In this article, the goal is to provide
believers with
ammunition for the battle against the worldview of
non-Christians. In formal
writing, it is frowned upon to use personal
pronouns. Therefore, attempting to
do this makes the wording a little awkward.
The following article was written after a
recent online
discussion about worldviews and what a worldview can
tell us. Many Christians
who are active in witnessing on behalf of the
Christian faith have experienced
similar encounters. Hopefully, the believers who
read this will relate to what
is shared and benefit from it. There will be some
repetition of thought to
drive home the points made. Sometimes in
discussions, points need to be repeated
and reemphasized.
The recent discussion started when this
writer
challenged the legitimacy of a prostitute/porn
person’s character who has been
in the news lately and has filed a defamation of
character lawsuit. The present
writer of this article asked, what character? The
post then started a lengthy
thread that went on for a week,
both day
and night. The discussion involved interacting with
several individuals who
will be called detractors.
This author was challenged regarding this
writer’s standard
for making the judgment about the prostitute/porn
person’s character and
responded by saying the Bible was the standard. The
response was met with
ridicule. It was to the present writer’s advantage
to subsequently ask the
detractors what basis they had for judging this
writer’s criteria and asked
what their criteria were for condemning mine were
since they too were making
judgments. No intelligent response was given. Some ad hominem replies were directed towards this writer.
This writer asked the detractors to identify
their
worldview. Were the detractors arguing for
materialism? Non-Christian
mysticism? Eastern philosophy? Empiricism?
Rationalism? Irrationalism? UFOology,
space beings, or gods from a different planet?
Again, no response was forthcoming,
and then asked the detractors, whatever their
worldview was to provide an explanation
of how their worldview could substantiate the use of
logic and ethics. Counter
responses were nothing more than begging the
question.
The detractors were outraged that one could
even ask
such a question about their worldview. For them, the
use of logic and talking
about ethical positions seemed self-evident, at
least to them. This writer has
never said that non-Christians do not use logic or
ethics but instead has said
their worldview does not provide any justification
for such activities.
The detractors made adamant statements that
this
writer’s judgment was wrong. Based on what standard
were the detractors
referring to? No response was given. This writer was
just wrong, the detractors
replied. It was interesting that these non-Christian
detractors were using
absolutist assertions within an unnamed worldview
structure. If the unnamed
structure provided the authentication for logic and
ethics, then fine. However,
if the unnamed worldview was materialism, for
example, it has no basis for
making such a claim. Materialism is starting from
rocks or matter. What can one
arrive at, starting with rocks? Rocks or matter do
not speak. It can be said
unequivocally, material or matter is silent!
A common problem for Non-Christians, as
noted, is that
they are notorious for using absolutist terminology
when their worldview
precludes it. One cannot function without absolutes,
yet most non-Christians are
inconsistent in their denial of biblical absolutes.
The inconsistency appears when
saying that it is wrong to murder or steal. The
non-Christian inconsistently
appeals to absolutes when their system excludes it.
The detractors also
manifested elements of atheism and agnosticism. Both
atheism and agnosticism
will be dissected.
For
example,
most Christians have encountered the following
self-refuting
assertions from encounters with non-Christians
along with our rejoinders:
“Only knowledge that can be empirically
verified is
true.” Can one empirically verify that statement?
“There are no absolute truths.” Is that
statement
true?
“All truth is relative.” Is the supposed
truth just
asserted, relative?
“Should people be skeptical of everything.”
Should an
individual be skeptical of that statement?
“One ought not to judge.” Is that a judgment
that was
just asserted?
One can say it is problematic for
non-Christians when
they assert moral absolutes and omniscient
statements within the framework of a
materialistic system that does not allow absolutes.
When a finite man without biblical
authority asserts moral absolute omniscient
statements, it is indefensible. Likewise,
it should be correspondingly noted the absurdity of
atheism's claim when
asserting, “There is no God.” The absurdity is this;
it is impossible to prove
a universal negative. Furthermore, when the atheist
asserts that “there is no
God.” When using the second question of the Socratic
technique, “how do one
know that?” reveals rather quickly the failure of
this unverifiable claim. The
detractors at one point said it was the Christian
God who did not exist. This
writer wished them the best in trying to prove that
universal negative also.
With that, one can dismiss the
non-Christian's demand
for verification, which is always demanded of
Christians. Yet, incredibly, the
agnostic claims for himself ignorance concerning the
existence of God. It
should be noted that this claim of ignorance is not
an argument against the
existence of God. Instead, it is a sign of
epistemological bankruptcy and what
could be described as a deficiency of knowledge.
Problems
with
the non-Christian’s demand for verification:
“Modern science boldly asks for a criterion
of meaning
when one speaks to him of Christ. He assumes that he
himself has a criterion, a
principle of verification and of falsification, by
which he can establish for
himself a self-supporting island floating on a
shoreless sea. But when he is
asked to show his criterion as it functions in
experience, every fact is
indeterminate, lost in darkness; no one can identify
a single fact, and all
logic is like a sun that is always behind the
clouds.” (1)
In the discussion, when it was asserted the
Christian
God did not exist, the detractors taking on the
characteristics of omniscience.
In this online discussion, this writer put forth a
positive presentation of a
Christian worldview. Some of the best apologists
were quoted whose writings can
be assessed online.
For
example,
on scripturalism, the following is a paraphrase or
summation of the
Christian’s starting principle by Gordon H. Clark:
The Christian argues that scripturalism (all
knowledge
must be contained within a system and deduced from
its starting principles, in
the Christian case, it is the Bible).
An
irrefutable
conclusion that can be reached from this
principle:
The Bible contains the Christian's starting
principles
or presuppositions. God speaks to individuals in the
Scriptures (special
revelation) with human language utilizing logically
structured sentences in
which He tells us the difference between right and
wrong. Consequently, the
strength of the Christian worldview is seen by the
impossibility of the contrary.
The impossibility of the contrary can be asserted
because as of this day, no
non-Christian anywhere has shown how their worldview
can account for the use of
science, logic, and ethics.
Now it can be said that philosophers of the
stature of
Plato and Aristotle tried to account for ethics
within their worldview. For
example, Plato tried to ground truth in the world of
ideas. The world of ideas
interpreted the temporal world of Plato’s forms. The
temporal forms were
imperfect replicas of the eternal, perfect ideas.
One problem he ran into was
perfect dung and filth existing in the world of
ideas. Did Plato and Aristotle
succeed in developing and justifying an ethical
system in their worldview? Has
anyone heard of an appeal to a body of Platonic or
Aristotelian ethical laws
lately? Biblical ethics, on the other hand, has
undergirded the Western legal
system and are with us today. Has it been heard of
the commandments not to
murder, steal, bear false witness, and commit
adultery and rights of appeal?
Why is the non-Christian unable to articulate
a
coherent theory of knowledge? Because as said, the
non-Christian worldview has
no basis or explanation for the use of science,
logic, and ethics. The
non-Christian uses logic and talks about ethics.
They do so without justifying
or demonstrating how their worldview can account for
these things. In other
words, as said, the question is begged, and the
non-Christian steals from the
Christian worldview in order to make sense of
things. Christian apologist Cornelius
Van Til gave the example of a child sitting on the
father’s lap and attempting to
slap the father as the father explained things to
the child. When informing the
non-Christian of their theft, get ready for
emotional responses or ad
hominem attacks.
The following two references caused the
detractors a
particular amount of emotional excitement.
Gordon
H.
Clark: The Axiom of Scripture:
“Every philosophic or theological system must
begin
somewhere, for if it did not begin it could not
continue. But a beginning
cannot be preceded by anything else, or it would not
be the beginning.
Therefore every system must be based on
presuppositions (Require as a
precondition of possibility or coherence. Tacitly
assume to be the case) or
axioms (An accepted statement or proposition
regarded as being self-evidently
true). They may be Spinoza’s axioms; they may be
Locke’s sensory starting
point, or whatever. Every system must therefore be
presuppositional.
The first principle cannot be demonstrated
because
there is nothing prior from which to deduce it. Call
it presuppositionalism,
call it fideism, names do not matter. But I know no
better presupposition than
“The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is
the word of God written,
and therefore inerrant in the autographs.
If the axioms of other secularists are not
nonsense,
they are nonetheless axioms. Every system must start
somewhere, and it cannot
have started before it starts. A naturalist might
amend the Logical
Positivists’ principle and make it say that all
knowledge is derived from
sensation. This is not nonsense, but it is still an
empirically unverifiable
axiom. If it is not self-contradictory, it is at
least without empirical
justification. Other arguments against empiricism
need not be given here: The
point is that no system can deduce its axioms.
The inference is this: No one can
consistently object
to Christianity being based on an indemonstrable
axiom. If the secularists
exercise their privilege of basing their theorems on
axioms, then so may
Christians. If the former refuse to accept our
axioms, then they can have no
logical objection to our rejecting theirs.
Accordingly, we reject the very basis
of atheism, Logical Positivism, and, in general,
empiricism. Our axiom shall be
that God has spoken. More completely, God has spoken
in the Bible. More
precisely, what the Bible says, God has spoken.” (2)
“Logically the infallibility of the Bible is
not a
theorem to be deduced from some prior axiom. The
infallibility of the Bible is
the axiom from which several doctrines are
themselves deduced as theorems.
Every religion and every philosophy must be based on
some first principle. And
since a first principle is first, it cannot be
“proved” or “demonstrated” on
the basis of anything prior. As the catechism
question, quoted above, says,
“The Word of God is the only rule to direct us how
we may glorify Him.” (3)
Back
to
comments on the online discussion:
In the recent discussion, the charge against
this
writer’s position was that of circular reasoning. It
pointed out that this only
holds water if the non-Christian can explain how the
non-Christian position,
namely, starting with oneself as an authority ending
with oneself as an
authority, could escape the same charge. This
writer’s opponents never
articulated a response to the counter charge. When
one starts with
self-authority and ends with that as the final
criterion, how is this not
circular?
The subsequent four citations also received
no
responses.
Epistemological
problems
for the non-Christian raised by Cornelius Van Til:
“If he [the unbeliever] is asked to use his
reason as
the judge of the credibility of the Christian
revelation without at the same
time being asked to renounce his view of himself as
ultimate, then he is
virtually asked to believe and to disbelieve in his
own ultimacy at the same
time and in the same sense.” (4)
“If we first allow the legitimacy of the
natural man's
assumption of himself as the ultimate reference
point in interpretation in any
dimension we cannot deny his right to interpret
Christianity itself in
naturalistic terms.” (5)
Van Til notes how the non-Christian is caught
in an
impossible contradiction.
“[Agnosticism] is, in the first place,
psychologically
self-contradictory upon its own assumptions.
Agnosticism wants to hold that it
is reasonable to refrain from thorough
epistemological speculations because
they cannot lead to anything. But in order to assume
this attitude, agnosticism
has itself made the most tremendous intellectual
assertion that could be made
about ultimate things. In the second place,
agnosticism is epistemologically
self-contradictory on its own assumptions because
its claim to make no
assertion about ultimate reality rests upon a most
comprehensive assertion
about ultimate reality. . . . the alternative is not
between saying something
about ultimate reality or not saying anything about
it, but that the
alternative is rather between saying one thing about
it or another. Every human
being, as a matter of fact, says something about
ultimate reality.
It should be noted that those who claim to
say nothing
about ultimate reality not only do say something
about it just as well as
everybody else, but they have assumed for themselves
the responsibility of
saying one definite thing about ultimate reality.
They have assumed the
responsibility of excluding God. We have seen again
that a God who is to come
in afterward is no God at all [i.e. a God that is
not sovereign over all
existence – M.W.]. Agnosticism cannot say that it is
open-minded on the
question of the nature of ultimate reality. It is
absolutely closed-minded on
the subject. It has one view that it cannot, unless
its own assumption be
denied, exchange for another. It has started with
the assumption of the
non-existence of God and must end with it. Its
so-called open-minded attitude
is therefore a closed-minded attitude. The agnostic
must be open-minded and
closed-minded at the same time. And this is not only
a psychological
self-contradiction, but an epistemological
self-contradiction. It amounts to affirmation
and denial at the same time. Accordingly, they
cancel out one another, if there
is cancellation power in them. . .
Incidentally, we may point out that, in
addition to
being psychologically and epistemologically
self-contradictory, the agnostic is
morally self-contradictory. His contention was that
he is very humble, and for
that reason unwilling to pretend to know anything
about ultimate matters. Yet
he has by implication made a universal statement
about reality. He therefore
not only claims to know as much as the theist knows,
but he claims to know much
more. More than that, he not only claims to know
much more than the theist, but
he claims to know more than the theist’s God. He has
boldly set bare
possibility above the theist’s God and is quite
willing to test the
consequences of his action. It is thus that the
hubris of which the Greeks
spoke so much, and upon which they invoked the wrath
of the gods, appears in
new and seeming innocent garb.” (6)
Van
Til
goes on to say:
“We must point out that 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 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 has been stated. The various opposing
posts have not once
articulated a coherent theory of knowledge. If so,
send a copy a previous post
where my challenge asking for any worldview to
provide a justification or basis
for language, logic, ethics or science that has been
met or explained. To this
challenge, there has been nothing but dodges or
additional assertions or
accusations.” (7)
Problems
for
Materialistic Empiricism:
A popular contemporary form of empiricism
that derives
from John Locke is known as the theory that the mind
at birth is a blank tablet
(tabula rasa)
and then assimilates
knowledge through sensations. This theory could be
called the “blank mind theory”
of knowledge.
The Positivist School boldly asserted as its
starting
principle that they would only accept what can be
verified empirically. The
positivists would accept a statement like “some cars
are red,” because this
could be verified empirically. A color-blind person
would have to take this
statement by faith. A statement like “God exists”
would be rejected since God
cannot be brought into a science laboratory and
inspected. Once upon a time,
someone asked, “How does the positivist school
verify its starting principle
empirically?” With that question, the empirical,
positivist school collapsed.
There are still those who promote elements of this
philosophically discredited
theory, not realizing that in doing so they have
become an irrationalist or
guilty of inexcusable ignorance. Positivism
collapsed because, as in all
non-Christian philosophy, it contains its own
internally self-refuting
contradiction. This positivist contradiction is in
the same category as with
those who assert “there is no truth.” Supposedly,
this assertion is true. Many
non-Christians hold to a materialistic, atheistic
worldview.
Another
big
problem for materialistic empiricism:
Empiricism historically argues that knowledge
comes
through sensations in the following order: (a)
sensations, (b) perceptions, (c)
memory images, (d) and the development of abstract
ideas. In this system of
interpretation, perceptions are inferences from
sensations. How does the
empiricist know valid from invalid inferences? Given
this uncertainty, how can
the empiricist be sure of anything, let alone what
type of matter he may be
trying to examine?
Problems
for
Materialist Rationalism:
Many are not epistemologically
self-conscious,
including some Christians, and therefore are unaware
that they have presuppositions,
which govern their interpretations. In particular,
fallen a man generally
refuses to acknowledge that he has presuppositions
and that his presuppositions
govern interpretations of matter or anything else.
Too many, what is put
forward as evidence and interpretation seems
self-evident, but in reality, it is
nothing more than a subjective evaluation. Escaping
from subjectivity is no
easy task. Does non-Christian philosophy enable man
to get beyond his
subjectivity? Can non-believing man's rationalism
(reason alone using logic)
save him? Can the laws of logic within the framework
of a non-believing
worldview accomplish this? How can they, since the
laws of logic cannot even be
explained or justified within the framework of this
philosophy?
For example, where did these laws of logic
arise? Are
they universally interpreted in the same way? The
laws of logic within the
framework of non-belief are nothing more than a
philosophical construct, which
ends up collapsing into irrationality. The rational
man, in other words, has no
basis for his rationalism. The earlier statement
“matter is silent” should be
understood in contrast to a statement that God is
not silent. This second
assertion is the Christian solution to obtaining
knowledge. God has spoken
through the Scriptures to mankind. We have a
biblical foundation for seeking
knowledge and obtaining it. God-given revelation is
objective. Ungodly men
reject biblical revelation; they suppress the truth
that God has revealed to
them through creation (Romans 1:18). God has spoken
in the Scriptures, i.e., God’s
special revelation to man concerning what is
required of him. The suppression
of God's revelation by fallen man is evidence of his
epistemological rebellion
(Romans 1:18-20). Again, one can ask the
non-Christian what standard is being
used and identify the worldview and its basis for
predication?
In addition to numerous philosophical
problems regarding
fallen man’s interpretation, it should be clear that
matter or material has
nothing to say within the framework of non-believing
philosophy. What could it
say? Within this framework, material or matter is
ultimately an accident and
therefore meaningless. In addition to this problem,
all men have a
priori commitments, which are at work
and from which truth or falsity is deduced. The
question is not does man have a
priori commitments, but what are they?
Do these commitments acknowledge God in the
reasoning process? If one starts with
non-Christian premises, it is impossible to arrive
at the biblical truth. For a
conclusion to be valid, it cannot contain
information not stated in its premises.
The non-Christian cannot have accurate knowledge
because his presuppositions, starting
premises, or axioms, which govern interpretations,
are false.
Answer
a
fool according to his folly, lest he is wise in
his own conceit. (Proverbs
26:5)
One Johnny come lately to the debate person
started
off by accusing this writer of being a moron. To
this, it was replied that this
person started off with ad
hominem,
and since this person started with this rudimentary
logical fallacy, maybe he
was the one who is the moron.
The
One
and Many Problem:
The “One and Many Problem” is another dilemma
for
non-believers. Is reality ultimately one or many? If
reality is ultimately one,
this can manifest itself as communism. If reality is
ultimately many, this can
lead to political anarchy. Eastern polytheistic
philosophy comes down on the
side of the many and, at other times, the one
manifesting itself as pantheistic
monism. Moreover, and consequently, they have never
produced a system
guaranteeing individual rights. Communism answered
the question as noted in
favor of the one or total state, and it likewise
never produced any protection
for property rights or individual freedom.
The Christian worldview, on the other hand,
has
produced a balance of individual freedoms and a
basis for the state and church
authority. These freedoms are accomplished because
of the doctrine of the
Trinity. The Christian God is the ground and
explanation of all reality. God is
one and yet more than one, with a plurality of
persons within the one God. Politically
and religiously, this manifests itself by giving due
authority to the state or
church and a proper place for individual rights and
the basis for appealing
abuses of the state or church. The reader should see
The One and the Many: Studies in the Philosophy of Order and Ultimacy
by R.J. Rushdoony.
In
closing:
In essence, fallen man has erected a closed
system.
His system is closed to God. He does not allow God
to speak. Since man rejects
the Creator, he has nothing within his closed system
that he allows to speak
with ethical certainty. He is left to himself. As
long as fallen man excludes
the biblical God from his system, he cannot know
anything with certainty. The non-Christian’s
thought has no basis for absolutes. Just many
arbitrary social conventions. If
there are no absolutes, there can be no meaning
attached to anything since
everything could be said to be true and not true at
the same time, which is
unacceptable nonsense.
Thus, fallen man is left with an endless
matter,
unintelligible sensations, or his atheistic apostate
reason. Thus, is the bankruptcy
of atheistic, materialistic humanism. It is only the
Christian that has a
rational basis for knowledge. It is because
Christians allow God to speak to us
in creation and Scripture. The non-Christian will
not allow room for the God of
the Bible to speak in their system. Their system is
closed to God’s revelation.
Our system is not closed like the non-Christian. The
Bible tells us about
general revelation and man's requirement to worship
the Creator. The Bible
tells us the specifics on how to worship the
Creator. It is because we have biblical,
i.e., God’s revelation, that an intelligent
conversation on these matters can be
carried on.
It would be impossible to have a discussion
about
these concepts without God's special revelation in
the Bible since biblical
revelation is where the concepts appear. Clearly,
without special revelation,
there would be no discussion of ethics, science, and
logic with any certainty.
As a quick aside, what about Islam and its moral
code? Does this contradict
what has just been argued for regarding the
Christian worldview as the only
worldview that can account for the preconditions of
knowledge? No, it can be said
that Islam is essentially a Christian heresy, which
means the Islamic worldview
has stolen and corrupted the biblical ethical code.
Similar to this is the
universal flood stories that appear in ancient
literature. The Babylonian flood
story, for example, is simply a corruption of the
biblical account.
Philosophically unbelief vacillates between
two
positions of knowing and not knowing. These two
opposite poles of allegiance
constitute a never-ending dilemma, thus revealing
the futility of non-Christian
epistemology. Does any of this affect the
non-Christian? No, the philosophy of
non-belief presses irrationally on, certain of its
uncertainty, oblivious of
the self-refuting contradiction being advanced. To
illustrate, for example,
some non-believers claim with absolute certainty
that there are no absolutes.
The philosophy of non-belief contradicts itself when
it claims not to know (uncertainty,
agnosticism) and to know (certainty, atheism). Both
atheism and agnosticism are
two sides of the same coin. Fallen man's
contradictory uncertainty and
certainty are manifestations of his epistemological
and ethical rebellion
against God.
“For the invisible things of him from the
creation of
the world are clearly seen, being understood by the
things that are made, even
his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are
without excuse: Because that,
when they knew God, they glorified him not as God,
neither were thankful; but
became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish
heart was darkened. Professing
themselves to be wise, they became fools.” (Romans
1:20-22)
Notes:
1.Cornelius
Van
Til, Christian-Theistic
Evidences,
(Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed
Publishing Co., 1978), pp. 147-48.
2.Gordon
H.
Clark, In Defense of Theology, (Fenton, Michigan,
Mott Media, Inc.
Publishers, 1984), pp. 31-33.
3.Gordon
H.
Clark, What
Do Presbyterians Believe?
(Phillipsburg, New Jersey, Presbyterian and Reformed
1985), pg. 18.
4.Cornelius
Van
Til, The
Defense of the Faith,
ed. Scott Oliphint, (Phillipsburg, New Jersey:
Presbyterian & Reformed
1955), p. 107.
5.Cornelius
Van
Til, The
Defense Of The Faith,
(Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian &
Reformed), p. 93.
6.Cornelius
Van
Til, A Survey
of Christian
Epistemology, (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian
and Reformed Publishing
Company 1970), pp. 213-214.
7.Cornelius
Van
Til, A Survey
of Christian
Epistemology, (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
Presbyterian and Reformed,
1970), p. 204.
8.Jack
Kettler, many
of my comments are adapted from Appendix One and Two
from the book, The
Religion That Started in a Hat.
Mr. Kettler has
previously published articles in the Chalcedon
Report and Contra
Mundum. He and his wife Marea attend the
Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. Mr. Kettler is the
author of the book defending the Reformed Faith
against attacks, titled: The
Religion That Started in a Hat. Available at:
www.TheReligionThatStartedInAHat.com
For
more study:
The Gordon H. Clark Foundation
http://gordonhclark.reformed.info/
The Trinity Foundation
http://www.trinityfoundation.org/
Alpha & Omega http://www.aomin.org/
CARM https://carm.org/
Cornelius Van Til information
http://www.vantil.info/bycategory.html
Van
Til Diagrammed
http://www.christianciv.com/VT_Diagrammed.html
*
Predication: attaching a predicate to a subject;
hence, making an assertion. Van Til says that only the
Christian world view makes predication possible.