Rationalism and Irrationalism in Non-Christian Thought: The Case of Kant (Part 2 of 2)

A brief example of the rationalist/irrationalist principle can be illustrated from the history of philosophy. The epistemology of Immanuel Kant (1724 -1804) taught that the concepts the are necessary for our understanding the world around us, such as causality, laws of logic, time, space, and order, are structured by our minds and imposed upon the things we experience. In order to be rational and make sense out of life we must assume, or presuppose, these notions. Because we cannot prove these categories by touch, smell, sight, etc. they must be thought of as created by, and arising from, our minds, thus ordering and providing the standard for those things that we can empirically verify. This lead Kant to conclude that if we are to think of anything at all we must think in terms of everything being caused by something logically and temporary prior to it. This lead to a fairly deterministic view of mankind (man’s actions are strictly the result of prior conditioning, by both nature and nurture).

But what becomes of personal freedom, and moral responsibility? Kant believed that while we could not prove that man was a responsible moral agent we must nevertheless act as though this were the case. Philosophers have described these as Kant’s two worlds, the world of nature (which leads to determinism), and the world of freedom (where responsibility is found). Kant spoke of the “starry skies above” and the “moral law within.” While Kant could not deny the splendid regularity of the natural world and the reality of humanity’s “moral motions,” his philosophy could not bring these two worlds together. With no rational justification, Kant made the “upper story leap” to irrationalism.

Thus in Immanuel Kant we find both rationalism, and irrationalism.

Likewise, every non-Christian system contains what Jacques Derrida calls “alterity”, i.e. their own system contains the very principles for its downfall. They all “auto-deconstruct.” Esther Meek notes that much of the history of western philosophy can be described as the path from skepticism to “certainty” back to skepticism. The history of secular philosophy, up to this present day, is the story of man’s downward spiral

 from epistemological presumption to chaotic relativism.

The Enlightenment project, which started with thinkers such as Rene Descartes (1596 – 1650), begun from a theistic basis. Descartes considered himself a Christian and, in principle, sought not to undermine the faith he held. Yet, because his philosophical method began with the human mind as completely sufficient to determine the nature of the “really real,” later generations abandoned the idea that belief in the Biblical God was necessary for understanding reality. Soon enough rationalistic deism was born.

As the downward spiral of western philosophy continued, rationalistic deism gave way to pessimistic nihilism, followed by rebellious existentialism, eventually leading to relativistic postmodernism . Thus, non-Christian thought, when consistent with its own principles leads only to deeper and deeper levels of hopelessness and despair.

Rationalism and Irrationalism in Non-Christian Thought (Part 1 of 2)

A powerful tool for apologetics is the awareness that all non-Christian thought can be categorized by the tug-of-war between rationalism and irrationalism. For our present purposes, we’ll define rationalism as any attempt to establish the fallen human mind as the ultimate standard of truth. This establishing of the intellect as a law unto itself is done when non-Christians reject God’s testimony to Himself in both nature and Scripture. A rationalist, in this sense, states that the human mind is able to fully and exhaustively explain reality. (I continue to qualify what I mean by rationalism here in order to avoid confusion with rationalism, the epistemological school of thought)

Non-Christian thought also is characterized by irrationalism. How is this the case? Because inevitably the finite and fallen human mind cannot fully capture all of reality into a man-made system. At the point in which the non-Christian rationalist realizes that they cannot account for everything (i.e. makes sense of everything within his worldview), they engage in what Francis Schaeffer called an “upper story leap.” An “upper story leap” is when someone arbitrarily appeals to something that their worldview cannot makes sense of by simple appeals to “the facts” of their worldview. The have to do this because they live in God’s world can thus cannot help but affirm certain things. We can’t escape our design

Next we’ll take a look at one example and conclude…

Why Apologetics? (Part 4)

And now to close off our short run with this series…

Question: Why and how is the study of apologetics beneficial to the church?

3. Third, apologetics serves as a vital aid in the work of missions, evangelism, and cultural engagement.

In the course of familiarizing oneself with the case for the Christian worldview we must, as a matter of love for those we speak to, expose ourselves to common misunderstanding, misrepresentations, and objections to the faith. And, it is best to prepare answers in advance. How is this a loving thing to do? Because it means that we must listen to others, and out ourselves “out there.”

More often that you’d think, the type of stuff you’re hear in objecting to Christianity is more or less the same stuff again and again. So we all should take stock of “common objections.” And in witnessing to non-Christians, apologetics helps to “clear the ground.” Many unbelievers have never heard an informed, rational defense and presentation of the Christian faith.

Now to the content of our answer…

Apologetics helps evangelism. In witnessing to others we will always, at some time, run into objections. Unbelief have it’s own rationale, and people don’t convert for particular reasons (other than the obvious theological reason, rebellion and sin). We should know why we believe the Bible is the word of God, why Christianity is different from other religions and what practical difference does it make for the potential convert.

Apologetics helps missions. Similar, yet distinct, problems arise when on the mission field. Often the person we commend the faith it is under serious social pressure to remain as they are, whether in intensely religious countries or in secular nations. They need to know why they should risk persecution for committing their life to Christ. Are they committing social suicide? Are they committing intellectual suicide? Also a huge issue for a theology of missions (especially in our day and age) is the question of religious pluralism. Are all religions the same? Are they all legit pathways to God?

Well, of course not. It’s both philosophically wrong (because so many religions make contradictory claims), and Biblically dangerous (Jesus is the only way to God, cf. John 14:6, Acts 4:12). But the point is that as we study apologetics we learn both how to develop this claim (so the unbeliever sees the Biblical rationale for it), as well as how to persuasively communicate it.

Apologetics helps Christian cultural engagement. The Bible states that Christians are to be “in” the world, yet not “of” the world. We are to live among unbelievers, as spiritual ambassadors for Christ. We shouldn’t live in step with the unbelieving world, doing these they way they dictate that we should. Instead we should (ideally) be counter-cultural, developing a distinctively Christian critique of cultural trends as well as positively recommending Biblical alternatives. Of course, this takes a lot of study, effort, and prayer. Those who “do” apologetics (which should be all of us, cf. 1 Pet. 3:15) should learn what are the cultural objections to Christianity are, like “Christians are intolerant,” “Religious belief is dangerous,” etc.

Well, that’s what I came up with. I’d love to hear feedback!

John Frame on the Basics

PRESUPPOSITIONAL APOLOGETICS: AN INTRODUCTION

Part 1 of 2: Introduction and Creation

Part 2 of 2: Fall and Redemption; and Summary and Conclusion

You Want a What?

This had me laughing for quite a while. Enjoy!

[kml_flashembed movie="http://youtube.com/v/fEk6Hkdtquw" width="425" height="350" wmode="transparent" /]

Articles by Michael R. Butler

Michael Butler is one of the finest Christian apologists in the presuppositionalist school of thought. On his blog, he has posted some really great articles that develop some of the material one can find here.

1. The Pulling Down of Strongholds: The Power of Presuppositional Apologetics (Apologetics)

2. The Transcendental Argument for God’s Existence (Philosophical Apologetics)

3. A Truly Reformed Epistemology (Philosophical Apologetics)

Why Apologetics? (Part 3)

Now to address the second answer to our question.

Question: Why and how is the study of apologetics beneficial to the church?

2) Second, it strengthens, confirms, and emboldens Christians in their faith.

When Christians follow the Biblical command to defend their faith (see 1 Pet. 3:15) several things happen. First, their faith is confirmed. Christians for any length of time know that doubt can creep in and cause them to second guess what they believe regarding Christ and the Bible. The careful study of apologetics encourages the believer to know that what they’ve given their lives over to is not a myth or something merely made up by someone or some group. It is grounded in real history, and is the only worldview that doesn’t strip human existence of objective meaning.

Second, it strengthens our faith. When we see that only Christianity provides a true understanding of the world we come to trust our Creator and Lord with renewed vigor. Once we see that the “big picture” gives life purpose we learn to firmly lean on God during those times when we can’t make sense out of a given situation, hardship, or intellectual crisis.

Finally, the study of apologetics emboldens us for engagement with non-Christians. Here i’m not simply referring to apologetic debate, but also for personal evangelism and other venues of Christian/non-Christian dialogue. If the message of creation-fall-redemption in Christ is true, and the goal of apologetics is to demonstrate the truth of the Christian worldview, then pouring time into knowing how to handle objections, unbelieving philosophies, and various other unchristian ways of thinking is a vital means that the Holy Spirit may use in communicating the gospel in a sin-sick world.

Apologetics Book Recommendations

For the past several years, in one venue or another, I’ve had people ask me for recommendations on apologetics books. I thought I’d post a list that some might find helpful. This list is by no means exhaustive, but it’s a solid start. If you have any additional recommendations, please share!

1. Always Ready: Directions for Defending the Faith- Greg Bahnsen

2. Apologetics to the Glory of God- John M. Frame

3. Why I Still Believe- Joe Boot

4. Every Thought Captive- Richard L. Pratt

5. New Dictionary of Christian Apologetics- Edited by Gavin McGrath and W. C. Campbell-Jack

6. Van Til’s Apologetic- Greg Bahnsen

7. Pushing the Antithesis- Gary DeMar

8. Revelation and Reason- Edited by K. Scott Oliphint and Lane G. Tipton

9. The New Testament Documents: Are they Reliable?- F. F. Bruce

Why Apologetics? (Part 2)

Now I’ll try to briefly spell out the one sentence answers I gave in the first entry.

Question:Why and how is the study of apologetics beneficial to the church?

1) First, apologetics encourages the believer to develop a distinctively Christian theory of knowledge.

Apologetics deals with defending and commending the Christian faith. As a result, it deals with a knowledge claims. As Christians we claims to know that God exists, that He is triune, that humans are divine image-bearers ,yet sinful, that Christ is the Son of God, and that He rose from the dead, etc.

When we deal with claims to know things like this (and claims to know anything) where are dealing with issues in the field of epistemology. Epistemology is the subdivision in philosophy that handles theories about how we know things, how we determine true knowledge from opinion, how do we know they’re truth, and how do we know we know. In the history of philosophy theories of knowledge (i.e. epistemologies) have have been proposed by many people, but as Christians our goal is to be biblical. So we can’t accept any old theory of knowledge but rather should strive to conform our understanding of knowledge to scripture.

Finally, Doing apologetics should help us to ask the standards epistemological questions (how do I know? etc.) and seek for their answers with an open Bible. By doing this we demonstrate a submission to God’s word as our ultimate standard not only for so-called “religious” knowledge, but for all knowledge. Likewise, in doing this we “love the Lord our God with all… our minds.” Scripture is filled with passages that address our thought-life. We are to “take every thought captive” to Christ “in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.” It also speaks of the saving knowledge of God that Christians have, as well as the paradoxical nature of the unbeliever’s knowledge of God.

Why Apologetics? (Part 1)

Why and how is the study of apologetics beneficial to the church?

Apologetics is beneficial in 3 ways:

1) First, apologetics encourages the believer to develop a distinctively Christian theory of knowledge.

2) Second, it strengthens, confirms, and emboldens Christians in their faith.

3) Third, apologetics serves as a vital aid in the work of missions, evangelism, and cultural engagement.

Keep these general answers in mind, because I plan to briefly develop them in the upcoming entries.

The Unformity of Nature

Earlier, in my first post on David Hume, I mentioned that a theory of knowledge that claims that all knowledge is based on sense-experience cannot explain why the world runs in such a uniform fashion (what we call the “uniformity of nature”). To drive this point home to the non-believers we should ask the non-Christian to give an account of why it is that they trust the future to be like the past. If the universe does run in a fashion in which the future resembles the past, this implies design, or teleology. This teleological dimension of the universe has intensely practical implications.

When we take a prescription medication we assume that the positive effects it had in the past will continue into the present and future. This is especially damaging to one who believes the reality can be boiled down to complex matter in motion for unnumbered eons of time. If the universe is impersonal and purposeless, then why assume a uniformity amongst random events? If the answer is because nature has always behaved in this manner we must make it apparent that this response assumes what it needs to prove (i.e. is begs the question). If all “knowledge” comes from sense-experience, then we can have no warrant for saying that the future will be like the past. Why? Because, by definition, we have no “experience” of the future.

The Christian is perfectly comfortable with this uniformity because scripture speaks of it (Deut. 11:14). God has promised, in His word, to continue to run the universe in a largely uniform fashion, also the covenant with Noah tells us (Gen. 8:22).

Though I am simplifying for the sake of clarity and space, we must realize that this last point is absolutely devastating to many of the “scientific” objections to the faith. The scientific method of inquiry assumes the general repeatability of an experimental procedure to validate a given hypothesis. Without some warrant for the general predictability of nature we can have no assurance that a antitoxin that fruitfully achieved its purpose the first one hundred times will not act as a poison the one-hundred and first. Our lives demonstrate that everyday we act on the belief that nature is uniform. What we’re asking of the non-believing empiricist/naturalist/materialist is to provide a philosophical justification for such a belief from within their worldview.

Naturalistic scientists cannot take their first steps without denying, in practice, their philosophical underpinnings.

Help from Hume (Part 2 of 2)

Last time we briefly sketched the skeptical epistemology of David Hume. He noted that this thought was working from within a philosophical tradition known as empiricism, the view that all knowledge is derived from sense-experience.

What’s interesting to note is that in David Hume, so many philosopher’s believed that were witnessing the end of philosophy as they knew it. Immanuel Kant (who we’ll discuss at a later date) stated the it was Hume that arose him from his “dogmatic slumbers” and drove him to develop an epistemology that served as a response to Hume.

Does Hume’s radical empiricism help a Christian apologist? Without a doubt (no pun intended!), the answer is Yes. Hume pushes empiricism to it’s logical[ly absurd, yet consistent] limits. The fact of the matter is that though Hume throughly discredited epistemological empiricism hundreds of years ago, most outspoken forms of atheism (ala Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins) are “religiously” empiricist. Likewise the average “man on the street” unbeliever functions on the basis of a “seeing is believing” mentality.

How it works. When we encounter unbelievers with this epistemological framework we should always ask the same questions and hold them to the same level of consistency.

First is the issue of consistency. We should ask the empiricist unbeliever to be absolutely consistent with their theory of knowledge. we could politely ask them if they believe in true and objective moral standards, justice, laws of rationality and mathematics, human dignity, beauty, and real cause-and-effect relations. Now, surely most will. Even those who see where you’re going and attempt to deny these things (by saying, for example, that they are merely social constructs) should be reminded that their everyday actions betray that they really do believe them.

Second, we need to ask revealing questions. Empiricism as a theory of knowledge and truth largely depends on materialism and naturalism (the belief that only the physical realm exists, only matter in motion coming together in strange ways). So, here are some questions to ask the empiricist:

Have you tasted, touched, heard, smelled, or seen a law of logic? (hereafter i’ll substitute “tasted, touched, heard, smelled, or seen” with “sensed”)

Have you ever sensed a law of mathematics such as A² +B²= C²?

Have you ever sensed a number? (and here I don’t mean a numeric inscription such as 1 or I, 2 or II, but the number itself)

Have you ever sensed “human dignity”?

Have you ever sensed caused and effect? (I don’t mean succession-I covered in the first post-I mean causation)

Have you ever sensed the chief empiricist principle, “all knowledge comes from sense experience”?

By asking such kinds of questions, you’re simply asking the empiricist to be consistent with their principle that all knowledge comes from the five senses. After all, the answer to all the questions above is a resounding No. The naturalist worldview denies a basis for affirming these things and hence cheats when it tried to “borrows” these concepts for it’s anti-God project. And if the empiricist approach doesn’t even provide a sound basis for it’s chief principle (the last question above), then it disqualifies itself as a serious theory of knowledge and challenge to Christianity.

Now, naturally the Christian rejects the principle of empiricism, though we do not deny the need in many cases to be empirical regarding study, research, science, etc. (cf. 1 john 1:1)

Two things remain, an answer to these questions from a Christian worldview (some of which I’ve sketched out in previous posts) and a discussion on the uniformity of nature, which I mentioned in the first post. On the uniformity of nature, I’ll post an independent entry soon.

Thanks for the assist, David!

Help from Hume (Part 1 of 2)

For the next 2 posts I’d like to take a look at Philosopher David Hume. While he was no friend of Christianity, I believe that his approach to a theory of knowledge (i.e, his epistemology) is extremely helpful in aiding Christians against the predominant philosophical objections to the faith.

Hume stood in the philosophical tradition of British Empiricism, a tradition which teaches that all knowledge is derived from sense-experience. That is, if something is not, at least in principle, able to be tasted, touched, seen, heard, or smelled, then it does not count as a potential object of knowledge.

Brief explanation of [some of] Hume’s thought
Hume had an interesting method of sifting through different types of beliefs. Picking up what a tool of analysis from Leibniz, Hume’s fork for sifting is the “analytic/synthetic” distinction. Analytic statements are relations of ideas, and to deny them necessarily leads to a contradiction (laws of logic, definitions such as “all bachelors are unmarried men). These are usually what we think of as a priori truths. Hume’s (hereafter H) attack on analytic statements was that they are tautological, i.e. they add nothing new to knowledge. H believed that his rationalist philosophical counterparts (ex. continental rationalists such as Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibniz) were building philosophical systems in mid-air, with nothing empirical to ground their flights of fancy.

Synthetic statements are those which can be empirically explored and verified. An example of such a statement would be “Molly’s dress is green.” How can we truly “know” that this statement is true? By checking it out, it must be subject to an
empirical inquiry.

(Please remember that H, like most Enlightenment philosophers, was working with internalist presuppositions, defined “knowledge” as “justified, true belief”. In order for someone to possess knowledge they must be aware of why they believe as they do and how that particular belief fits in and are supported by all their other beliefs. This is also known as classical foundationalism.)

In light of H’s empiricist epistemology, he uses this fork to sort out all philosophical issues. Only synthetic statements lead to true knowledge. So, H asked of the traditional questions of philosophy, are the answers given merely in the realm of relations of ideas, i.e. analytical ? If so, then they are tautological and offer us no help. But since H only accepted as worthy of study and consideration beliefs based on verifiable experience by at least one of the five sense, he lapsed into his notorious skepticism.

**Things Hume doubted because we cannot know them through the 5 senses:

1) The existence of God (but isn’t God-at least the God of the Bible-a Spirit, and hence should not be sought in the same way that we verify material things?)

2) A continuing self through time (when was the last time you experienced your “self”? Looking into a mirror won’t help, because all you see is a body, not the “self.”

3) Causation. (we never actually “see” a cause. We see one event followed by another, but we cannot experience in any way the necessity of the procession of events. In philosophical terms, we “see” a succession of events-ball A moves after ball B strikes it- not causation. Remember, H is being a consistent empiricist)

4) The uniformity of nature. (There is no empirical -and non question begging!- reason to believe that the future will be like the past. We have had no experience of the future, and hence cannot really be sure. An anti-toxin that cures today may poison tomorrow. Of course apart from the uniformity of nature science cannot proceed.)

Of course the truth is that David Hume never said that the above mentioned things do not exist, or even that he himself didn’t believe in them. His point was to demonstrate that autonomous reason has no logical reason for believing these things. Again, his point was that empiricists cannot given a sufficient explanation of how the belief in the above things are consistent with their approach to knowledge.

According to Hume, beliefs in the uniformity of nature and the necessary relationship between cause and effect are rather grounded in our psychological make-up, a “habit of the mind.” Thus, being that Hume rejected the rationality of belief in God, causality, a sustained “self”, etc, he attributed the belief in such things to the irrational aspect of humanity. Without, for instance, a Christian conception that God creates both the world around us and our minds to understand it (being created in His image), Hume had no assurance that the objects of our knowledge and our perceptions of them cohere.

Next we’ll develop more how Hume aids a Christian apologetic argument against naturalism…

A Great New Resource for Apologetics

I just picked up this new work on a Reformed approach to apologetics, Revelation and Reason, and it looks wonderful! I’m currently finishing up Total Truth by Nancy Pearcey, but when I’m done, i’m jumping right into this one!

Table of Contents:

Introduction. K. Scott Oliphint and Lane G. Tipton

(1) Reformed Apologetics: Exegetical Considerations
(a) Some Epistemological Reflections on I Cor. 2:6-13. Richard B. Gaffin
(b) Resurrection, Proof, and Presuppositionalism: Acts 17:30-31. Lane G. Tipton
(c) The Irrationality of Unbelief: An Exegetical Study. K. Scott Oliphint
(d) The Case for Calvinistic Hermeneutics. Moises Silva
(e) Paul’s Christological Interpretation of Creation and Presuppositional Apologetics. Lane G. Tipton

(2) Reformed Apologetics: Theological Foundations
(a) Divine Aseity and Apologetics. John M. Frame
(b) Consistently Reformed: The Inheritance and Legacy of Van Til’s Apologetic. Michael S. Horton
(c) A Confessional Apologetic. Thom Notaro
(d) Theologia Naturalis: A Reformed Tradition. Jeffrey K. Jue
(e) The Eschatological Implications of Genesis 2:15 for Apologetics. Bill Dennison

(3) Reformed Apologetics: Methodological Implications
(a) The Old New Reformed Epistemology. K. Scott Oliphint
(b) The Fate of Apologetics in an Age of Normal Nihilism. Michael Payne
(c) Turn! Turn! Turn! Reformed Apologetics and the Cultural Dimension. William Edgar
(d) Van Til and Transcendental Argument. Don Collett

APPENDIX
Cornelius Van Til and the Reformation of Christian Apologetics. K. Scott Oliphint

A Natural Knowledge of God

Once, in an online discussion with a non-Christian, the objection was raised to my belief in creation. I was simply stating that, as a Christian, I believe what Scripture teaches. So, what was the problem? Was it because I’ve epistemologically come to know this from the testimony of Scripture (and the teaching of my parents growing up)? Had I not the ability to read or write I’d rely on the testimony of others, a means of learning that God has ordained for the passing on the truth of His word.

We should recall the fact that sociological reasons for our coming to know certain things do not undermine their metaphysical truth. (We’ve pretty much all come to know that the earth was round by the word of teachers, scientists, 2 dimensional photos, etc., but simply because this is how we came to know this doesn’t mean that we should doubt whether or not the earth really is round…or a sphere if you will) Now if my objector was implying that if I didn’t have written Scripture I would instead be religious in a pagan sense (i.e. a nature worshipper), he may have been right in one sense. In Romans chapter 1, verses 21-23 the apostle Paul says:

For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.

So, you see that I might have been a nature worshipper of some sort, but according to Paul, I’d be one who has committed the morally responsible exchange of the worship of God for the worship of those things that God has made (i.e. idolatry).

A careful reading of this passage makes it pretty clear that the reason God’s “wrath is revealed from heaven against all unrighteousness” is because people rebel against God with clear knowledge of His will and requirements. Therefore-and I realize that this is not a popular teaching- there is no such things as the poor tribal leader who, because he has never heard the gospel of Jesus, is in proper standing before God. But once again in order to show that I’m not simply making this up and that what I’m saying it actually consistent with the teachings of Paul, I’ll quote Romans 1: 19-20,

For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

Note that Paul does not say that pagans merely know about God (those that surely is true), but that they actually know God himself, speaking of some sort of personal relationship.

So, if I were someone living in a community who had never been presented with the gospel of Jesus Christ, yes, I might have been a pagan, but I’d be doing it in an act of rebellion to my creator who had better plans for me.

Thankfully, God has shown mercy…