Philosophy from a Christian Worldview

Some introductory lectures on Metaphysics and Epistemology 

https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLeyAlQUS0aJZHjL8vY-nh7K7y5Q5n1cR2

How is 'is' known?

How does one know the term 'is' in a non-circular way? 

My first thoughts as I encounter the question. I think each persons beliefs interconnect that form a web. At the core of the web are beliefs that are the ultimate standard to interpret the web of beliefs. These core beliefs can be construed as either properly basic beliefs with defeating defeaters. Or can be understood as self-justifying as explanatorily ultimate.  Is it circular? Yes, but not in a vicious form. There are exclusions to the informal fallacy of begging the question. Walter Sinnott has a good article on this. I'd say I can define and explain the term 'is' but it will entail beliefs that lead to my core beliefs. Vincent Cheung would challenge my core beliefs with Scripturalism, infalliblism and internalism. I think I'd be immune to his criticisms, like AquaScum, if I take either epistemology (with reliabilism and externalism). I don't think an axiomatic system can evade admitting there is some circularity that is not vicious

It is quite simple to cite Webster's dictionary to define 'is'. But this will be an inadequate answer. Proof would be demanded to show the Webster dictionary 'is' a competent authority. Moreover, even if there 'is' sufficient proof the Webster dictionary 'is' a competent authority, the proper interpretation of the dictionary may further be doubted. A critic may always be critical, of anything, even of critical analysis itself. We are fallen creatures thus often fall into irrationality.  Hence, I think the question is an important one. In my judgment, God has created us with: properly functioning cognitive faculties, innate ideas, innate categories and innate grammar. Therefore, I follow in the tradition of St. Augustine. But I, as did Ronald Nash, depart from St. Augustine's insistence of denying any significant role of sense experience. I think we do, in fact, learn via reason (a priori) and sense experience (a posteriori). They are the secondary means for us to acquire true beliefs. But, I agree with Augustine, the primary means for us to acquire true beliefs is God. As we experience the world our minds filter and organize sense experience with our noetic structures (of innate ideas, categories and grammars) to acquire true beliefs. God sustains and secures our beliefs so as to match His thoughts with our thoughts (via the means mentioned). The inter-witness of the Holy Spirit testifies to the truth of Scripture. He is invincible thus defeating all defeaters. We acquire items of knowledge by a reliable belief-forming process. Furthermore, I take some beliefs to be properly basic (e.g. God's existence, an external world, other minds, sense perception, induction). Those beliefs are acquired by a reliable belief-forming process, independent of any arguments, and are rational to believe in absence of defeaters. 

The question can be answered directly. I learned the word 'is' by my parents and school teachers. I acquired the belief: 'is' refers to an English word that symbolizes the meaning 'to exist or be' or used as a designator. This belief was acquired via reason and sense experience, with or without my awareness, by a reliable belief-forming process and thus I'm rational to believe it in the absence of defeaters. But, perhaps, this is unsatisfying. Let's take a different approach. Logically prior to the question, is all forms of logical circularity fallacious? If you answer yes, then can you demonstrate this in a non-circular way? Counter arguments can be given that a valid distinction can be made between vicious and virtuous circularity (e.g. Armstrong, Frame). 

Remember the way to get out of the Clarkian system is to take up a different system. I don't think my view leaves us with the conclusion of the argument below, as Cheung would have us think: 

(1) If sense perception is necessary to interpret the Bible then sense perception is the definitive standard of truth not the Bible. 

(2) Sense perception is necessary to interpret the Bible (in any form of empiricism).

(3) Therefore, sense perception is the definitive standard of truth not the Bible. 

Premise (3) takes the primacy of sense perception and extra-Biblical ideas to be essential in constructing a system to best understand the Biblical teachings. 

The problem with this argument, besides the sloppy premises, is a conflating of ontic and epistemic priority. One can ontologically use sense perception to know a teaching of scripture without epistemically assuming sense perception is the definitive standard of truth. The point is one can build a system of thought placing the definitive truth in the scriptures and not the reverse (i.e.  Definitive truth placed in the means of knowing instead of the scriptures themselves as prerequisite for the possibility of knowledge).

Aristotle, Ethics, and Moral Accountability

In The Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle addressed the notion of moral responsibility. Aristotle regarded, moral goodness as “concerned with feelings and actions…”(Aristotle 111; III, i). Aristotle taught that the voluntary nature of actions and feelings would determine if one should receive praise or blame (111; III, i). Thus moral responsibility is determined by the voluntary nature of feelings and actions.According to Aristotle a choice is a deliberate desire for things that are humanly attainable (120; III, iii). In order for a choice to be deliberate, it must be intentional, and carefully thought out. Further, a choice must be within the human powers to make (120; III, iii).

To Aristotle a choice is to be understood as voluntary in contrast to involuntary or nonvoluntary. Voluntary choices are self-determined. Where as things outside of a moral agent determine involuntary choices. It maybe best to think of involuntary choices as a result of coercion. Nonvoluntary choices ignore the “circumstances and objects of the action…”(Aristotle 114; III, i). By this Aristotle means that non-voluntary choices are performed without intent, or knowledge of: when the action is appropriate, where the action is appropriate, and why the action is appropriate. Voluntary choices “originating cause lies in the agent himself, who knows the particular circumstances of his action”(115; III, i).

Choice is to be distinguished from desire, temper, wish, and opinion. Choice is not to be thought of as the same as desire seen in both animals and humans. For both animals and humans have the ability to desire, but not rationally choose. As Aristotle explains, the “incontinent man acts from desire but not from choice, while contrariwise the continent man acts from choice but not from desire” (Aristotle 116; III, ii). Temper is to be thought of as an emotional predisposition, so it would be difficult to imagine temper involving choice. Choice cannot be a wish because “there is no choice of impossibilities” (Aristotle 116; III, ii). Nor can choice be opinion for they too deal with the transcendent outside the natural powers of man. Further, choices deal with the prescriptive, while opinions deal with the descriptive. Choices must be understood as rationally analyzing all the possible courses to take and acting upon the one that is desired to be the best means for the end (120; III, iii).          

             People can only rightly be accountable for the voluntary choices they make. If a choice was involuntary something other than the moral agent caused the choice, so only what caused the choice could rightfully be blamed. For example, if a person were forced by gunpoint to give money the gunman would be the cause of the agent’s choice. In this case only the man with the gun could rightfully be held responsible for the victims choice because the gunman forced the agent’s choice. The gunman limited the agent’s choices to live or die with the understanding that no reasonable person could resist choosing to live, thus forcing the agent to choose to give away money.  In the case of non-voluntary choices, choices are made without knowledge or intention. For example, a mad man steals food from a grocery store. In this illustration the mad man could not have voluntarily, purposely, knowingly, and deliberately acted. So the man could not rightly be blamed for his action because he was ignorant. The man had no knowledge of: when the action was appropriate, where the action was appropriate, and why the action was appropriate. With these distinctions presented we see for Aristotle moral responsibility derives from the voluntary choices people make (123-125; III, v).      

Moral accountability derives from the voluntary nature of an action, choice, or feeling. Choice is voluntary and deliberate, dealing with attainable means to an end of pleasure or minimal pain. People can only be morally accountable for the choices they make because they have the ability to voluntarily and deliberately choose the good or the bad.

Aristotle’s view is susceptible to criticism on the basis that it makes choice arbitrary or accidental. This is because Aristotle wants to say that a person’s intellect, emotions, and desires influence the will, but never determines it. If a person’s will is not determined by his desires, then the will is determined by itself. For example, person “S” wants to rob a bank, while person “A” does not. If Aristotle’s view is correct the reason why person “S” chooses to rob a bank is because his will chose to. And the reason why person “ A“ chose not to rob a bank is because his will chose not to. If this were the case a person’s choice is arbitrary.        

 Aristotle’s Ethics

In contrast to Plato, Aristotle favored ethical naturalism. He wanted ethics to be practical and down to earth. This is partially why Aristotle departed from Plato’s idea that all value is based from a non-natural source, which he called the Form of the Good.[1] Unlike Plato, Aristotle’s ethics assumed that all things in the world have a “natural” purpose (teleos). Aristotle believed this purpose was grounded in the essential nature of things. For example, the purpose of food is nourishment. The purpose of sleep is rest. The purpose of sex is reproduction. The purpose of a flute is good music. However, for Aristotle purpose is more than design. He saw everything having a function and potential end. For instance, acorns can become oak trees. Trees can become houses. And infants can grow up to be Biologists.

Aristotle argued that the highest good must have intrinsic value. He reasoned this in virtue of the fact that if the good had instrumental value there would be an infinite regress. The result would be that a person would always be after a means to another means and never get to an end. This would mean the highest good could never be reached. This led Aristotle to conclude that the highest good is an end in itself. It has intrinsic value. Hence, it is desirable for its own sake. As Richard Kraut puts it, “ he [Aristotle] assumes that the highest good, whatever it turns out to be, has three characteristics: it is desirable for itself, it is not desirable for the sake of some other good, and all other goods are desirable for its sake.”[2
 Aristotle argued that the highest good is an activity of the soul. He argued this by reason that the good is either external or internal. It’s either by external goods, the soul, or the body. He argued that it could not be found in external goods, because they are outside the control of a person. Nor can the body be of the highest good, for it too is outside the control of an individual, because of chance, and heredity. Aristotle concluded that the highest good must be of the soul. But if it’s of the soul, it must be either a state of mind or action. It cannot be a state of mind because there are states of mind that are not good or evil. For example, a person’s state of mind when asleep is not good or evil. Therefore, the good cannot be a state of mind, so it must be an action. Thus for Aristotle the highest good is an action of the soul.

According to Aristotle the highest good is happiness. But since happiness is defined in many ways, he looks to common ideas of happiness. First he goes to fame. He shows fame cannot be the highest good since it is a means to pleasure. Secondly, he argues that pleasure alone cannot be the good because it degrades humans to animals. Thirdly, he examines honor. Here, he argued that since an individual cannot control honor, it could not be the good. Further, honor too seems to be a means to self-worth or pleasure. Next, he looks at rational contemplation. He shows that rational contemplation is an activity of the soul that’s an end in itself. It fulfils the function of what it means to be a human being. This is due to Aristotle’s belief that only humans have rational souls. Thus it satisfies the necessary conditions for it to be the good.
For Aristotle, virtue is to be found in the disposition of a person that chooses the mean between two extremes of excess and deficiency. The mean for Aristotle is a principle that is both objective and subjective. It is objective in the sense that it is applicable to all people at all times. But oddly enough, it is also subjective in the sense that the mean is relative to each individual. Since individuals are different, each person will have different excesses and deficiencies. And with these differences each person must choose to follow the mean. It seems that Aristotle prescribes moderation when he speaks of the two extremes of excess and deficiency. It’s as if he is saying don’t drink too much, but also don’t drink to little. A better example of Aristotle’s ethics at work would be with the character trait courage. Courage would be the mean of two extremes--rashness and cowardice. A person that has an excess of confidence, with a deficiency of fear will be rash. However, a person that has an excess of fear, and a deficiency of confidence will be cowardice. From this Aristotle would say that the virtuous person would have a disposition to choose to have courage—the mean of two extremes.

      Aristotle believed that people acquire a good disposition by education, and incentive. Education for Aristotle is the primary means of training people to be virtuous. But he also sees pleasure and pain as an incentive, and reinforcement to be virtuous. For if virtue brings greater pleasure and lesser pain, then more people will choose to be virtuous. So by incentive and education one can gain a habit to choose the mean.           

Aristotle believed the highest good is rational activity of the soul in compliance to virtue. If a summary of Aristotle’s ethical system could be understood in a sentence this would be it. Aristotle believed humans should be rational to the point that it leads them to continually follow the mean. And by doing so, they are fulfilling their purpose and flourishing as human beings.    
At this point it would be appropriate to give some general criticisms of Aristotle. Aristotle claimed that people could learn to be virtuous through education and incentive. One could argue that people cannot empirically learn a universal principle (i.e. the mean) by education. This is because a reasonable person could not look to particular things and deduce there is a universal principle. Moreover, Aristotle claimed that a person could gain a good disposition of character by choice. If this were the case, then the initial choice of a person to gain a good disposition would be arbitrary. But this goes against the idea that our desires determine our choices. Furthermore, Aristotle argued for an ethical naturalism. But by doing so, he is left with no metaphysical ground for ethics. Worst of all, he assumes the naturalistic fallacy. In other words, he assumes from a description of the way things are, we can get a prescription of the way things should be. Lastly, we come to the mean itself. The obvious objection to Aristotle is his mean of excess and deficiency is arbitrary. It’s like asking teenagers “why do you believe that”? They can give different responses, but typically their arbitrary. A prime example would be the response “just because.” But even if the mean is shown to be justifiable there seems to be another problem. Assuming that the mean is after moderation. It seems to be contradictory. This is in virtue of the fact that the mean could logically lead people to desire moderation of moderation. In other words, the mean leads people to seek balance from over balancing themselves. But if this is the case we will need a mean for the mean.  

Bibliography

Aristotle. The Ethics of Aristotle: The Nicomachean Ethics.Trans. J.A.K. Thomson. London: Penguin, 1976. 

Clark, Gordon H. Thales to Dewey: A History of Philosophy. 4^th ed. Vol. 3. Trinity, 2000. 86-121.  

Moore, Noel Brooke. and Kenneth Bruder. Philosophy: The Power of Ideas. Mountain View: Mayfield, 1990. 201-03. 

Sandel, Michael J. Justice: What’s The Right Thing To Do?. New York: FGS, 2009. 184-207.

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford U, 08 Dec. 2010

  

---

[1] Moore, Noel Brooke. and Kenneth Bruder. Philosophy: The Power of Ideas. Mountain View: Mayfield, 1990. 201. 

[2] http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-ethics/

Philosophy

What people think of Philosophy:

Jehovah Witnesses, and the Trinity

I will focus my attention to the April 2012 edition of the Watchtower magazine. I wish to show that Jesus is God. Now I am full aware that I cannot answer every objection to the satisfaction of everyone; the reason is plain, some people will rather die than put their most intimate convictions on trial by God’s Word. I think we all are all guilty of this at one point.

There are two sections in the April edition of the Watchtower that deal with the subject of Christ’s identity. On page 5 under the title “Is Jesus really God,” the arguments against Christ’s deity in this section can be summarized as follows: (1) Jesus was subordinate to God (2) Jesus spoke as though he was “separate” from God. From these two arguments the conclusion is drawn that Jesus cannot be God.

 

The passage Matthew 27:46 is cited where Jesus is on the cross and yells in Aramaic, “My God, My God, Why hath thou forsaken me?” What Christ said was clearly a direct quotation used from Psalm 22:1 as a witness to all, he was the prophesied Messiah. But doesn’t this mean that Christ was merely a man since he said “my God”? If he is God should not the very thing he said be odd? Since Jesus said “my God” it seems he is subordinate to another, namely God.  For example, when an employee speaks of his employer, he says “my boss.” This denotes subordination. Jesus says, “The Father is greater than I (John 14:28).” It seems clear Christ indicates he submits to the Father. What do we make of this argument? It seems to me, there is unargued assumption that if one is subordinate to another this entails an inferiority of nature. So this needs to be proven. Yet prima facie this assumption is false. Reconsider the example of an employee and employer. Is the employee inferior to the employer since he is subordinate? At best all one can say is that the employer has a greater position than the employee but this does not entail they are not equal in nature. That is to say both are human with the same moral worth. The employer is no better than the employee. This can be applied to Christ and the Father. Both are equal in nature but the Father has a different role than the Son. Another example can be given when we consider the marriage relationship. The Scriptures teach a woman is to be subordinate to her husband. “Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord (Col 3:18 ESV).” Since a woman is to submit to her husband are we to conclude she is inferior to her husband? If by inferior we mean in nature then obviously not. Man and woman are equal before God. But the scriptures teach God has given man a different role than woman to be the leader of the home. Notice one can have a different role or position than another and yet be equal in nature. Lets use this principle in practice. The Apostle Paul writes “But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ (1 Corinthians 11:3 NASB).”  What are we to exegete from this passage? That man is inferior to Christ, Christ is inferior to God and that woman is inferior to man? No! The context is Paul writing to the Corinthian church to be orderly. Here he teaches them differences in function or roles. But clearly difference in function or roles does not indicate inferiority of nature.  

            The next argument is that Jesus claims to be separate from the Father. Countless passages can be cited where Jesus speaks about doing the Father’s will. Or him telling Pharisees his teachings are from God. These passages are believed to show Christ is separate from God. Precisely in what sense does one mean separate? Ontologically? If Jesus is the Logos that took upon flesh and dwelt among us as John 1:1 teaches, then he ought to speak of God as he does. If God takes upon a human nature, he wouldn’t be an atheist. Christ being both fully God and man he would have to refer to the Father as separate from his humanity. That is to say if Christ as a single person has two natures, deity and humanity, he would have to properly speak as he did. That is not to say however that Christ was speaking about himself. It is wrongheaded to think that if Christ is both God and man then theses verses imply his humanity is speaking of his divinity. This assumes Unitarian monotheism and doesn’t consider Trinitarian monotheism; plus it does not allow the text to speak for itself. Christ constantly made a distinction between himself and the Father. And here I take these verses are further illuminative in showing the distinction between the Son and the Father as persons. But it does not however show Jesus and the Father are ontologically separate.          

Jesus said at one point that authority was given to him. It is argued that if Jesus were God he would already have all authority. In John 1:1,14 and Philippians 2:6-9 it is taught that Christ being God took upon flesh. Lets focus on Philippians 2:5-11 to establish this point. Many scholars identify these verses in Philippians as an early hymn. It is called the Carmen Christi. The context of these verses is Paul teaching the Philippians to have humility of mind as Christ. Humility as such can be characterized by verse 4 as possessing certain rights but giving those up to serve others. Now Christ is to be our example of true humility and we are to imitate him. The passage says, “…He [Christ] existed in the form of God….” The term “form” comes from the Greek word morphe. It means the “outward display of the inner reality or substance. Here it refers to the outward display of the divine substance, i.e., divinity of the preexistent Christ in the display of his glory as being in the image of the Father.”[1] Hence most translations render this “God by nature.”  This means not merely the state of being God but divine existence as the preexistent Christ. Paul goes on. He says He who (eternally) existed in the form of God did not “regard equality of God a thing to be grasped”(NASB). Some interpret this phrase, as Christ did not grasp after equality with God implying it was not something he already possessed. But the context must determine the meaning so it must not be assumed this is what he meant. Paul makes some concluding remarks that are contrasted. Christ did not grasp after equality with God but rather emptied himself. This passage indicates it was a voluntary emptying done by Christ. Paul uses this term “emptying” as a metaphor in other places as well (e.g. Romans 4:14). Paul clearly makes a connection between emptying and taking. He “becomes flesh” by taking the “form” of a bondservant and being made in the likeness of man. Its no accident Paul uses the same word “form” to refer to Christ’s divinity and becoming a bondservant, taking humanity. It is to show a true act of humility. The very one that was served and worshiped by Angels and man takes upon the lowly existence of man. Now let us ask given the context what is true humility? Is it the idea of an inferior created being not usurping someone in a greater position? Is it “humble” for an employee to not try and take the job of his employer? Certainly not! However, what about the second understanding of this passage. Christ the preexistent Logos by very nature God. He being equal with the Father in deity with all its privileges, but he does not consider that position something to hold on to at all costs. But out of love he rather takes upon the lowly existence of a man to go to the for his peoples sins. He voluntarily lays aside his privileges as God and takes the form of a man. He becomes a servant. He serves those he came to redeem at the cross. Paul distinguishes the Son from the Father often calling the Father “God” and Jesus “Lord.” Isaiah 45:23 is quoted by Paul speaking of God and he applies it to Jesus revealing further his deity.

So Jesus was both fully God and man as one person. Thus he could rightfully say that authority was given to him, which he did not have, as a man.

Questions for Witnesses:

1. Who raised Jesus from the dead?

Acts 4:10, John 2:19, Romans 8:11

2.Who is Jesus Father?

John 3:16

Matt 1:18

Who created the heavens and the earth?

Gen 1:1, John 1:3, 1:1,1:14, Col 1:14-17, Job 26:13, Gen 1:2, Isai 44:24 and Job 9:5-8

Who is the Lord God Almighty, the Alpha and Omega, the First and Last?

Rev 1:8 who is the one ” which is, who was, and which is to come?

Rev 1:17-18

Rev 4:8

Rev 11:17

Who did the Apostles believe Jesus to be?

John 1:49, John 20:28, John 1:1,14, 1 Tim 3:16,

What title does Heavenly Father give to Jesus?

Luke 9:35

Hebrews 1:8                           

Objections to Christ’s deity revisited:

Col 1:16-17

This verse does not teach Christ is created. The term “first born” in Greek does not mean first created. Further, it must be interpreted in its context. The latter part of the verse says “He [Jesus] is before all things (the word “other” is added in the NWT but it is not in the Greek); according to this verse then how can Jesus be a created thing if he is before all things? Logically he cannot. Either he is before all things or he himself is a thing created by God and therefore cannot be before all things. We ought to understand the term “firstborn” to mean preeminent or heir, as Jews understood the term in Hebraic tradition.

Rev 3:14

The term archa translated beginning can be rightly rendered origin or source. Even the “Reasoning” book acknowledges this fact.

John 14:28

Again a different function or role does not entail an inferiority of nature.

Proverbs 8 The wider context of Chapter 8 in the middle of Chapter 7 and 9 speaks of wisdom in the feminine gender. Chapter 7 tells us to call wisdom our sister. Clearly the wisdom spoken of in this chapter cannot refer to Jesus. Even so, this is a personification of wisdom in the literary genre of proverbs and should not be taken as precise doctrine. 

The Trinity

First let us go to some passages in Scripture to build the foundations for how we ought to understand God.

Det 6:4

Mark 12:28-33

1 Corinthians 8:4

Foundation 1: Monotheism, God is one,

It is an indisputable fact that the clear teaching of scripture is monotheism. There is one God.  Nevertheless, there are passages that seem to refer to other gods, but when you look at the context of such scriptures it is evident they are speaking of either: idols, angels or kings in a metaphorical way. Examples of such passages would be Psalm 82, John 10, and 1 Corinthians 8.

Foundation 2: There are three named, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit called God.

The Father: Jesus’ model prayer

1 Peter

The Son: Mark

Exodus, Mark 6:51

John 20:28

Phil 3:5

The Holy Spirit: Acts 5, 1 Corin 6:19

Foundation 3: The three named, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, are persons.

John 15:26

Notice the Father sends the Spirit to testify of the Son. The three are spoken of as persons. But note how the Holy Spirit is spoken of with the personal pronoun “He.”

John 17:5 

Foundation 4: The three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are the one God. This foundation necessarily follows from the other two. Here we draw the conclusion from scripture the Tri-unity of God, the 3 in oneness, commonly called the doctrine of the Trinity.

The term “Trinity” is nowhere to be found in scripture. But it refers to a biblical doctrine. Much like the term omnipresence is not found in scripture, but the idea of God being everywhere present is clearly taught in scripture.  So although the term “Trinity” is not in scripture the truth in which the word refers to is taught in scripture. The word Trinity can be traced to Latin roots, ‘tri’ meaning three and ‘unity’ meaning one. The word literally means three in one.         

The four foundations build from scripture the teaching that the one God is three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. But what exactly are we saying?  How is God one and yet three? Isn’t the Trinity contradictory?

The Trinity is not contradictory since we are saying God is one in one sense and three in another sense. God is one in essence and three in personhood. God is one what and three who’s. In a more precise way, God is one incorporeal Spirit with three sets of cognitive faculties comprised of intellect, will and emotions. Another way to put it is God has three centers of self-consciousness.      

Are there any other evidences that testify to God being Triune apart from Scripture? Well one way to see the plausibility of the Trinity is to think of the attribute love. What is love? It is an action, right? It is the act of giving one’s self to another. It is “otherness” instead of self-centeredness. A thought experiment would help here. Imagine if God did not choose to create the world. Would we still say God is all-loving before creation? How so? God had no one to love prior to creation. God was always loving. Since as Scripture says God is love (1 John 4:8). This requires God to love another prior to creation. To say one can love without someone to love is meaningless. The very concept of love requires another person to love. And it is unbiblical to think God created love. Thus we are left with the plausible conclusion that God as one being exists in three persons: the Father Son and Holy Spirit; and that they love each before the creation of anything.   

Books I recommend to present sound Christian doctrine dealing with the Trinity and Incarnation:

James White, The Forgotten Trinity

JP Moreland and William Lane Craig, Philosophical Foundations for A Christian World View.

---

[1] Fritz Reinecker, A Linguistic Key to the Greek New Testament, ed. Cleon Rogers, Jr. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1980), 550.  

Why I Will Raise My Children With God Part 2

Next the blogger says, “God is not logical." She gives evidence of her claim by appealing to God’s “apparent” hiddenness during pain and suffering. She says, “Why did God allow this [pain and suffering] to happen? The blogger interprets most common answer as, “We don’t understand, so we will not think about it or deal with the issue.” I think what best illustrates the bloggers argument is when she writes, “If there is a good, all-knowing, all-powerful God who loves his children, does it make sense that he would allow murders, child abuse, wars, brutal beatings, torture and millions of heinous acts to be committed throughout the history of mankind?” I must admit with the blogger that the evil we see is devastating. The pain people go through is real and brings much sorrow. But does such evil in the world make God illogical? I think the blogger is clearly confused between epistemology and ethics. But let us overlook this fact. If God has a morally sufficient reason for allowing evil to exist, then there is no contradiction in saying God and evil exist. But perhaps, what the blogger is really getting at is, she expects God to intervene at every moment to remove evil.  Such a view would imply God must remove all causes of evil including human beings. Furthermore, it would remove the nomological laws of nature. Distinctions between physical laws and miracles would collapse.

Moreover, the blogger cannot account for moral absolutes, thus she is still not in a position to make moral claims against God. Even more, the atheist, cannot account for logic. Logic refers to invariable, immaterial, universal and necessary laws that human minds are obligated to conform to. They prescribe how humans “ought” to think. How can an atheist “justify” the laws of logic? Given atheism, there cannot be immaterial laws all humans “ought” to obey. But from a Christian perspective, we can effectively justify logic. Scripture teaches God is the standard of rationality. His thinking is the type that our thinking ought to be a token of. He is intrinsically logical and therefore, we are to reflect His thinking being made in the image of God. 

Why I Will Raise My Children With God Part 1

TXBlue08, an atheist, has written a blog post entitled “Why I Raise My Children Without God,” in which she argues why parents “ought” not to teach their children things about God. Link here: http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-910282?hpt=hp_c2

I will quote her essay and then respond using the essay as a sample of how presuppositionalism is the most effective method of Christian apologetics. 

She says, “God is a bad parent and role model.” Since “Good parents don’t allow their children to inflict harm on others. Nor do “Good people… stand by and watch horrible acts committed against innocent men, women and children.” She goes on to attack the free will defense on the grounds that good parents still intervene, guide, and protect their children regardless if they have free will.

How to respond? First, one must understand that as Christians we respond fully committed to Christ, so our answers will flow from our allegiance to God and His Word.  Scripture teaches God is not someone we should think of as our equal. He is God and we are his creatures. He made mankind in his image thus giving us intellects, wills, emotions, and dominion over creation. God gave mankind the sole responsibility to take care of his creation. This entails man is responsible over their children to be representatives of God to them. Teaching them the truth of God and protecting them from evil. God created Adam who was the first man and representative of the human race.   God gave mankind commandments/duties that reflect God’s character for the benefit of the creature and the ultimate good.  The first man Adam violated God’s commandment and brought forth punishment for both him and the whole human race. The punishment stemmed from Adam to all mankind. Man inherited guilt, and an inclination to sin. This defaced the image of God in man. Man is not born innocent, but guilty. He is born a rebel against God. We are all born as enemies of God. We love sin and hate God. Hence the blogger is quite mistaken to talk of “good parents and innocent children,” since there are no parents or children that are truly good. The blogger quite frequently appeals to moral absolutes. She uses moral terms such as “good” and “should” but given her atheism how can she make sense of morality. She cannot have moral absolutes (even in principle) given her commitment to atheism. But as Christians we can account for moral absolutes since God has given us his moral law both in Scripture (Ex. 20) and innately (Rom. 2:14-15). However, the blogger knows these truths and this is why she cannot help but make moral judgments. A man or woman made in God’s image and who lives in God’s world, but wishes to be an atheist cannot help but be inconsistent. The atheist will have to make absolute moral judgments but not be able to provide the worldview that can justify those judgments. Furthermore, notice the blogger took up the right to put God on trial. But who gave her the moral right to judge God? She attempts to reason independently from God’s truth only to find her self caught in a vicious circle. She judges God; she does so by the right she has given her self. She is utterly arbitrary, and question begging. And yet she has the nerve to say she’s logical.

I think even Christians with the free will defense can get out of the bloggers charges. However, I would revise the free will defense if utilized. But here is a typical example I think that is immune to the bloggers charges:    

More comments on this essay to follow.

A Criticism of Presuppositionalism

During my short mission trip to Utah I met two Christian evangelists that criticized the presuppositional methodology because it "confuses" epistemology with metaphysics. As I pounder this criticism I know that both epistemology and metaphysics are distinct, however, they cannot be seperated for they are interdependent. The question is answered in the ontological Trinity. God knows all things. He is the one that gave meaning to all things, created all things, and sustains all things. Thus one cannot truly know anything without knowing God despite man supressing the truth in unrighteoussness (Romans 1:17-24).

Let God Be True And Every Man a Liar

God's existence is presuppositional the Bible declares “In the Beginning God (Gen 1:1)”, thus His existence is a reality whether anyone believes it or not. For example, if someone believes that truth is relative this belief does not change reality that truth is absolute. Something either absolutely exists or it does not. Someone is either absolutely a millionaire or is not. Thus, a belief is not true because someone believes it rather because it corresponds with reality. The Bible declares we know of God by creation “For since the creation of the world ..[God‘s] invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. (Rom 1:20) For example, if the reader where to look at a building, how could one know there was a builder? It's true you cannot see him, touch him or smell him. But it seems obvious that the building is proof there is a builder. If there is creation there must be a creator. However, as the Bible declares some suppress this truth by the means of unrighteousness (Rom 1:17-20).

We know it is wrong to lie, steal and kill because God has given us a conscience and has written His law on our hearts. The scripture says “For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them (Rom 2:14-15)”
Only the Christian worldview (which is derived from the Bible) can account for the uniformity of nature (or induction). For example, if a skateboarder went down a ramp and fell and hit his knee; the skateboarder would have no reason for believing that if in the future he repeated his actions the same experiences and outcome would happen because according to the atheistic worldview we live in a random chance universe where anything is possible. So maybe the next time the skateboarder falls and hits his knee it might produce the greatest pleasure in his life rather than previous experienced pain. As Vincent Cheung states “For example, no amount of empirical investigation can justify the proposition,"Every human being has a brain." To establish a general proposition like this by empirical means, a person must examine every human being who has ever lived, who is now living, and since this is a proposition about human beings, he must also examine every human being who will live in the future. Also, while he is examining the human beings in one part of the world, he must somehow ensure that the nature of man has not changed in those parts of the world whose human beings he has already studied.

In addition, how does he prove that he knows a given human being has a brain just because he thinks he is looking at it? He must provide justification for the claim that he knows that something is there just because he thinks he is looking at it. But it would be viciously circular to say that he knows that something is there just because he thinks he is looking at it, because what he thinks he is looking at is really there, and he knows that it is really there because he thinks he is looking at it. Adding to the now already impossible situation, to prove this general proposition about human beings by empiricism and induction, he must also examine his own brain.” As the atheist should rightly point out we do gain knowledge, but that is because the Christian worldview is true.

The Bible states as we all do know in our heart of hearts the Triune God of the Bible, but we have suppressed the truth in unrighteousness. We know we have broken Gods laws, the Ten Commandments and our conscience bears witness. Since we have broken an infinite law (God's laws) we deserve an infinite punishment in hell. We are all liars, thieves, adulteress at heart, and blasphemers in God's sight but God commended his love toward us that while we were still sinners Christ Died for us (his people) . Jesus suffered and died on a Latin cross taking the punishment upon himself for all who repent and trust in him. On the third day he rose from the grave, and defeated death. It's as if we broke God's Laws but Jesus paid the fine of who ever will believe (trust) in him. God now commands us to repent (turn from our sins) and trust in Jesus alone for salvation. Not just believe in him but actually trust in him.

Some Common Objections:
Our consciences and morality come from society. But we know it is always wrong to kill, inflict unnecessary pain, and steal. For example, put yourself in the circumstances of a Jew during the Nazi regime. A Nazi official takes a gun and points it at you and says I am going to kill you, any last words. Is his action wrong or right? If you are an atheist and consistent with your worldview you would have to say that what he is doing is justified (or right) because it is his social norms. However, we know killing someone innocent is wrong. Why? Because we know God in our heart of hearts that is why we know what is wrong or right. Not because of society rather some thing is wrong because it is contrary to the nature and character of God. Given the atheistic worldview Hitler would be a saint because he had the might so he had the right (society was under his control). And Martin Luther King Jr. would be evil because he was trying to change the morals of society( disrupting the social contract established) during his time. However, this is not the case Hitler was a very evil man for the killings of innocent Jews. And Luther was standing up for the truth that we are all equal. As the Bible says we were all created in God's image (Gen 1:26).

One objection is there is no coherent definition of the Christian God. This is untrue definitions would be found in the Baptist Confession of faith of 1689 or the Westminster Confession of Faith.

Christians are appealing to authority. Absolutely if God testifies of himself (in special revelation specifically the Bible) or says something, we would have to believe it on his authority because there is no higher.

What about other religions? Only Christianity is true that is why we only defend it. All other religions fall short either they are incoherent, self-contradictory or do not provide the necessary preconditions of intelligibility (Isaiah 43:10, John 4:16, Acts 4:12, Phil 2:10-11).



Vincent Cheung, Ultimate Questions; Copyright 2002, PO Box 15662, Boston, MA 02215,USA; p.20. http://www.vincentcheung.com/books/ultimate2004.pdf

Atheism

God's existence is presuppoisitional (Gen 1:1) and if the Bible were not true we could not prove anything. However, some suppress this truth by the means of unrighteousness (Rom 1:17-20). If I where to ask the reader to look at a building, how could you know there was a builder? It's true you can't see him, touch him or smell him. However, it seems obvious that the building is proof there is a builder. If there is creation there must be a creator. The cosmological argument states Whatever begins to exist has a cause
The universe began to exist,
therefore it has a cause.
This cause must be omnipotent, transcendant, unchanging, and eternal or else itself would need a cause. Moreover, the cause would have to be personal in order to create something personal (humans). The eternal, transcending, omnipotent, unchanging, personal, cause is described in the Bible as God. Some of you might think I am contradicting myself, remember I stated that whatever begins to exist has a cause, God never had a cause because he is by definition eternal, he never begins. Suppose you wanted to borrow a book from me, but I did not have it. So I borrowed it from my mom, but she did not have it, so she borrowed it from my dad, but he did not have it. So this goes on infinitly. If no one has the book you will never get it. This is the same as existence if some one does not have it without having to borrow it from someone else you will never get it. Yet we are here, therefore there must be an infinite God who has no begining or end (eternal). Only the Christian worldview (which is derived from the Bible) can account for causality not the Atheist worldview.

Secular philosophers like David Hume, and theistic philosophers like Immanuel Kant have done the Christian a great service by pointing out what is commonly called in philosophy the problem of induction. Hume pointed out that human beings have no justification for projecting past information including experiences or events into the future. For if we live in a random universe were chance is considered god and can produce anything including matter out of nothing (abiogenesis) as atheists believe, we have no reason to believe that the universe is uniform. Hume stated we do induction- or take past information like experiences and project them into the future--because it is a habit. Immanuel Kant took what Hume believed and revised it, stating we do inductive inferences because we just cognitively think that way psychologically. Hume and Kant both did not give a justification for inductive inference nor could they account for it. Both of their conclusions show apart from the Bible knowledge is impossible because there is no foundation for the belief in regularity in the universe.

Presently, still the problem of induction cannot be justified by an atheistic or agnostic worldview. For example, if I went down a skateboard ramp on a skateboard and fell and hit my knee; I would have no justification for believing that if in the future I repeated my actions the same outcome or experiences would happen because according to the atheistic worldview we live in a random chance universe where anything is possible. Therefore, if the atheistic worldview were true (Which it is not) there is no regularity in the universe, therefore knowledge and science is impossible. However, as the atheist should rightly point out we do gain knowledge through induction and science that is because the Christian worldview is true.

The Bible states as I have already pointed out, we all do know in our heart of hearts the Triune God of the Bible, but we have suppressed the truth in unrighteousness. We know we have broken God's laws the Ten Commandments, and our conscience bears witness. Since we have broken an infinite law (God's laws) we deserve an infinite punishment in hell. We are all liars, theives, adulters at heart, and blasphamers in God's sight but God commended his love toward us (his people) that while we were still sinners Christ Died for us. Jesus suffered and died on a latin cross taking the punishment upon himself for all who repent and trust in him. On the third day he rose from the grave, and defeated death. It's as if we broke God's Laws but Jesus paid the fine of who ever will believe (trust) in him. God now commands us to repent (turn from our sins) and trust in Jesus alone for salvation. Not just believe in him but actually trust in him.