A distinctive of the apologetic developed by Cornelius Van Til was his insistence that all men know God, and that since they do, it's a mistake to try and prove his existence to them.
Quotes and comments;
1. "It will not do to say that the natural man knows nothing of God...'' [1.]
- How can Van Til say the atheist knows God, if the atheist denies that he does? Isn't this being unfair? I don't think so. Let's look at an example that I think is illuminating.
Isaac Asimov was the media's favorite atheist before a certain Brit came along, and he was not shy about claiming that God didn't exist. On one occasion I heard (or read) him say, that he was aware that to say God didn't exist was to affirm a universal negative, and that this was a logical fallacy. However, he added, he believed the evidence was so overwhelmingly in favor of god's non-existence, that he felt he was justified in his claim God did not exist.
I think we see here a case of a man saying x while he knows it's inaccurate to do so. i.e. he knows he can't prove God doesn't exist, but yet he says it anyway. He knows God at least in the sense he knows he can't disprove his existence. (I would claim he knows a lot more about God than this seemingly minor point.)
Asimov was one of the best educated minds of his time (especially in science), this means that he of all men, had the smallest excuse for rejecting God.
Asimov might have asked himself why it was that logic didn't allow him to deny the possibility of God's existence, or why it seemed (as it were) to defend God.
He might have asked how logic came to be? i.e. if all were matter in motion, what was logic?
He might have asked how it was the chemical reactions in his brain were capable of logic, or how they knew about logic, or why they trusted in logic.
He might have asked how, if only the physical can exist, logic can exist, or what exactly it is.
He might have asked how it is that the universe seems rational. He might have asked why matter cares about logic (which in terms of materialism can only be matter itself).
Van Til emphasizes the point that it is wrong to say that the natural man does not know God. It is impossible for any man not to know God; although it might be possible for him to be unaware of this (at least in full detail), or unaware of how much he knows of God. The atheist no doubt wants some evidence for this and we'll offer some.
Since the universe was created by God, to know the universe is to know God. e.g. if I read a novel by someone I don't know, who even lives half way around the planet, when I finish it I'll know something of its author, even if I don't consciously think of this knowledge.
To see a painting is to know something of the person who painted it. To listen to a piece of music is to learn something of its composer. To know a child is to know something of his parents.
To the extent man is familiar with his own nature he knows God. e.g. by knowing the contents (and workings) of his conscience man knows something of God, of the God who made him, and who originally formed his conscience.
To know his abilities and capacities (e.g. his intelligence, his capacity for creativity) man knows something of God. To realize the extent of the universe is to learn something about God.
Even the atheist who insists he knows nothing of God, who claims He does not even exist, knows a great deal about God. Men know a lot more about God than they realize.
All languages have their origin in the language God shared with Adam, so there's a sense in which to know language is to know God.
Since we think (largely at least) in and with language, to think is to know God. The basic assumptions of language depend upon a Creator for their veracity and validity, and these assumptions give man knowledge of God. (e.g. that reality exists, that truth exists, that separate minds exist, that words mean something, etc.)
The natural man ought to ask himself, what would need to be true for these assumptions to be valid.
This is true even on a banal level. If you were to live in a stranger's house you would learn something about them, even if they weren't there.
All men know God, but many deny that God exists, because they don't want to admit that they know.
The Bible tells us that the universe is full of God's glory; this being the case man cannot but know God.
Man lives within the sphere of God's influence. His presence is inescapable; and since man was created with an ability to know God, he cannot escape being aware of evidence for God. ("For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him.'' - Roman 1:21) [5.]
Notes;
1. "It will not do to say that the natural man knows nothing of God...'' - Van Til's Apologetic - Greg Bahnsen p.631
2. This indirect knowledge of God (and there's far more than I mentioned) adds up since God is a unified and unconflicted being. This means that the various things we know about God don't conflict with each other.
3. Van Til claimed that man not only knew God, he knew God's character as well.
4. If atheists would turn their critical powers (which can't be explained by matter in motion in my opinion) upon the idea of materialism they might be shocked to see how inadequate it is. They rarely do this however, and enjoy shooting arrows at Christianity much more. The atheist is like the man scared to look at himself in the mirror. (He'd rather write as if that face wasn't there, and wasn't looking at him.) I see a tendency that the more doubts a person has about their own worldview, the more intent they become on looking critically at other worldviews. This animus towards other worldviews can be a defense against doubt.
5. "...because that, knowing God, they glorified him not as God, neither gave thanks; but became vain in their reasonings, and their senseless heart was darkened.'' - ASV
6. I might add that although Asimov was presumably named for him, he had a very negative view of the story of Abraham and Isaac. For him this story illustrated all that he didn't like about religion. The point that seemed to escape him was that in terms of materialism his animus against God and against religion made no sense. i.e. if all is matter in motion then moral standards are a delusion.
7. I remember as a teenager that each month I would eagerly read the new column by Asimov, that was published in 'Fantasy and Science Fiction'. (I guess you could say I learned my atheism from the best of them. It was only men years later that I abandoned materialism for creation... and only years later that I developed any interest in Christianity.)
- I don't want to give the wrong impression here; as I remember it, most of the columns concerned astronomy. (It is true however, that Asimov had a strong dislike for any kind of creationism, as he called it. He saw this as a product of the radical 'sects' of Christianity. i.e. believers in Genesis.)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
