Archive April 2005

The Atheistic Argument from Existence

NOTICE:
This is an outdated and unofficial item. The article was released as a draft/preview to Captive to Reason. For the current and official version of the article, please download the book from the online library.

The following is an edited correspondence. The subject is an "argument from existence" used by some atheists against theists. It is a silly argument and does not deserve much attention, and the following correspondence does not give the full context anyway, so unless you are dealing with someone who uses this argument, or unless you want to read it for the positive content, feel free to skip this post. Also, my answer is just an application of what I have already written in books like Ultimate Questions and Apologetics in Conversation.

The claim being made is that the theist in asserting the existence of God automatically (presuppositionally) demonstrates that he accepts the priority of existence.

Followers of Van Til often state as their presupposition the existence of God, or the "Ontological Trinity." In contrast, I do not say that my first principle is the existence of God, but it is the entire divine verbal revelation, which we often just call "the Bible." To be fair, in one instance, Bahnsen states that when he says his starting point is the existence of God, or the "Ontological Trinity," he means the same thing as saying that his starting point is the whole Bible. I am uncertain whether this claim is commonly agreed or even known by followers of Van Til, or whether it is consistently conscious in their thinking and consistently practiced by them. What I can say is that Bahnsen made this claim at least once. In any case, it is better to always say that our first principle is the Bible instead of the existence of God; that is, it is better to altogether avoid implying that our first principle is the existence of God alone. I mention this just to note that the difference in language between me (and Clarkians) and the followers of Van Til on this point is deliberate, and most likely based on a real difference in thinking.

In any case, my main concern is not who believes what, but the point is that beginning from the whole Bible instead of just "the existence of God" avoids a whole host of problems and difficulties. For example, even if you start with the existence of God, you still don't have all the other necessary things (propositions) in your biblical worldview, including things that are necessary to assert the existence of God in the first place, such as theories of epistemology, linguistics, and so forth. Unless you start with a complete and true worldview, and then proceed by deduction, the worldview will always fail.

For the same reason, even if the atheists can start with existence, so what? (I think their definition of existence begs the question, so that they cannot even start there, but we will ignore this for now.) What else do they have, including the things that they must have to assert this first proposition?

Let me paste something that I previously wrote to another person, and then get back to this main topic. Someone asked me how to respond if the non-Christian claims to use "logic" as his first principle:

I do agree that logic, or let's just say "the law of non-contradiction" to be more specific, is indeed self-verifying in a sense — that is, in a proximate and subsidiary sense, and not an ultimate sense.

Let me explain.

The law of non-contradiction is self-verifying or self-evident at least in the sense that it is undeniable; that is, you must affirm it to even deny it. Because of this, your opponent considers it appropriate to make the law of non-contradiction his starting point, or at least one of his axioms. However, the law of non-contradiction cannot be a standalone first principle in one’s worldview.

(a)
This is because the law itself carries no content or information at all, so that from it, one cannot derive any knowledge by deduction. So, he must find some way to supply information for the law to process.

Since the law of non-contradiction is already his first principle, and precisely because of this, knowledge by strict deduction is no longer an option, unless he has some other first axioms, in which case you will have to examine and attack them. For example, if his other ultimate axioms come from intuition, then you can attack intuition as a foundation of knowledge. Also, his ultimate axioms must also be self-authenticating, consistent with one another, and sufficient to provide an entire worldview. (See my Ultimate Questions)

But if he uses logic or the law of non-contradiction alone as his first principle, and if he does not have other axioms from intuition, etc., then he must supply the content for this first principle to process by induction, and this he means that he will also employ empiricism. He might also appeal to science or the "scientific method."

Here is where the differences between Van Til and me necessarily produce a difference in approach. At this point, I would challenge the opponent to rationally justify induction, empiricism, and science. Of course, he is going to say a lot of things, but since induction, empiricism, science cannot really be rationally justified, my opponent can no longer proceed. I don’t have to listen to even one more thing that my opponent has to say unless he gets pass this point, but he will never get pass this point.

Briefly, Van Til accepted induction, empiricism, and science, but he taught that they are unintelligible without the right presuppositions. I disagree because I would say that induction, empiricism, and science are irrational in themselves, and even the right presuppositions cannot rescue that which is inherently wrong. For example, even if I make Scripture my starting point, this does not make "1 + 1 = 99" true.

Again, here I am not trying to settle my differences with Van Til’s approach. I am only trying to tell you what I would do and what would happen. But if you differ with me on this because you prefer Van Til, then you will have to take induction, empiricism, and science away from your opponent through some other way (even if you want to keep these things for yourself), or to let him keep these things and use another strategy against him.

(b)
Another "angle" from which you may attack his appeal to the law of non-contradiction as his first principle is to point out that any proposition implies a whole host of philosophical questions — it implies an entire worldview. For example, the very fact that your opponent says, "Logic (or the law of non-contradiction) is axiomatic; it is self-verifying," demands that he has a theory on epistemology (logic, truth, knowledge, etc.), metaphysics (he must have a theory about the nature of reality to explain the fact that he is speaking, etc.), linguistics (he is using language), and a number of other things.

This means that he can never rest after claiming logic as his axiom, but if you demand it, he must present his view on every related subject. Moreover, his view on each of these areas must be rationally defensible (you should attack him on each), and coherent (e.g. his view on linguistics must not contradict his epistemology).

No non-Christian can satisfy these requirements. So, if you press him on it, he will never be able to get away with just saying "Logic is my axiom."

**
To summarize, to the claim that logic is axiomatic and self-verifying, you can respond with at least (1) "But logic contains no information. You still need a defensible epistemology to supply it with information, but then, is your epistemology defensible?"; and (2) "But just to say this demands that you already have an entire true and coherent worldview, including theories on epistemology, metaphysics, linguistics, mind, and so forth. So, explain and defend all these areas of your worldview."

If he fails to satisfy (1) and (2), then that logic is self-evident is irrelevant. It does not help him at all.

This is different for the Christian. The whole Bible is his first principle from which he deduces all the necessary information for his worldview. Logic is already an integral part of Scripture from the start, but it is not a standalone axiom.

Without further explanation, I hope that you grasp how the above would equally apply to using "existence" as one's starting point. In short, one needs much more than just the idea of "existence" in his worldview in order to even just assert "existence."

The only defensible noetic structure is deduction from a first principle, and the only way this is possible is if your first principle contains all the necessary information in your worldview. Neither "God exists" nor existence itself can satisfy this. If you do not start with the whole divine revelation, your starting point will not have all the information you need to allow you to start at all. Then, you will have to depend on induction, intuition, empiricism, etc., to supply your first principle with information. But then, how did you know your first principle in the first place? If it is by these methods, then how is it first? Also, if these methods themselves fail, then even if you can have your narrow first principle, you are still as good as having nothing at all.

To repeat, in terms of the structure of a defensible biblical philosophy (we are not talking about what is metaphysically prior within the biblical worldview), God is on the same level with everything else at the top (which is the whole of revelation). Whether it is God, "existence," language, epistemology, etc., they all start at the top with the whole divine revelation as the first principle. The atheistic argument from existence starts from "existence," and I am saying that they can't do that unless they have everything else that makes that possible (so they still need to put together an entire worldview). But I have everything including logic and "existence" (whatever that means) on the same level at the top, so that my first principle has the content to make such an assertion possible in the first place. All that I need is embedded from the start; otherwise, one cannot start at all.

Also, I wonder how their argument can refute pantheism.

When a presuppositionalist fails to be effective, it is often because the opponent's argument derails him from the presuppositional track. That is, the opponent says something that somehow pulls the believer to see things from the unbeliever's false perspective, and if he can't get out using the unbeliever's perspective, or if he can't jump back to this own principles, then he is in trouble. But this is not a failure of presuppositional apologetics, but a failure to consistently use it.

Recommended:

Vincent Cheung, Ultimate Questions
Vincent Cheung, Presuppositional Confrontations
Vincent Cheung, Apologetics in Conversation

Gordon Clark, Christian Philosophy

Carl F. H. Henry, Toward a Recovery of Christian Belief

Christ the Reason

NOTICE:
This is an outdated and unofficial item. The article was released as a draft/preview to Captive to Reason. For the current and official version of the article, please download the book from the online library.

(The following is an edited email correspondence.)

I came across today a letter written by Bahnsen regarding some issues he had with John Robbins.

Why does Bahnsen say the following in regards to Clark? "Who can forget his exegetically atrocious rendition of John 1:1 ("In the beginning was Logic")?" Does Bahnsen not think that "In the beginning was the Logic" is a valid translation? If so, why?

I thought you, Clark, Bahnsen, and Robbins were all on the same page with respect to that verse. Anyway, any help you can offer to clear that up would be helpful….

Bahnsen's disagreement is with translating "Logos" as "Logic." Here Clark is right and Bahnsen is wrong. Depending on the context, "logos" can be translated by a number of English words, such as "word," "speech," "proposition," "sentence," "reason," "logic," and several others.

In John 1:1, the verse is declaring the pre-existence of Christ the Logos and his relation to God (the Father) and to creation. In its historical context, John is declaring that Christ is the fulfillment of the Logos of Greek philosophy — that is, the principle of Reason that structures and regulates the whole universe. Of course, John is not saying that Christ and the Greek Logos are the same thing, but he takes the word/concept and fills it with Christian meaning.

Given this context, I think that "Word" is probably an inferior translation to "Reason" and "Logic." At the least, we can say that "Reason" and "Logic" are not wrong. Even without the historical context, the immediate context of the passage should also allow this translation. Also consider the relevance of the personified "Wisdom" in Proverbs.

Sometimes I refer to "Reason" with a capital "R" in my books and articles. This is what I have in mind. I am speaking of Christ, who is Reason personified — to reject him is to reject all rationality.

There is no legitimate exegetical reason to forbid translating "logos" as "Reason" or "Logic" in John 1:1. People shrink back from it probably due to an anti-intellectual prejudice.

* * *
Some of my readers (of both my books and this blog) closely follow Bahnsen, so I will add a word about this here. The question was asked in the context of Bahnsen’s disagreement with Clark, so that’s the context in which I answered it. This is nothing personal against Bahnsen, nor do I believe something just because Clark believed it. I would affirm the above position even if Clark had rejected it.

Then, since I will probably never devote a blog entry especially on the book, I might as well include a brief statement about Bahnsen’s Van Til’s Apologetic, in which he made a number of criticisms against Clark.

I agree with several of Bahnsen’s criticisms — he quotes several statements from Clark’s writings that I in fact reject. However, in most of those cases, I nevertheless do not adopt Bahnsen’s alternative. In other words, in most of those cases where I think Bahnsen correctly criticizes Clark, I reject both Bahnsen and Clark, and hold my own position on the subject.

But then, the rest (that is, the majority) of Bahnsen’s criticisms against Clark are outrageously wrong. While I expect a Van Tilian to misunderstand and/or misrepresent Clark on some points, I was astounded at how poorly Bahnsen had misunderstood and/or misrepresented Clark in most of his criticisms. Those portions of his book reflect far inferior scholarship than what I believe Bahnsen was capable of. If I were to misrepresent Bahnsen or Van Til in a similar way, I would probably never get away with it. The problem is that most readers of Bahnsen might never look up the corresponding references in Clark’s works, and thus they will come away with an impression of Clark that is way, way, way, way off.

Moreover, even in cases where Bahnsen correctly represents Clark’s position in this book, his objections are extraordinarily feeble and irrational. And in many of these instances, it seems that Bahnsen has no logical refutation or rational alternative at all; rather, it appears that he rejects Clark’s position just because he doesn’t like it.

These lapses in scholarly judgment and rationality on Bahnsen’s part might be due to an inherited anti-Clarkian prejudice — a prejudice that never received a proper rational justification. Whether this is the true reason or how much it explains, I cannot say for sure.

My suggestion is that readers should ignore all the criticisms of Clark in Bahnsen’s book until they actually look up those quotations from Clark, and read them in their full contexts.

Recommended:

Gordon Clark, The Johannine Logos

God-admiring Thoughts

Since I have given quotes on the imprecatory psalms for several Sundays, and I might do several more still, I thought that it might benefit all of you to also provide some quotes on other subjects even while I continue harping about the imprecatory psalms.

Here is one in which Thomas Watson mentions a neglected aspect of spirituality:

To glorify God is to set God highest in our thoughts, and to have a venerable esteem of him….To glorify God is to have God-admiring thoughts; to esteem him most excellent, and search for diamonds in this rock only.

Thomas Watson, A Body of Divinity
(The Banner of Truth Trust), p. 7.

Holiness consists not only in external good works, but also in the mind, and in fact, first in the mind.

Recommended:

Vincent Cheung, Prayer and Revelation
Vincent Cheung, Renewing the Mind
Vincent Cheung, Godliness with Contentment

Gordon Clark, Sanctification

John Calvin, Golden Booklet of the True Christian Life

Edmund Clowney, Christian Meditation

Christian books on sanctification are characteristically sloppy, imprecise, unbiblical, and often somewhat anti-intellectualistic and mystical. There are some good ones, though, and I might take time to recommend some of them on this blog in the future. In general, my advice is that you should always read something on sanctification by a competent systematic theologian rather than one who is famous only for writing "devotional" literature.

Evil and Privation

We talked a while back about God being the author of evil in the sense that God is the cause of all things. Yet evil is a privation and not really an essence, is it not? I ask because the Bible Answer Man was arguing with a man, and he said, "Evil is not an ontological essence in and of itself. It is a deprivation, or lack of good."

We must first clearly define the problem or question. Let me see if I understand what you are getting at. You seem to imply that since evil is a privation, that since it is not a "thing" in itself, then this is inconsistent with God being the cause or author of all things. I am not certain that this is your point, but it appears to be, so I will proceed with the assumption that this is your point. If it is not, you can reply to clarify.

Now, we might say that evil does not have an ontological status like good, since God himself is Goodness, and there is no counterpart Evil. If this is what we mean, then it is biblical and true; otherwise, we would be affirming dualism, or the view that Good and Evil are two equal or almost equal self-existent eternal powers that fight against each other. From this perspective, it is correct to deny Evil an ontological status in itself.

However, this is not inconsistent with my position. In fact, it is consistent only with mine. That only Good has ontological status means that Good must be the cause of all things, and therefore it must be "good" that there is Evil (although evil is not good in itself). This is just another way of saying that God was good and righteous when he actively decreed that there should be evil, and then proceeded to actively carry out this decree.

As I have shown in my books and articles, there is no biblical or rational problem with this; on the other hand, any other view would have a hard time explaining evil, and thus must relegate it to "mystery," or end in dualism.

Recommended:

Vincent Cheung, Commentary on Ephesians
Vincent Cheung, Ultimate Questions
Vincent Cheung, On Good and Evil
Vincent Cheung, "The Problem of Evil"
Vincent Cheung, "The Doctrine of Hell"

Gordon Clark, God and Evil

Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will

Kingdom First (5)

In a sermon on the same verse, Warfield writes:

How many think it would be unreasonable in God to put His service before their provision for themselves and family? How many of us who have been able to "risk" ourselves, do not think that we can "risk" our families in God's keeping? How subtle the temptations! But, here our Lord brushes them all away in the calm words, "Seek ye first the kingdom of God and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you." Is this not a rebuke to our practical atheism?²

What a piercing question! Perhaps we have all been guilty of obeying the verse only to an extent (which is to say that we have been disobeying it); we have so many seemingly legitimate reservations. Of course it is our duty to provide for our families, and sometimes it pains us to see that they must do without certain things because of our service to the kingdom of God. It appears that even those of us who seem to measure up to the verse in many respects still fail when it comes to this point.

If yielding to it means disobeying God's command, then this is ultimately a carnal concern. Jesus does tell us to seek first the kingdom, and first means first. As Warfield observes, it is practical atheism to think "that we cannot trust God for our earthly prosperity but must bid Him wait until we make good our earthly fortunes before we can afford to turn to Him."³ Our Lord demands our attention now and not later, and he requires us to serve him continuously and not intermittently; he commands us to put him first every time.⁴

What is our ambition? Is it worldly or spiritual? Is it centered around the kingdom of God or our own little empire? As we have noticed, it is easy to "deceive yourselves" (James 1:22), and to think that you are a doer of this verse when you are only a hearer; it is easy to think that you are doing all that it says when you are falling far short of it. This is why we have spent this time trying to understand this verse better, and to unravel some of its implications for our lives.

Matthew Henry comments that obeying this verse means "making religion your business," and to "mind religion as your great and principle concern."⁵ Is this what you are doing? Is this what you are enforcing in your family? Does the way that you spend your money and your time suggest that you are "making religion your business"?

What are you teaching your children? Do you repeatedly tell them to study hard so that they will get good jobs in the future, or do you tell them to focus on developing biblical knowledge and character so that they will please and glorify God? Do you ever tell them to stop doing their homework to pray a while, to read a commentary, or to write a theological essay?

Again, we are not suggesting that our children should neglect their school work and other duties, but Jesus does say that we must seek first the kingdom, and first means first. We must believe that even the needed things concerning the children's education will be "added to them" if they will seek first the kingdom of God. In any case, there is no excuse for our children to know more about algebra than theology, or to know more about the theories of physics than Paul's message to the Romans.

Some parents have their children's academic career all planned out by the time they enter elementary school, if not way before that, but very few seem to plan out their theological training and character development in detail, so that they will become productive citizens of the kingdom of God.

But of course, parenting is not the only aspect of our lives that we need to be concerned about; we are using it only as an example, and as something that might expose our true priorities and concerns. We must examine every aspect of our lives to make sure that we are really seeking first the kingdom of God and his righteousness.

² Benjamin B. Warfield, Faith and Life (The Banner of Truth Trust, 1990), p. 46.
³ Ibid.
⁴ Of course, this is not an excuse to neglect our duties, for some people neglect both the kingdom and their families.
⁵ Matthew Henry, Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (Hendrickson Publishers, 2001), p. 1642.

(end of series)

Recommended:

Vincent Cheung, The Sermon on the Mount

Benjamin B. Warfield, "This- and Other-Worldliness," in Faith and Life