A couple more quotes from the essay 'Worshipping the creature rather than the creator' by Greg Bahnsen.
Quotes and comments;
A. 'At each point, evolutionary speculation falsifies biblical teaching. To undermine the scriptural doctrine of creation is to undermine Christianity in toto, and this is because (as we saw above) evolution is not a restricted biological theory but a pervasive and religious worldview having a presuppositional status with its adherents. [1.]
- We can see evidence that macro Evolution isn't science (at the very least it's not only science) in the fact that people admit they would believe it even if there was no evidence. Rather than being a 'fact' discovered by investigation, it's a starting point for investigation. Rather than being a fact that is true, it's 'truth' is used as a standard for evaluating the data. As a basic presupposition, in the eyes of its adherents, it needs no proof... rather it's the basis for deciding what proof is. The 'truth' of evolution isn't found by examining the world, but is 'found' by making a logical deduction from the basic starting point of materialism. i.e. if one rejects the reality of a creator god one is left with the options of some other kind of theism, or of a-theism (i.e. materialism).
If one adopts materialism one of necessity has to believe in evolution (at least in the cosmic sense). This isn't science, it's metaphysics. (If you prefer you can call it religion.) All men must decide what their starting point will be; it will be biblical christianity, some form of theism, or materialism. All forms of knowledge (including science) will be affected by this initial decision.
B. 'It was Darwin's gift of hope, rather than the quality of his evidence, that captivated the minds of his readers. Though his Orgin had to be revised and reworked again and again, in order to deflect (he hoped) the sharp and overpowering criticisms lodged against his theory (driving him back into Lamarckianism at the end), nevertheless the hope remained. "give me matter, and I will show you how a caterpillar can be produced."
- The quotation is a reference to what Kant said in his book on cosmology.
- Darwin was one of the men who took up Kant's challenge to imagine how 'life' might emerge from matter. (Kant had already imagined how the planets might have 'emerged' from mere formless matter and so had passed the torch on to others to do the necessary work in biology.)
This great hope of Kant hasn't met with fruition. OOL experiments have failed to demonstrate any plausible evidence for a solely materialist origin for living organisms. (Perhaps Kant is still patiently waiting somewhere.) Everyone knows it's impossible for complex (coded) organisms to 'emerge' from inert matter, but the majority of our academic elite can't bring themselves to admit it. (It might be more accurate to say that they refuse to admit it.)
Summary;
Materialism is a self-defeating proposition. It's the story of physical law acting upon matter. The problem is that laws aren't personal, intelligent, willful or creative. This means the 'theory' has no source for the creativity we see in living organisms. The bottom line is that the materialist must claim that genetic code writes itself. The idea 'life' just chemically 'emerges' from inert matter has no credence. Kant's great hope (that someone would do for biology what he thought he'd done for cosmology) has been turning on the intellectual lathe for a couple centuries now and nothing has yet fallen out. No amount of polishing is going to get this dull rock to shine.
Notes;
1. Worshipping the creature rather than the creator - Greg Bahnsen
Friday, April 30, 2010
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
The 'new atheists' of Darwin's day; part 3
This post continues on from a couple previous ones.
Quotes and comments;
Herbert Spencer;
1. 'Kaminsky correctly observes: "It is fairly clear that the theory of evolution had the same logical status for Spencer as the dialectic had for Hegel: no evidence was to be allowed to repudiate the doctrine." [1.]
2. Marx;
'It would be better, according to evolutionary standards, to leave the question of origins unanswered than to confess the existence of the Creator God. A classic example of just this sort of religious apriorism is Karl Marx's attitude. In the early manuscript, "Private Property and Communism," part of the Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844, he denied the legitimacy of the question, "Who begot the first man, and nature as a whole? I can only answer you: Your question is a product of abstraction."
- In other words, if I can't answer the question it's a meaningless question. (i.e. if a question can't be answered in terms of matter in motion, then it's not a legitimate question.) This was the approach the evolutionists of Darwin's day took. They were only interested in giving materialistic answers to questions... and claimed these were the only answers that had any value or respectability. (Darwinism is a research program, not an attempt to discover truth. It's a particular method of looking at the world; and the method trumps the data. It's a way of looking at the world, not a concern with objective truth. This is why e. elite place such a stress upon method; on insisting that science equals materialistic method.)
- I take it that by 'abstraction' Marx is referring to that which is not material. (i.e. only physical is real)
3. Kant;
"It seems to me," he wrote, "that we can here say with intelligent certainty and without audacity... "give me matter and I will construct a world out of it!" i.e. give me matter and I will show you how a world shall arise out of it."[184] All it takes, he tried to prove in his study, is millions and millions of centuries - the creative hand of immeasurable time.
- Kant's cosmology (and I haven't read his book) seems to depend upon reifying time; on turning this 'abstraction' into a concrete and creative force. When we talk about time we're basically referring to perceived change... and particular rates of change. This means we're talking about entropy and decay. It's a mystery to me how this process can have a creative ability, especially one of the momentous kind required. (It's sort of like expecting the process of rust not to destruct a car but to construct a car.)
4. Kant;
'The Darwinian bandwagon was filled with men who wanted desperately to believe in a god of their own creation. That God must be, preferably, an impersonal god, a god who in no way interferes with the activities of the external universe, but at all costs, a god infinitely remote in time. Even the impotent god of Kant's Universal History, who was reduced merely to the incessant creation of matter - an autonomously evolving matter was too powerful for Kant in his post-critical years.' - Greg Bahnsen [186]
Notes;
1. Quotations taken from 'Worshipping the creature rather than the creator' - Greg Bahnsen
- reference #104
Quotes and comments;
Herbert Spencer;
1. 'Kaminsky correctly observes: "It is fairly clear that the theory of evolution had the same logical status for Spencer as the dialectic had for Hegel: no evidence was to be allowed to repudiate the doctrine." [1.]
2. Marx;
'It would be better, according to evolutionary standards, to leave the question of origins unanswered than to confess the existence of the Creator God. A classic example of just this sort of religious apriorism is Karl Marx's attitude. In the early manuscript, "Private Property and Communism," part of the Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844, he denied the legitimacy of the question, "Who begot the first man, and nature as a whole? I can only answer you: Your question is a product of abstraction."
- In other words, if I can't answer the question it's a meaningless question. (i.e. if a question can't be answered in terms of matter in motion, then it's not a legitimate question.) This was the approach the evolutionists of Darwin's day took. They were only interested in giving materialistic answers to questions... and claimed these were the only answers that had any value or respectability. (Darwinism is a research program, not an attempt to discover truth. It's a particular method of looking at the world; and the method trumps the data. It's a way of looking at the world, not a concern with objective truth. This is why e. elite place such a stress upon method; on insisting that science equals materialistic method.)
- I take it that by 'abstraction' Marx is referring to that which is not material. (i.e. only physical is real)
3. Kant;
"It seems to me," he wrote, "that we can here say with intelligent certainty and without audacity... "give me matter and I will construct a world out of it!" i.e. give me matter and I will show you how a world shall arise out of it."[184] All it takes, he tried to prove in his study, is millions and millions of centuries - the creative hand of immeasurable time.
- Kant's cosmology (and I haven't read his book) seems to depend upon reifying time; on turning this 'abstraction' into a concrete and creative force. When we talk about time we're basically referring to perceived change... and particular rates of change. This means we're talking about entropy and decay. It's a mystery to me how this process can have a creative ability, especially one of the momentous kind required. (It's sort of like expecting the process of rust not to destruct a car but to construct a car.)
4. Kant;
'The Darwinian bandwagon was filled with men who wanted desperately to believe in a god of their own creation. That God must be, preferably, an impersonal god, a god who in no way interferes with the activities of the external universe, but at all costs, a god infinitely remote in time. Even the impotent god of Kant's Universal History, who was reduced merely to the incessant creation of matter - an autonomously evolving matter was too powerful for Kant in his post-critical years.' - Greg Bahnsen [186]
Notes;
1. Quotations taken from 'Worshipping the creature rather than the creator' - Greg Bahnsen
- reference #104
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Theologians for Darwin; or Darwinian theology
One of the main reasons darwin's theory of evolution had such a rapid ride to prominence is that it was blessed by the liberal theologians of the day; and has been ever since. Since these were the men who ran and populated the seminaries and taught the aspiring pastors it's little wonder the theory received almost no opposition from these circles or from the church in general. The opposition to Darwinism has largely been one that's come from the laity. I've assembled some typical quotes from some liberal theologians of the past. (Taken from the essay 'Worshipping the creature rather than the creator' by Greg Bahnsen)
Quotes and comments;
A. 'The church was warned against resisting Darwinism: "To call Himself reasonably well educated and informed, a Christian can hardly afford not to believe in evolution.... And to announce that you do not believe in evolution is as irrational as to announce that you do not believe in electricity." - Stanley Beck
- To compare a theory of biological origins with electricity is shockingly stupid. These two 'things' aren't even remotely in the same category. (You'd think even a theologian would know better; but perhaps he had his finger in a socket when he uttered this blast.)
B. 'Christian philosophers of religion like John Hick now proclaim that creationism "can no longer be regarded as a reasonable belief." [121]
- Yes; it's more reasonable to imagine living organisms magically emerged from the rocks (apparently on a mission to save the universe for materialists and atheists). It's more 'reasonable' to imagine the universe popped into existence out of nothing and with no cause (sort of like a hated relative showing up without invitation or warning). It's more reasonable to imagine pond slime climbed a ladder of complexity by suffering thousands of damaging mutations. It's more reasonable to imagine the personal came from the impersonal. It's more reasonable to imagine the intelligent came (magically, mystically) from the non-intelligent. Yes; I see it now... Darwinism is the epitome of reasonableness. (Did Hicks have a clue what he was talking about? If he did he was a rarity among our evolution trumpeting theologians.)
C. 'Emil Brunner grants science a privileged position of safety, saying, "We have to stress the fact that modern science (and this means the theory of Evolution) ought not to be opposed in the name of religion."[122]
- If Brunner was supposed to be a christian theologian why is he talking about religion? Religion in general isn't opposed to evolution at all. It's only biblical 'religion' that is opposed to evolution. (In fact evolution is a religion for many.) I'm sure Brunner was another expert in biology. He surely wouldn't talk about something he knew nothing about would he? I'm sure no responsible clerical personage would do that.
D. 'Indeed, Ronald Hepburn says, "It is of only secondary interest whether the world had a literal beginning, a first moment."[126] Supposedly the first text of God's inspired word is irrelevant to what follows!'
- You see, the bible isn't about the real world at all... it's more like talking about fairies and elves.
- It's only a short skip and a jump from claiming it doesn't matter if the world had a beginning to claiming it doesn't matter if it had a creator. I mean if it's all some kind of mystical history happening on some other level of reality why does it matter... and why does anything matter. But please; let's not embarrass our clergyoids by talking about horrible, messy and smelly things like creation. Please. Not in church. Church is a place we give talks on the spiritual meaning of the Heisenberg principle and the political implications of quantum theory... we don't talk about creation. Goodness, how could we get any of the important people to attend if we did that... why they might be insulted... they might think they'd stumbled through some doorway in space and tumbled into the bible belt.
E. "In so far as the theologian and evolutionist differ in their interpretation of the history of life... I agree with the evolutionist." - Lyman Abbott [131]
- of course what Abbott [1897] knew about biology could be found dangling at the end of his nose on a cold morning. He made the classic liberal mistake of assuming the 'knowledge' of his day equaled the truth. Biologists of his day didn't know squat.
F. 'But by far the greatest capitulation to evolutionary speculation is expressed in the contemporary move to draw God into the developmental process. Canon Charles Kingsley maintained that Darwin allowed theologians to get "rid of an interfering God - a master-magician, as I call it," in favor of an "immanent, ever-working God."
- What liberals hate is a God who won't agree to letting man be autonomous and ultimate; that's his crime... and for this crime he must be replaced with the dumbed down version approved of by Charles Darwin and the u.s. courts. Their hatred of and contempt for the triune God is obvious in all they write. They can barely write a paragraph without sneering and snorting over this or that abomination found in the bible.
G. 'Beckner correctly commented:
"The final step in this direction was to give God an even more intimate metaphysical connection with natural process. This step had been taken by previous philosophers - Spinoza and Hegel, for example; but it was repeated under the aegis of Darwinism by Bergson, Whitehead, and a number of Protestant thinkers. [141]
- The net result of Darwinian cosmology is process theology. (We might as well call it darwinian theology; perhaps in honor of that most holy day of liberalism 'Darwin Day'.) Process theology is hot man; it rocks... it's like U2 baby. The whole point of process theology is to make the word of God of no effect... and to replace it with the word of man. (Surely no one would disagree that Bono knows more about what's going on in our world than some dead guys from Palestine. Right.)
H. 'Spinoza's pantheism came to expression in [Samuel] Alexander's view that deity is "the next highest emergent quality which the universe is engaged in bringing to birth." "As actual, God does not possess the quality of deity but is the universe as tending to that quality."[143] Thus, Alexander formulated the idea of the universe as "God's body" and believed in an evolving deity.'
- Here's how it works; first the universe came from nothing; then life came from inert matter; then man came from living protoplasm; then finally, god evolved from man (or at least after man.) It's obvious isn't it?
- I guess this means that liberal theology is doing the work of a mid wife in helping this evolving god finally emerge into true existence. (Wow. That sounds like hard and dangerous work. Imagine being brave enough to help god himself be born. I think these guys deserve a raise.)
Notes;
1. Worshipping the creature rather than the creator - Greg Bahnsen [reference 120]
- all the quotes are from the essay; check the bibliography for the number references.
Quotes and comments;
A. 'The church was warned against resisting Darwinism: "To call Himself reasonably well educated and informed, a Christian can hardly afford not to believe in evolution.... And to announce that you do not believe in evolution is as irrational as to announce that you do not believe in electricity." - Stanley Beck
- To compare a theory of biological origins with electricity is shockingly stupid. These two 'things' aren't even remotely in the same category. (You'd think even a theologian would know better; but perhaps he had his finger in a socket when he uttered this blast.)
B. 'Christian philosophers of religion like John Hick now proclaim that creationism "can no longer be regarded as a reasonable belief." [121]
- Yes; it's more reasonable to imagine living organisms magically emerged from the rocks (apparently on a mission to save the universe for materialists and atheists). It's more 'reasonable' to imagine the universe popped into existence out of nothing and with no cause (sort of like a hated relative showing up without invitation or warning). It's more reasonable to imagine pond slime climbed a ladder of complexity by suffering thousands of damaging mutations. It's more reasonable to imagine the personal came from the impersonal. It's more reasonable to imagine the intelligent came (magically, mystically) from the non-intelligent. Yes; I see it now... Darwinism is the epitome of reasonableness. (Did Hicks have a clue what he was talking about? If he did he was a rarity among our evolution trumpeting theologians.)
C. 'Emil Brunner grants science a privileged position of safety, saying, "We have to stress the fact that modern science (and this means the theory of Evolution) ought not to be opposed in the name of religion."[122]
- If Brunner was supposed to be a christian theologian why is he talking about religion? Religion in general isn't opposed to evolution at all. It's only biblical 'religion' that is opposed to evolution. (In fact evolution is a religion for many.) I'm sure Brunner was another expert in biology. He surely wouldn't talk about something he knew nothing about would he? I'm sure no responsible clerical personage would do that.
D. 'Indeed, Ronald Hepburn says, "It is of only secondary interest whether the world had a literal beginning, a first moment."[126] Supposedly the first text of God's inspired word is irrelevant to what follows!'
- You see, the bible isn't about the real world at all... it's more like talking about fairies and elves.
- It's only a short skip and a jump from claiming it doesn't matter if the world had a beginning to claiming it doesn't matter if it had a creator. I mean if it's all some kind of mystical history happening on some other level of reality why does it matter... and why does anything matter. But please; let's not embarrass our clergyoids by talking about horrible, messy and smelly things like creation. Please. Not in church. Church is a place we give talks on the spiritual meaning of the Heisenberg principle and the political implications of quantum theory... we don't talk about creation. Goodness, how could we get any of the important people to attend if we did that... why they might be insulted... they might think they'd stumbled through some doorway in space and tumbled into the bible belt.
E. "In so far as the theologian and evolutionist differ in their interpretation of the history of life... I agree with the evolutionist." - Lyman Abbott [131]
- of course what Abbott [1897] knew about biology could be found dangling at the end of his nose on a cold morning. He made the classic liberal mistake of assuming the 'knowledge' of his day equaled the truth. Biologists of his day didn't know squat.
F. 'But by far the greatest capitulation to evolutionary speculation is expressed in the contemporary move to draw God into the developmental process. Canon Charles Kingsley maintained that Darwin allowed theologians to get "rid of an interfering God - a master-magician, as I call it," in favor of an "immanent, ever-working God."
- What liberals hate is a God who won't agree to letting man be autonomous and ultimate; that's his crime... and for this crime he must be replaced with the dumbed down version approved of by Charles Darwin and the u.s. courts. Their hatred of and contempt for the triune God is obvious in all they write. They can barely write a paragraph without sneering and snorting over this or that abomination found in the bible.
G. 'Beckner correctly commented:
"The final step in this direction was to give God an even more intimate metaphysical connection with natural process. This step had been taken by previous philosophers - Spinoza and Hegel, for example; but it was repeated under the aegis of Darwinism by Bergson, Whitehead, and a number of Protestant thinkers. [141]
- The net result of Darwinian cosmology is process theology. (We might as well call it darwinian theology; perhaps in honor of that most holy day of liberalism 'Darwin Day'.) Process theology is hot man; it rocks... it's like U2 baby. The whole point of process theology is to make the word of God of no effect... and to replace it with the word of man. (Surely no one would disagree that Bono knows more about what's going on in our world than some dead guys from Palestine. Right.)
H. 'Spinoza's pantheism came to expression in [Samuel] Alexander's view that deity is "the next highest emergent quality which the universe is engaged in bringing to birth." "As actual, God does not possess the quality of deity but is the universe as tending to that quality."[143] Thus, Alexander formulated the idea of the universe as "God's body" and believed in an evolving deity.'
- Here's how it works; first the universe came from nothing; then life came from inert matter; then man came from living protoplasm; then finally, god evolved from man (or at least after man.) It's obvious isn't it?
- I guess this means that liberal theology is doing the work of a mid wife in helping this evolving god finally emerge into true existence. (Wow. That sounds like hard and dangerous work. Imagine being brave enough to help god himself be born. I think these guys deserve a raise.)
Notes;
1. Worshipping the creature rather than the creator - Greg Bahnsen [reference 120]
- all the quotes are from the essay; check the bibliography for the number references.
Monday, April 26, 2010
The new atheists of Darwin's day; part two
In my opinion evolutionary theory is far more of a philosophical position, than it is a scientific discovery. I want to look at some more evidence for this claim in this post.
Quotes and comments;
A. 'The British physicist, John Tyndall, was a naturalistic agnostic influenced by the philosophy of Fichte; he is well known from two famous speeches he delivered : "The Scientific Uses of Imagination" (1870) and the Presidential Address to the British Association for the Advancement of Science (1874). He maintained that although there is no evidence for spontaneous generation, one who believes in the continuity of nature must "cross the boundary of the experimental evidence" and affirm that life and mind were latent in matter; in this way evolution can replace the creation doctrine. (This would seem to require that "simple" matter was actually fantastically complex, thus negating the "simple to the complex" theory of development.) [1.]
- Must cross the boundary? I thought all was matter in motion; that being the case where does this 'must' come from? (As a rule, Materialists always fail to account for their own experience and thought in terms of their universal theory of reality.) Tyndall has refuted himself but doesn't seem to notice it. e.g. if all is matter in motion, working in terms of physical laws, there is no freedom... not even in human thought. If he allows for freedom in thought he's refuted his presupposition of materialism. (Materialism has to be universal to work as a system, or as a worldview.)
To say (in rhetorical flourish) we must cross the boundary of evidence simply (and sadly) means we need to ignore the evidence. i.e. if we're going to propagate Evolution to the 'ignorant' masses we need to ignore the evidence against it... ignore the evidence that says it's impossible.
This is an example of what the bible is referring to, when Paul (in Romans) says that men suppress the evidence of revelation in unrighteousness. Tyndall knew better than to ignore evidence, than to go where evidence forbid, and he knew better than to counsel others to do the same... and yet he did. This isn't science; it's an immoral and sinful act of irresponsibility and betrayal. (Students deserve better than this from their teachers; not to mention the honesty that God deserves and demands.)
B. If you thought that quote was wild, try this one from Tyndall;
"However, the process must be slow which commends the hypothesis of natural evolution to the public mind. For what are the core and essence of this hypothesis? Strip it bare, and you stand face to face with the notion, that the human mind itself - emotion, intellect, will, and all their phenomena - were once latent in a fiery cloud. Surely the mere statement of such a notion is more than a refutation.... Surely these notions represent an absurdity too monstrous to be entertained by any sane mind.... These evolution notions are absurd, monstrous..." [2.]
Bahnsen comments; 'Despite this fact, Tyndall promoted evolutionary commitment with zeal.'
- You're not likely to see the above quote in a book by one of the new atheists.
Tyndall is admitting that the evolutionary notion is absurd, but he's willing to embrace it because of his hatred for Christianity and because of his desire for human autonomy in the moral and intellectual realm. In other words; Evolution is the only weapon or tool the non-Christians have, so they have to employ it no matter how absurd a notion it is. If our intellectuals were were honest they'd just reject God; say that although God obviously exists they hate him and reject all he stands for, and intend to live as if he didn't exist. [3.]
Summary;
Our intellectual elite don't come out and admit a self-conscious rebellion against God because they feel (and correctly I think) that the greater public wouldn't accept such a proposal. This rejection would mean the intellectual elite would suffer a great fall from power. To prevent this they push the idea there is no God and that the 'true' explanation for man's origin is something called evolution.
Notes;
1. Worshipping the creature rather than the Creator - Greg Bahnsen
- 'The fact is that Darwinism, despite its boast of scientific proof, is a theory erected upon a speculative supposition and supported by imaginary evidence; it does not establish historical factuality but merely gives us a "way of looking" at the world.' - Greg Bahnsen/ibid
2. ibid [reference 99]
3. There was a small movement called 'Death of God' theology, that tried to put forward just such a program, but it never took off. (I wonder why.)
Quotes and comments;
A. 'The British physicist, John Tyndall, was a naturalistic agnostic influenced by the philosophy of Fichte; he is well known from two famous speeches he delivered : "The Scientific Uses of Imagination" (1870) and the Presidential Address to the British Association for the Advancement of Science (1874). He maintained that although there is no evidence for spontaneous generation, one who believes in the continuity of nature must "cross the boundary of the experimental evidence" and affirm that life and mind were latent in matter; in this way evolution can replace the creation doctrine. (This would seem to require that "simple" matter was actually fantastically complex, thus negating the "simple to the complex" theory of development.) [1.]
- Must cross the boundary? I thought all was matter in motion; that being the case where does this 'must' come from? (As a rule, Materialists always fail to account for their own experience and thought in terms of their universal theory of reality.) Tyndall has refuted himself but doesn't seem to notice it. e.g. if all is matter in motion, working in terms of physical laws, there is no freedom... not even in human thought. If he allows for freedom in thought he's refuted his presupposition of materialism. (Materialism has to be universal to work as a system, or as a worldview.)
To say (in rhetorical flourish) we must cross the boundary of evidence simply (and sadly) means we need to ignore the evidence. i.e. if we're going to propagate Evolution to the 'ignorant' masses we need to ignore the evidence against it... ignore the evidence that says it's impossible.
This is an example of what the bible is referring to, when Paul (in Romans) says that men suppress the evidence of revelation in unrighteousness. Tyndall knew better than to ignore evidence, than to go where evidence forbid, and he knew better than to counsel others to do the same... and yet he did. This isn't science; it's an immoral and sinful act of irresponsibility and betrayal. (Students deserve better than this from their teachers; not to mention the honesty that God deserves and demands.)
B. If you thought that quote was wild, try this one from Tyndall;
"However, the process must be slow which commends the hypothesis of natural evolution to the public mind. For what are the core and essence of this hypothesis? Strip it bare, and you stand face to face with the notion, that the human mind itself - emotion, intellect, will, and all their phenomena - were once latent in a fiery cloud. Surely the mere statement of such a notion is more than a refutation.... Surely these notions represent an absurdity too monstrous to be entertained by any sane mind.... These evolution notions are absurd, monstrous..." [2.]
Bahnsen comments; 'Despite this fact, Tyndall promoted evolutionary commitment with zeal.'
- You're not likely to see the above quote in a book by one of the new atheists.
Tyndall is admitting that the evolutionary notion is absurd, but he's willing to embrace it because of his hatred for Christianity and because of his desire for human autonomy in the moral and intellectual realm. In other words; Evolution is the only weapon or tool the non-Christians have, so they have to employ it no matter how absurd a notion it is. If our intellectuals were were honest they'd just reject God; say that although God obviously exists they hate him and reject all he stands for, and intend to live as if he didn't exist. [3.]
Summary;
Our intellectual elite don't come out and admit a self-conscious rebellion against God because they feel (and correctly I think) that the greater public wouldn't accept such a proposal. This rejection would mean the intellectual elite would suffer a great fall from power. To prevent this they push the idea there is no God and that the 'true' explanation for man's origin is something called evolution.
Notes;
1. Worshipping the creature rather than the Creator - Greg Bahnsen
- 'The fact is that Darwinism, despite its boast of scientific proof, is a theory erected upon a speculative supposition and supported by imaginary evidence; it does not establish historical factuality but merely gives us a "way of looking" at the world.' - Greg Bahnsen/ibid
2. ibid [reference 99]
3. There was a small movement called 'Death of God' theology, that tried to put forward just such a program, but it never took off. (I wonder why.)
Saturday, April 24, 2010
The new atheists of Darwin's day
If we want to understand the phenomenal success of the 'Origins' by Charles Darwin we need to take a look at the intellectual background of the time. As we have our popular atheists now, so did they in Darwin's time. Their work paved the way for the rapid and devastating success of Evolutionary theory.
Quotes and comments;
The following quotes are all from an article by Greg Bahnsen, that I encourage everyone to read.
A. 'A further insightful preparation for the destructive work of evolutionary speculation is found in Feuerbach's making "Anthropology the mystery of Christian Theology." With the undermining of biblical anthropology, then, evolutionary thought would critically affect the whole of Christian theology. The Essence Of Christianitylater appeared in English translation, being published in London five years prior to the publication of Darwin's Origin of Species.' [1.]
- The 'new atheists' of Darwin's day were men like Feuerbach, Kant, Hegel, Marx and the so called higher critics. It was their ideas that provoked the fever in Darwin's brain; that fueled all his anti-biblical speculation.
B. 'Marx and Engels, following Feuerbach, transformed the dialectical process discussed by Hegel, regarding it as the movement of matter. Engels said that with one blow Feuerbach "placed materialism on the throne again."[42] For Engels the dialectical movement in nature was seen "as an historical process;"[43] thus, "the real unity of the world consists in its materiality, and this is proved not by a few juggling phrases but by a long and protracted development of philosophy and natural science."
- From Kant to Hegel to Feuerbach to Marx and Darwin... Secularizing the 'sacred' lead to deism and pantheism and then to materialism. Replacing transcendent metaphysics with an immanent one led to all the secular heresies of our day.
C. 'Karl Marx received a doctorate from Jena in the year that Feuerbach's above-mentioned work appeared in German publication; his thesis had been written on the early materialistic atomists, Epicurus and Democritus. As an atheistic Hegelian, Marx viewed history as a dialectical process of development, and he took criticism of religion as foundational to all true thinking. In 1848 he produced, with Engels, the influential Communist Manifesto, an expression of dialectical materialism. Marx was living in London and studying at the British Museum when Darwin's Origin of Species appeared. Forthrightly acknowledging affinities between Darwin's biological evolutionism and his own dialectical materialism, Marx proposed that Das Kapital(1867) be dedicated to Darwin, an "honor" Darwin prudently declined.
- Epicurus and Democritus were evolutionists (Darwin was well aware of them). No one discovered evolution; it's as old as atheism, as old as the Fall in Genesis, as old as Cain, as old as Lamech. To reject God creates a void; a void that gets replaced with an invention called evolution.
D. 'During the eighteenth century, materialism came to exercise a significant philosophical influence. The French encyclopedist, Denis Diderot, adopted the Heraclitean theory of flux, viewing the universe as a single, dynamic, physical system obeying immutable laws. He denied that any solution was reached in accounting for material phenomena by postulating a supernatural Creator. Instead, the transformation of the universe from chaos to ordered complexity was to be explained by the interaction of elementary particles. The historical development of life, consciousness, and thought from inert matter "overthrows all the schools of theology," said Diderot.
- All Darwin did was supply an imagined mechanism to make this common (in intellectual circles) notion work. Natural selection is hopeless inadequate to do the work it's required to do, but that didn't matter at the time. The idea was sold and the people bought it; the way the poor buy lottery tickets and the rich gamble. (It's a great irony, but a fallacious idea is often extremely hard to argue against; and natural selection was more of an analogy than a theory in any event.)
E. 'By 1754 Diderot had devised a theory of natural selection (in "Thoughts on the Interpretation of Nature"); he hypothesized the sensitivity of matter to adaption, denied inexplicable gulfs between the natural orders (inorganic, organic, plant, animal, man), discussed the importance of inheritance of acquired characteristics in organic evolution, and (in "D'Alembert's Dream," composed in 1769) asserted that d'Alembert differed from a cow in terms of his peculiar evolution from parental germs. This monistic, energized, mechanized materialism was a clear foreshadowing of Darwin. "D'Alembert's Dream" was posthumously published one year before Darwin stepped on board H.M.S. Beagle...
- Why Darwin should get so much credit for more or less repeating what earlier french thinkers had written I don't know. (I suppose it's because France was in decline and the English were the world power.)
F. 'Four years prior to Darwin's publication of Origin of Species, the German materialist, Ludwig Buchner, wrote his famous Kraft and Stoff, wherein he maintained that all theories of supernatural creation must be rejected, that natural law is inviolable, and that motion is the eternal, inseparable property of matter. His hard determinism forced him to reduce mind to brain and to advocate the release of criminals from punishment. Buchner viewed Darwin's later publication as a striking confirmation of his naturalistic monism and atheism...'
- Why release the criminals? The idea that since man was just matter in motion, his behavior and even his thoughts were all a matter of rigid cause and effect (working in terms of chemical reactions) and thus man (as a machine as it were) could not be held responsible for what it did. (Man was, in this view, no more responsible than one of Darwin's pigeons.)
G. Buchner went on to say of Darwin's system;
[it] "is the most thoroughly naturalistic that can be imagined, and far more atheistic than that of his despised predecessor Lamarck, who admitted at least a general law of progress and development; whereas, according to Darwin, the whole development is due to the gradual summation of innumerable minute and accidental natural operations." [46]
- And yet we have christian liberals telling us Charles Darwin was a christian. (I guess people like Buchner were mistaken.)
H. 'Comte de Buffon, who in the mid-eighteenth century challenged the classification method of Linnaeus, held that there was no radicald is continuity between species or between animal and vegetable kingdoms; he denied divine teleology in nature and in his main work , Histoire Naturelle, promoted the concept of a struggle for existence.
- Darwin didn't 'invent' the idea of a struggle for existence, neither did he come up with the idea of natural selection. (I'm sure some many politicians would kill for the kind of pr Darwin got; and still gets.)
I. 'In 1830 Friedrich Schleiermacher was accusing the Mosaic account of creation of being a primitive, mythological notion and saying that the old record must not be treated as historical.' [50]
- When liberals call Darwin a christian, they mean a 'christian' of the sort Schleiermacher was. It was 'liberals' like S. who gave the boot to Genesis and the account of creation.
J. 'This capitulation of the authority of the revealed Scriptures to autonomous thought is made explicit by Schleiermacher:
''The further elaboration of the doctrine of Creation in Dogmatics comes down to us from times when material even for natural science was taken from the Scriptures and when the elements of all higher knowledge lay hidden in Theology. Hence the complete separation of these two involves our handing over this subject to natural science, which, carrying its researches backward into time, may lead us back to the forces and masses that formed the world, or even further still.'
Bahnsen adds;
'He concedes to naturalistic science the sole right to answer the question of origins, and if science tells us that the Bible and orthodox creeds are mistaken, then so be it.
Summary;
'The acceptance of the theory of evolution stemmed from the milieu created by philosophic opinion-speculation fostered by men like Spinoza, Kant, Fichte, Goethe, Krause, Hegel, Feuerbach, Engels, Diderot, LaMettrie, d'Holbach, Buchner, and Schleiermacher; Darwin's scientific surmises had been anticipated by men like Buffon, Lamarck, Saint-Hilaire, Chambers, Spencer, and his own grandfather. Men were living in the age of Darwinism prior to the publication of Darwin's book. And the philosophic developments which appeared subsequent to the acceptance of Darwin's theory of evolution had already been manifested by 1859. [1.]
Notes;
1. On Worshipping the Creature Rather Than the Creator - Dr. Greg Bahnsen
- An extremely important article. (It really should have been expanded into a book; but maybe someone will take up the project one day.)
Quotes and comments;
The following quotes are all from an article by Greg Bahnsen, that I encourage everyone to read.
A. 'A further insightful preparation for the destructive work of evolutionary speculation is found in Feuerbach's making "Anthropology the mystery of Christian Theology." With the undermining of biblical anthropology, then, evolutionary thought would critically affect the whole of Christian theology. The Essence Of Christianitylater appeared in English translation, being published in London five years prior to the publication of Darwin's Origin of Species.' [1.]
- The 'new atheists' of Darwin's day were men like Feuerbach, Kant, Hegel, Marx and the so called higher critics. It was their ideas that provoked the fever in Darwin's brain; that fueled all his anti-biblical speculation.
B. 'Marx and Engels, following Feuerbach, transformed the dialectical process discussed by Hegel, regarding it as the movement of matter. Engels said that with one blow Feuerbach "placed materialism on the throne again."[42] For Engels the dialectical movement in nature was seen "as an historical process;"[43] thus, "the real unity of the world consists in its materiality, and this is proved not by a few juggling phrases but by a long and protracted development of philosophy and natural science."
- From Kant to Hegel to Feuerbach to Marx and Darwin... Secularizing the 'sacred' lead to deism and pantheism and then to materialism. Replacing transcendent metaphysics with an immanent one led to all the secular heresies of our day.
C. 'Karl Marx received a doctorate from Jena in the year that Feuerbach's above-mentioned work appeared in German publication; his thesis had been written on the early materialistic atomists, Epicurus and Democritus. As an atheistic Hegelian, Marx viewed history as a dialectical process of development, and he took criticism of religion as foundational to all true thinking. In 1848 he produced, with Engels, the influential Communist Manifesto, an expression of dialectical materialism. Marx was living in London and studying at the British Museum when Darwin's Origin of Species appeared. Forthrightly acknowledging affinities between Darwin's biological evolutionism and his own dialectical materialism, Marx proposed that Das Kapital(1867) be dedicated to Darwin, an "honor" Darwin prudently declined.
- Epicurus and Democritus were evolutionists (Darwin was well aware of them). No one discovered evolution; it's as old as atheism, as old as the Fall in Genesis, as old as Cain, as old as Lamech. To reject God creates a void; a void that gets replaced with an invention called evolution.
D. 'During the eighteenth century, materialism came to exercise a significant philosophical influence. The French encyclopedist, Denis Diderot, adopted the Heraclitean theory of flux, viewing the universe as a single, dynamic, physical system obeying immutable laws. He denied that any solution was reached in accounting for material phenomena by postulating a supernatural Creator. Instead, the transformation of the universe from chaos to ordered complexity was to be explained by the interaction of elementary particles. The historical development of life, consciousness, and thought from inert matter "overthrows all the schools of theology," said Diderot.
- All Darwin did was supply an imagined mechanism to make this common (in intellectual circles) notion work. Natural selection is hopeless inadequate to do the work it's required to do, but that didn't matter at the time. The idea was sold and the people bought it; the way the poor buy lottery tickets and the rich gamble. (It's a great irony, but a fallacious idea is often extremely hard to argue against; and natural selection was more of an analogy than a theory in any event.)
E. 'By 1754 Diderot had devised a theory of natural selection (in "Thoughts on the Interpretation of Nature"); he hypothesized the sensitivity of matter to adaption, denied inexplicable gulfs between the natural orders (inorganic, organic, plant, animal, man), discussed the importance of inheritance of acquired characteristics in organic evolution, and (in "D'Alembert's Dream," composed in 1769) asserted that d'Alembert differed from a cow in terms of his peculiar evolution from parental germs. This monistic, energized, mechanized materialism was a clear foreshadowing of Darwin. "D'Alembert's Dream" was posthumously published one year before Darwin stepped on board H.M.S. Beagle...
- Why Darwin should get so much credit for more or less repeating what earlier french thinkers had written I don't know. (I suppose it's because France was in decline and the English were the world power.)
F. 'Four years prior to Darwin's publication of Origin of Species, the German materialist, Ludwig Buchner, wrote his famous Kraft and Stoff, wherein he maintained that all theories of supernatural creation must be rejected, that natural law is inviolable, and that motion is the eternal, inseparable property of matter. His hard determinism forced him to reduce mind to brain and to advocate the release of criminals from punishment. Buchner viewed Darwin's later publication as a striking confirmation of his naturalistic monism and atheism...'
- Why release the criminals? The idea that since man was just matter in motion, his behavior and even his thoughts were all a matter of rigid cause and effect (working in terms of chemical reactions) and thus man (as a machine as it were) could not be held responsible for what it did. (Man was, in this view, no more responsible than one of Darwin's pigeons.)
G. Buchner went on to say of Darwin's system;
[it] "is the most thoroughly naturalistic that can be imagined, and far more atheistic than that of his despised predecessor Lamarck, who admitted at least a general law of progress and development; whereas, according to Darwin, the whole development is due to the gradual summation of innumerable minute and accidental natural operations." [46]
- And yet we have christian liberals telling us Charles Darwin was a christian. (I guess people like Buchner were mistaken.)
H. 'Comte de Buffon, who in the mid-eighteenth century challenged the classification method of Linnaeus, held that there was no radicald is continuity between species or between animal and vegetable kingdoms; he denied divine teleology in nature and in his main work , Histoire Naturelle, promoted the concept of a struggle for existence.
- Darwin didn't 'invent' the idea of a struggle for existence, neither did he come up with the idea of natural selection. (I'm sure some many politicians would kill for the kind of pr Darwin got; and still gets.)
I. 'In 1830 Friedrich Schleiermacher was accusing the Mosaic account of creation of being a primitive, mythological notion and saying that the old record must not be treated as historical.' [50]
- When liberals call Darwin a christian, they mean a 'christian' of the sort Schleiermacher was. It was 'liberals' like S. who gave the boot to Genesis and the account of creation.
J. 'This capitulation of the authority of the revealed Scriptures to autonomous thought is made explicit by Schleiermacher:
''The further elaboration of the doctrine of Creation in Dogmatics comes down to us from times when material even for natural science was taken from the Scriptures and when the elements of all higher knowledge lay hidden in Theology. Hence the complete separation of these two involves our handing over this subject to natural science, which, carrying its researches backward into time, may lead us back to the forces and masses that formed the world, or even further still.'
Bahnsen adds;
'He concedes to naturalistic science the sole right to answer the question of origins, and if science tells us that the Bible and orthodox creeds are mistaken, then so be it.
Summary;
'The acceptance of the theory of evolution stemmed from the milieu created by philosophic opinion-speculation fostered by men like Spinoza, Kant, Fichte, Goethe, Krause, Hegel, Feuerbach, Engels, Diderot, LaMettrie, d'Holbach, Buchner, and Schleiermacher; Darwin's scientific surmises had been anticipated by men like Buffon, Lamarck, Saint-Hilaire, Chambers, Spencer, and his own grandfather. Men were living in the age of Darwinism prior to the publication of Darwin's book. And the philosophic developments which appeared subsequent to the acceptance of Darwin's theory of evolution had already been manifested by 1859. [1.]
Notes;
1. On Worshipping the Creature Rather Than the Creator - Dr. Greg Bahnsen
- An extremely important article. (It really should have been expanded into a book; but maybe someone will take up the project one day.)
Friday, April 23, 2010
Creation vs Brute fact
Since few people seem interested in what I've got to say on the subject of origins (creation and evolution) I thought I'd post a fairly long quote about creation by theologian Cornelius Van Til. (In my opinion he's the most valuable theologian to read for background on the importance of the doctrine of creation to intellectual thought.)
Quotes and comments;
A. "The total picture we obtain from both modern science and modern philosophy is a complete rejection of the biblical notion of creation. It matters not whether this rejection comes in the form of an outright negation in the form of agnosticism or in the form of substituting another meaning for the word creation. As orthodox Christians we have to face the fact that we are at this point, as along the whole line of thought, out of accord with modern thought.... The assumption of brute fact is itself the most basic denial of the creation doctrine. And the assumption that man can of himself interpret brute facts is itself the denial of God as creator. We need therefore to challenge the very idea of brute fact. We need to challenge man's ability to interpret any fact unless that fact be created by God and unless man himself is created by God." [1.]
- What does Van Til mean by brute fact? This refers to the idea (in naturalist thought) that the universe is an independent and self-sufficient entity; that it had no creator, and that it needs no one to uphold or sustain it. At the heart of Van Til's conception of creation is a denial of brute facts; and the claim every fact is what it is because of the its place within the Providence of God.
Van Til goes on to deny that men can properly know the 'facts' (data) without reference to God. Since the universe was created by god, you can't understand anything correctly (fully) if you deny this. He goes further and denies that men could know the 'facts' (or data) if the universe were what the naturalist says it is. Allowing that an independent (brute) universe could exist, it would be impossible to say anything valid or truthful about it. (Such a universe would be a random process, and man himself would be a random process; all would be a matter of meaningless chance. Without God there would be no source of the absolute.)
Most scientists (Christian or non-Christian) deny what Van Til said, and insist that there are indeed brute facts; and that man can know what the 'facts' are without reference to God. Most of them insist that we live in a brute universe and that this poses no problem (i.e. as to knowledge or epistemology). In this scenario man's intellectual abilities are just taken as an unexplained and accidental given.
So who's right? Everyone will have to decide for themselves. Evidence that Van Til was right can be seen in the inability of 'science' to determine what the facts are when it comes to human experience. (i.e. the inability to bring 'fact' and value together.) Relativism and skepticism are more evidence that without God (without presupposing God) man can know nothing; that without God all man has is opinion and illusion. The materialist claims that the 'facts' (data) speak for themselves, but clearly they don't.
Summary;
Van Til claims that only if a creator God exists, and only if He created mankind, is knowledge possible; that facts only exist because of God and his will and plan for the universe.
Notes;
1. "Christian-Theistic Evidences," an unpublished class syllabus (Westminster Seminary, 1961), p. 106.
- for people who don't know Van Til, he belonged to the Reformed tradition, and was a professor at Westminster Seminary.
- He wrote a lot of material that relates to the issue of creation. In his book 'Systematic Theology' he has four chapters on various kinds of revelation. A lot of his book 'Christian Apologetics' also deals with the subject of creation.
2. I'm not big on the term brute fact;
Brute; 'Not associated with intelligence or intellectual effort; unintelligent; irrational.' - Century Dictionary
- the etymology goes back to the idea of a dumb beast.
3. I guess we could say that while there might be dark matter (I doubt it) there isn't any brute matter. (That's the best joke you're gonna get out of me today I'm afraid.)
4. I've never seen any account for man's intellectual abilities in terms of materialism that came close to being credible.
Quotes and comments;
A. "The total picture we obtain from both modern science and modern philosophy is a complete rejection of the biblical notion of creation. It matters not whether this rejection comes in the form of an outright negation in the form of agnosticism or in the form of substituting another meaning for the word creation. As orthodox Christians we have to face the fact that we are at this point, as along the whole line of thought, out of accord with modern thought.... The assumption of brute fact is itself the most basic denial of the creation doctrine. And the assumption that man can of himself interpret brute facts is itself the denial of God as creator. We need therefore to challenge the very idea of brute fact. We need to challenge man's ability to interpret any fact unless that fact be created by God and unless man himself is created by God." [1.]
- What does Van Til mean by brute fact? This refers to the idea (in naturalist thought) that the universe is an independent and self-sufficient entity; that it had no creator, and that it needs no one to uphold or sustain it. At the heart of Van Til's conception of creation is a denial of brute facts; and the claim every fact is what it is because of the its place within the Providence of God.
Van Til goes on to deny that men can properly know the 'facts' (data) without reference to God. Since the universe was created by god, you can't understand anything correctly (fully) if you deny this. He goes further and denies that men could know the 'facts' (or data) if the universe were what the naturalist says it is. Allowing that an independent (brute) universe could exist, it would be impossible to say anything valid or truthful about it. (Such a universe would be a random process, and man himself would be a random process; all would be a matter of meaningless chance. Without God there would be no source of the absolute.)
Most scientists (Christian or non-Christian) deny what Van Til said, and insist that there are indeed brute facts; and that man can know what the 'facts' are without reference to God. Most of them insist that we live in a brute universe and that this poses no problem (i.e. as to knowledge or epistemology). In this scenario man's intellectual abilities are just taken as an unexplained and accidental given.
So who's right? Everyone will have to decide for themselves. Evidence that Van Til was right can be seen in the inability of 'science' to determine what the facts are when it comes to human experience. (i.e. the inability to bring 'fact' and value together.) Relativism and skepticism are more evidence that without God (without presupposing God) man can know nothing; that without God all man has is opinion and illusion. The materialist claims that the 'facts' (data) speak for themselves, but clearly they don't.
Summary;
Van Til claims that only if a creator God exists, and only if He created mankind, is knowledge possible; that facts only exist because of God and his will and plan for the universe.
Notes;
1. "Christian-Theistic Evidences," an unpublished class syllabus (Westminster Seminary, 1961), p. 106.
- for people who don't know Van Til, he belonged to the Reformed tradition, and was a professor at Westminster Seminary.
- He wrote a lot of material that relates to the issue of creation. In his book 'Systematic Theology' he has four chapters on various kinds of revelation. A lot of his book 'Christian Apologetics' also deals with the subject of creation.
2. I'm not big on the term brute fact;
Brute; 'Not associated with intelligence or intellectual effort; unintelligent; irrational.' - Century Dictionary
- the etymology goes back to the idea of a dumb beast.
3. I guess we could say that while there might be dark matter (I doubt it) there isn't any brute matter. (That's the best joke you're gonna get out of me today I'm afraid.)
4. I've never seen any account for man's intellectual abilities in terms of materialism that came close to being credible.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Man as a revelation of God
Current academic thinking divides the universe up into the natural and the metaphysical or spiritual. These two realms are not connected in this model, as the realm of fact (matter) and the realm of value are utterly separate. The net effect of this view is that one can't learn anything about one realm by studying the other. I want to take a brief look at the biblical view of things, where reality is seen as an undivided whole; and where every aspect of the universe is revelational.
Quotes and comments;
A. "Man's own psychological activity is no less revelational than the laws of physics about him. All created reality is inherently revelational of the nature and will of God." - Cornelius Van Til [1.]
Most of our academics deny that man's psychological activity is in any way revelational; that it has a meaningful connection to reality. (In this we see a radical contrast with Van Til.) As an example; they deny that the need for truth, moral absolutes, meaning, etc. has any connection to reality. They deny that this intuitive belief and desire of man is evidence that these things exist, that they point to the true nature of the universe, or that they are evidence of a God created universe. There is no connection they claim between the need for certain presuppositions and their truth or validity .
The Materialist (atheist) needs to hold certain presuppositions in order to be rational, and he needs certain ethical and moral beliefs in order to live socially, but he denies that these requirements are revelational. He denies that these requirements are evidence for their existence or for the truth of Christianity. The fact we need something is no evidence it exists he tells us.
For Van Til, the need to presuppose God (i.e. if we want to be rational) is evidence for God. The need for moral truth is evidence for God. He claims that man must presuppose God to make sense of this life, his experience, and the universe; and that this is evidence for God. [2.]
Summary;
The claim that everything in the universe is revelational of God is founded on the 'idea' that the God who created the universe created man. The materialist believes that the universe (even if there were some kind of god) is independent and self-sufficient, and that there is no inherent connection between man and the universe. This being said, the Christian and the non-Christian will never see either man or the universe in the same way. For the materialist there will forever be a chasm between 'fact' and value; while for orthodox Christianity these two are intimately connected.
Notes;
1. Christian Apologetics - Cornelius Van Til/p.33
2. When he says we must presuppose God, this is short hand for saying we must presuppose the truth of the entire Christian system.
3. God not only created the universe, but he created the earth as a home for man. This being the case there's an intimate connection between man's psychology and the universe.
Quotes and comments;
A. "Man's own psychological activity is no less revelational than the laws of physics about him. All created reality is inherently revelational of the nature and will of God." - Cornelius Van Til [1.]
Most of our academics deny that man's psychological activity is in any way revelational; that it has a meaningful connection to reality. (In this we see a radical contrast with Van Til.) As an example; they deny that the need for truth, moral absolutes, meaning, etc. has any connection to reality. They deny that this intuitive belief and desire of man is evidence that these things exist, that they point to the true nature of the universe, or that they are evidence of a God created universe. There is no connection they claim between the need for certain presuppositions and their truth or validity .
The Materialist (atheist) needs to hold certain presuppositions in order to be rational, and he needs certain ethical and moral beliefs in order to live socially, but he denies that these requirements are revelational. He denies that these requirements are evidence for their existence or for the truth of Christianity. The fact we need something is no evidence it exists he tells us.
For Van Til, the need to presuppose God (i.e. if we want to be rational) is evidence for God. The need for moral truth is evidence for God. He claims that man must presuppose God to make sense of this life, his experience, and the universe; and that this is evidence for God. [2.]
Summary;
The claim that everything in the universe is revelational of God is founded on the 'idea' that the God who created the universe created man. The materialist believes that the universe (even if there were some kind of god) is independent and self-sufficient, and that there is no inherent connection between man and the universe. This being said, the Christian and the non-Christian will never see either man or the universe in the same way. For the materialist there will forever be a chasm between 'fact' and value; while for orthodox Christianity these two are intimately connected.
Notes;
1. Christian Apologetics - Cornelius Van Til/p.33
2. When he says we must presuppose God, this is short hand for saying we must presuppose the truth of the entire Christian system.
3. God not only created the universe, but he created the earth as a home for man. This being the case there's an intimate connection between man's psychology and the universe.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)