lives and perceives what he believes to be reality, unaware that his senses are being manipulated by a computer, until Morpheus enlightens him to the truth. He is lying dormant in a cocoon attached to a computer manipulating his senses and feeding him information. Now, in this situation how could anyone make an appeal to their senses as the arbiter of reality?
Ultimately, to call into question all our senses and the inability to justify and validate the same without engaging in circular reasoning, we are left with pure skepticism. However, skepticism itself ends up self-defeating. To say “we cannot know anything”, in and of itself, is a claim to know something. This is also a refutation of agnosticism. Agnosticism makes the claim, “We cannot know anything about God.” However, in claiming we cannot know anything about God, one makes a knowledge claim about God. Again, self-refuting.
Most people who come to realize this, and yet wish to merely overlook the same and continue with a materialistic philosophy, will engage in a form of Pragmatism. Pragmatism is the philosophical position of being unconcerned regarding whether something is true or not, it only matters if it appears to work. The problem that results from this position is that those who assume the same will attempt to make truth and knowledge claims with regards to reality. How can someone make a truth claim when their philosophical position is one of disinterest in the truth, and only with what seems to work?
Now, we turn attention back to the John Lennon song “Imagine” and examine the second verse and its implications:
Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people living life in peace
The main point of these few lines is an implied moral standard. However, the question to be asked is “From where does the atheist derive a moral standard, and what keeps this standard from being arbitrary?”
Mr. Lennon’s song will serve to launch us into the preconditions of intelligibility (preconditions in order to make sense out of human experience). The first of which is morality.
Morality
If we operate off the atheistic worldview which holds to an evolutionary theory of origins, then we are nothing more than advanced bricks. How can morality come about from such? Any morality, be it absolute or subjective? I’d like to cite an example forwarded by apologist Sye ten Bruggencate, it is as follows; if we are nothing more than fizzing chemical reactions, how can one chemical reaction be said to fizz right and the other said to fizz wrong? If I have two sodas’, a Coke in one hand and a Mountain Dew in the other, and I shake them up then pop the tops. Which one is said to be fizzing right and which one is said to be fizzing wrong. This is a paraphrase, but the concept holds.
It has been stated by some, holding an atheistic worldview, that morality is “That which brings the most happiness to people.” But, how does this not result in being arbitrary. One, it commits the fallacy of argumentum ad populum (appeal to popularity). If the majority of Americans decided it was morally right to enslave a certain segment of the population, would it in fact become morally right? Two, why should we suppose that it is correct to believe “That which brings the most happiness to people” is proper? In other words, why is it right to believe that?
Also put forth is, “Morality is necessary for the survival of our species.” This is descriptive as opposed to prescriptive. Yes, morality contributes to our survival. But, it presupposes that it is right for the species to survive. Why is it right that a person be concerned with the survival of the species? Why should someone give credence or their obedience to a societal moral standard as opposed to their own self-indulgence, especially if they have the opportunity to cheat and get away with it?
There is no morality in an atheistic worldview, it is an entirely arbitrary concept that is foreign to the system itself.
Uniformity of Nature
The second element regarding the preconditions of intelligibility is the uniformity of nature. All of science is based upon the same. The scientific method, and experiments based upon it, are predicated on the principal of induction. Induction is the belief that the future will be like the past. Where does the atheist run into a problem with regards to this? The questioned to be posed is, what reason does the atheist have to believe that the future will be like the past? In an atheistic/naturalistic philosophical system, we exist in a random chance universe where everything is evolving and changing, so to hold that tomorrow will be like today and so on, is to be incredibly inconsistent. Induction is always a formal fallacy, it affirms the consequent. Another example forwarded by Mr. Bruggencate via reductio ad absurdum goes; If I operate using this principal I can properly reason “I will never die on the premise I haven’t died in the past.” You may say “Yes, but everybody else dies and you are a lot like those other people.” But I can say “Aha, but there is a difference. I'm not them and I haven't died.” This is induction. The atheistic worldview has no capability to account for the uniformity of nature and the philosophy itself runs counter to it.
Laws of Logic
The last element with regards to the preconditions of intelligibility deals with logic. This has been a favorite of many within the atheistic camp given they make the claim Christians are illogical and irrational. Christians divest themselves of logic and rationality in favor of blind faith. Whereas, the atheist is the one who holds to logic and rationality.
Let’s take a look at what logic actually is, along with its characteristics.
Logic is comprised of three laws as follows:
The laws of logic are necessary for all thought, reasoning, and intelligent communication. Any attempt to deny the laws of logic, must utilize the same in the process. Thus, any attack on the laws of logic will result in self-refutation.
What are the characteristics of the laws of logic?
They are:
In short, the laws of logic are an abstract concept. This presents a problem to the atheistic worldview. Within a matter in motion only universe, how can such an abstract entity exist? Atheistic attempts to address this glaring problem have entertained the thought that the laws of logic are nothing more than an “inherent property of matter”. However, to claim logic is a property of matter gives it physicality. I would ask the atheist, “Can you tell me where I can go to observe the laws of logic, or collect a bucket of logic?” “Can I buy logic at the store?”
No.
Others have claimed logic is a manmade convention. This reduces logic to a subjectivism that can vary from person to person and it therefore loses the aspect of invariance. If logic is merely a convention, we can all create our own logic and each be right. What kind of logic is the atheist using when they state logic is a manmade convention?
Logic is only one example of a universal that does not comport with the atheistic worldview. Any other universal does not fit within the context of the same. Operating off the principal of empiricism limits the atheist to sense perception as the test for truth. Any universal that transcends an actual physical entity and is unable to be perceived by the senses does not accord with the atheistic worldview. Universals such as dogs, cats, flowers, etc. are concepts that make no sense due to their abstract nature. An atheist has never sensed such abstract concepts as dogs, cats, and flowers. Only separate disconnected instances of a particular dog, cat, or flower.
These three elements (morality, uniformity of nature, laws of logic) comprise the preconditions of intelligibility. They must be accepted as true in order to know anything about the universe. As has been shown, the atheistic worldview is unable account for all three and show how they are cogent within their universe. Yet, atheists continue to utilize them.
Let’s examine and see how the Christian/Biblical worldview does with regards to these same preconditions.
Morality,
God has provided us with a basic morality through general revelation,
14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. (Romans 2:14, ESV)
And moral absolutes through various Scripture.
The uniformity of nature,
Christians know that the Lord God is sovereign over all, and it is He who maintains the universe and all the laws that govern it in an orderly fashion.
3 He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, (Hebrews 1:3, ESV)
The laws of logic,
they are representative and a part of God’s nature, reflective of His thinking. This includes the aspects of being:
As can be seen, the Christian/Biblical worldview is certainly capable of making and demonstrating provision for the preconditions of intelligibility. Morality, uniformity of nature, and the laws of logic make sense within the Biblical worldview.
Atheists, in principal, should think and behave in a systematically different way than a believer. However, in practicality, this is not what we see. The atheist does not live consistently or according to their worldview.
Why?
Because they can’t. They must resort to borrowing from the Biblical worldview in order to function. All the while, denying that same Biblical worldview and God upon whom they are so dependent. The irony is the atheist will call the Christian irrational and illogical. But, as can be seen it is the opposite. The atheist will attempt to utilize the very morality, logic, and science that, in all respects, should not exist in their universe. Thus, they themselves become inconsistent, arbitrary and ultimately irrational.
It is, as the reformed theologian Cornelius Van Til observed,
“a child, elevated on his father’s knee, reaching up to slap the fathers face.”
To recap, we have seen:
I posited that, in defending the truth of Christianity the Christian needs to do an internal critique of the unbeliever’s worldview.
Every worldview is a system of thought that will have a self-verifying authority, an ultimate standard that will authorize itself. The Christian will assume their ultimate standard, the Bible, and the atheist will assume their ultimate standard, empiricism. Let us ask, which worldview makes human experience intelligible?
Most hold to an empirical mindset. Empiricism is the belief that all truth and knowledge is gained by our perception through the five senses. Now firstly, indeed we do utilize our senses to convey information to our brains and we trust that information as we function daily. However, how many times have our senses deceived us? When you place a drinking straw into a glass of water and it gives the appearance of having a bend, do we really trust what our eyes are telling us? No. We reason that what we perceive is an optical illusion. Secondly, in making the assertion “All true knowledge is gained by our perception through the five senses”, a truth claim is stated. How can that truth claim actually be verified by its own standard? Which one of the senses can prove the proposition “All true knowledge is gained by our perception through the five senses”? Can that assertion even be subjected to the five senses for validation?
It cannot…
Empiricism results in a self-referentially absurd position. It actually defeats itself due to its inability to justify its own prescriptive standard.
The same can be said about scientism, “True knowledge is gained through the scientific method.” In the face of this assertion, the question becomes “What scientific experiment can prove this assertion as true?” Of course there is no scientific experiment that can prove Scientism. Those holding to scientism will sometimes also make the claim, “I let the evidence speak for itself”, offering that they are taking a neutral position. However, this is disingenuous in that they are attempting to assert that individual facts can speak for themselves. When in actuality, facts in order to be intelligible must be placed within a context and interpreted within the same by an intelligent mind holding pre-existing presuppositions. To deny this and maintain that facts speak for themselves is to engage in the fallacy of reification.
When atheists engage in holding to such a position, they end up in circular reasoning and question begging. Sense perception can only tell us something about reality, not what in reality, is in fact true. The movie “The Matrix” makes for a good example. Neo, the main character, lives and perceives what he believes to be reality, unaware that his senses are being manipulated by a computer, until Morpheus enlightens him to the truth. He is lying dormant in a cocoon attached to a computer manipulating his senses and feeding him information. Now, in this situation how could anyone make an appeal to their senses as the arbiter of reality?
Ultimately, to call into question all our senses and the inability to justify and validate the same without engaging in circular reasoning, we are left with pure skepticism. However, skepticism itself ends up self-defeating. To say “we cannot know anything”, in and of itself, is a claim to know something. This is also a refutation of agnosticism. Agnosticism makes the claim, “We cannot know anything about God.” However, in claiming we cannot know anything about God, one makes a knowledge claim about God. Again, self-refuting.
Most people who come to realize this, and yet wish to merely overlook the same and continue with a materialistic philosophy, will engage in a form of Pragmatism. Pragmatism is the philosophical position of being unconcerned regarding whether something is true or not, it only matters if it appears to work. The problem that results from this position is that those who assume the same will attempt to make truth and knowledge claims with regards to reality. How can someone make a truth claim when their philosophical position is one of disinterest in the truth, and only with what seems to work?
Now, we turn attention back to the John Lennon song “Imagine” and examine the second verse and its implications:
Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people living life in peace
The main point of these few lines is an implied moral standard. However, the question to be asked is “From where does the atheist derive a moral standard, and what keeps this standard from being arbitrary?”
Mr. Lennon’s song will serve to launch us into the preconditions of intelligibility (preconditions in order to make sense out of human experience). The first of which is morality.
Morality
If we operate off the atheistic worldview which holds to an evolutionary theory of origins, then we are nothing more than advanced bricks. How can morality come about from such? Any morality, be it absolute or subjective? I’d like to cite an example forwarded by apologist Sye ten Bruggencate, it is as follows; if we are nothing more than fizzing chemical reactions, how can one chemical reaction be said to fizz right and the other said to fizz wrong? If I have two sodas’, a Coke in one hand and a Mountain Dew in the other, and I shake them up then pop the tops. Which one is said to be fizzing right and which one is said to be fizzing wrong. This is a paraphrase, but the concept holds.
It has been stated by some, holding an atheistic worldview, that morality is “That which brings the most happiness to people.” But, how does this not result in being arbitrary. One, it commits the fallacy of argumentum ad populum (appeal to popularity). If the majority of Americans decided it was morally right to enslave a certain segment of the population, would it in fact become morally right? Two, why should we suppose that it is correct to believe “That which brings the most happiness to people” is proper? In other words, why is it right to believe that?
Also put forth is, “Morality is necessary for the survival of our species.” This is descriptive as opposed to prescriptive. Yes, morality contributes to our survival. But, it presupposes that it is right for the species to survive. Why is it right that a person be concerned with the survival of the species? Why should someone give credence or their obedience to a societal moral standard as opposed to their own self-indulgence, especially if they have the opportunity to cheat and get away with it?
There is no morality in an atheistic worldview, it is an entirely arbitrary concept that is foreign to the system itself.
Uniformity of Nature
The second element regarding the preconditions of intelligibility is the uniformity of nature. All of science is based upon the same. The scientific method, and experiments based upon it, are predicated on the principal of induction. Induction is the belief that the future will be like the past. Where does the atheist run into a problem with regards to this? The questioned to be posed is, what reason does the atheist have to believe that the future will be like the past? In an atheistic/naturalistic philosophical system, we exist in a random chance universe where everything is evolving and changing, so to hold that tomorrow will be like today and so on, is to be incredibly inconsistent. Induction is always a formal fallacy, it affirms the consequent. Another example forwarded by Mr. Bruggencate via reductio ad absurdum goes; If I operate using this principal I can properly reason “I will never die on the premise I haven’t died in the past.” You may say “Yes, but everybody else dies and you are a lot like those other people.” But I can say “Aha, but there is a difference. I'm not them and I haven't died.” This is induction. The atheistic worldview has no capability to account for the uniformity of nature and the philosophy itself runs counter to it.
Laws of Logic
The last element with regards to the preconditions of intelligibility deals with logic. This has been a favorite of many within the atheistic camp given they make the claim Christians are illogical and irrational. Christians divest themselves of logic and rationality in favor of blind faith. Whereas, the atheist is the one who holds to logic and rationality.
Let’s take a look at what logic actually is, along with its characteristics.
Logic is comprised of three laws as follows:
- The Law of Identity (A is A)
- The Law of Non-Contradiction (A cannot be B and not B at the same time, and in the same sense)
- The Law of Excluded Middle (A is either true or false)
The laws of logic are necessary for all thought, reasoning, and intelligent communication. Any attempt to deny the laws of logic, must utilize the same in the process. Thus, any attack on the laws of logic will result in self-refutation.
What are the characteristics of the laws of logic?
They are:
- Universal (they apply everywhere, all the time)
- Immaterial (they are intangible, cannot be perceived by the senses)
- Invariant (they are unchanging)
In short, the laws of logic are an abstract concept. This presents a problem to the atheistic worldview. Within a matter in motion only universe, how can such an abstract entity exist? Atheistic attempts to address this glaring problem have entertained the thought that the laws of logic are nothing more than an “inherent property of matter”. However, to claim logic is a property of matter gives it physicality. I would ask the atheist, “Can you tell me where I can go to observe the laws of logic, or collect a bucket of logic?” “Can I buy logic at the store?”
No.
Others have claimed logic is a manmade convention. This reduces logic to a subjectivism that can vary from person to person and it therefore loses the aspect of invariance. If logic is merely a convention, we can all create our own logic and each be right. What kind of logic is the atheist using when they state logic is a manmade convention?
Logic is only one example of a universal that does not comport with the atheistic worldview. Any other universal does not fit within the context of the same. Operating off the principal of empiricism limits the atheist to sense perception as the test for truth. Any universal that transcends an actual physical entity and is unable to be perceived by the senses does not accord with the atheistic worldview. Universals such as dogs, cats, flowers, etc. are concepts that make no sense due to their abstract nature. An atheist has never sensed such abstract concepts as dogs, cats, and flowers. Only separate disconnected instances of a particular dog, cat, or flower.
These three elements (morality, uniformity of nature, laws of logic) comprise the preconditions of intelligibility. They must be accepted as true in order to know anything about the universe. As has been shown, the atheistic worldview is unable account for all three and show how they are cogent within their universe. Yet, atheists continue to utilize them.
Let’s examine and see how the Christian/Biblical worldview does with regards to these same preconditions.
Morality,
God has provided us with a basic morality through general revelation,
14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. (Romans 2:14, ESV)
And moral absolutes through various Scripture.
The uniformity of nature,
Christians know that the Lord God is sovereign over all, and it is He who maintains the universe and all the laws that govern it in an orderly fashion.
3 He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, (Hebrews 1:3, ESV)
The laws of logic,
they are representative and a part of God’s nature, reflective of His thinking. This includes the aspects of being:
- Universal, 7 Where shall I go from your Spirit? Or where shall I flee from your presence? 8 If I ascend to heaven, you are there! If I make my bed in Sheol, you are there! 9 If I take the wings of the morning and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea, 10 even there your hand shall lead me, and your right hand shall hold me. 11 If I say, “Surely the darkness shall cover me, and the light about me be night,” 12 even the darkness is not dark to you; the night is bright as the day, for darkness is as light with you. (Psalms 139:7-12, ESV)
- Immaterial, 24 God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.” (John 4:24, ESV) and,
- Invariant, 6 “For I the Lord do not change; therefore you, O children of Jacob, are not consumed. (Malachi 3:6, ESV)
As can be seen, the Christian/Biblical worldview is certainly capable of making and demonstrating provision for the preconditions of intelligibility. Morality, uniformity of nature, and the laws of logic make sense within the Biblical worldview.
Atheists, in principal, should think and behave in a systematically different way than a believer. However, in practicality, this is not what we see. The atheist does not live consistently or according to their worldview.
Why?
Because they can’t. They must resort to borrowing from the Biblical worldview in order to function. All the while, denying that same Biblical worldview and God upon whom they are so dependent. The irony is the atheist will call the Christian irrational and illogical. But, as can be seen it is the opposite. The atheist will attempt to utilize the very morality, logic, and science that, in all respects, should not exist in their universe. Thus, they themselves become inconsistent, arbitrary and ultimately irrational.
It is, as the reformed theologian Cornelius Van Til observed,
“a child, elevated on his father’s knee, reaching up to slap the fathers face.”
To recap, we have seen:
- Every worldview needs to be self-verifying.
- Empiricism is a self-referentially absurd position.
- The atheistic worldview is ultimately arbitrary, inconsistent, and unable to provide for the preconditions of intelligibility.
- The Biblical worldview makes provision for the preconditions of intelligibility.
- The atheist, in order to function, must borrow from the Biblical worldview. But, at the same time denies the Biblical worldview which results in their irrationality.