Knowledge, and the contradictions of Materialism

The irony of the assault on Christianity by the new atheists is that they have no epistemological foundation for their various critiques.

Quotes and comments;

1. 'To reason at all, the unbeliever must operate on assumptions that actually contradict his espoused presupposition - assumptions that comport only with the Christian worldview.' [1.]

- The materialist must use a Christian metaphysics to be able to reason, even to be able to voice criticisms of Christianity. He must assume he's capable of knowledge, that true knowledge exists, that truth exists, that good and bad, right and wrong exist, that evil exists, etc. Thus at the heart of the 'new atheism' is hypocrisy and contradiction.

For man to possess true knowledge, true knowledge must first exist. The materialist position makes true knowledge impossible. The reductionism inherent in materialism reduces all data into matter in motion. i.e. to physics. This destroys any possibility of rationality or meaning. [2.]

For man to possess true knowledge, he must be a creature capable of acquiring knowledge. The problem of the materialist is that (in terms of his own position) he is decidedly not an entity (organism) capable of knowledge. Materialists characterize man (homo sapien, sapien) in different (various) ways. For some man is just a meat machine; for some he's a bag of chemicals, he's mere matter; he's a 'souped up' (customized) ape; he's a robot being manipulated by his selfish genes; or he's an instinct driven animal.

It's difficult to deal with such a plethora of depictions. It's hard to summarize all these views. What they have in common is a rejection of the biblical portrait of man. Leaving such difficulties aside, we see that there isn't a basis for knowledge in any of these materialist views of man. This is the hopeless position of the materialist. He has no epistemological foundation for knowledge. When he claims to possess true knowelge he's not merely staning on a cloud, the cloud is floating in the void.

Remember this the next time Richard Dawkins gets up on his hind legs and starts spouting off against the 'evils' of Christianity - and gives you the 'truth' about origins. He makes the most foolish child look wise. Everything he says is contradicted by his own basic assumptions of who he is. If he's as wise as he imagines he is, why don't the various components of his worldview comport with each other?

e.g. He says man has no free will, but yet he encourages people to give up their belief in God and creation. This makes no sense. (Aren't ones views supposed to make sense?) Isn't science supposed to be about making sense? Is he so dull of wit (like an axe left for years under a tree) he sees no problem? Is it okay in science to ignore contradictions? Is it okay not to have any epistemological foundation for what you say?

Notes;
1. Van Til's Apologetic - Greg Bahnsen/p. 12
2. 'Van Til asks what view of man, mind, truth, language and the world is necessarily presupposed by our conception of knowledge and our methods of pursuing it." [p.6]