Last night I spent a few minutes, at the request of my daughter Anna, with a college student who was denying the existence of God. He was a Empiricist / Verificationist who was demanding physical sensory evidence for proof of God’s existence. He refused to accept the absurdity and self-defeating nature of his position. With that conversation still ringing in my head I thought I would quote Bahnsen on the problem of Empiricism / Verificationism.
“When the unbeliever contends that nothing in man’s temporal, limited, natural experience can provide knowledge of the metaphysical or supernatural, he is simply taking a roundabout way of saying that the Biblical account of God who makes Himself clearly known in the created order and Scripture is mistaken.
This begging of the question is sometimes veiled from the unbeliever by his tendency to recast the nature of theological truth as man-centered and rooted initially in human, empirical experience. However, the very point in contention between the believer and the unbeliever comes down to the claims that Christian teaching is rooted in God’s self-disclosure of the truth as found in the world around us and in the written word. There is no reason to think that theology would be intellectually required to be built upon the foundation of human sense experience, unless someone were presupposing in advance that all knowledge must ultimately derive from empirical procedures. But that is the very question at hand. The anti-metaphysical polemic is not a supporting reason for rejecting Christianity; it is simply a re-wording of that rejection itself.
PHILOSOPHICAL SELF-DECEPTION
We are brought, then, to number (1) above, the first and foundational step in the case against metaphysics. What are we to make of the assertion that ‘all significant knowledge about the objective world is empirical in nature.’? The most obvious and philosophically significant reply would be that if the preceding statement were true, then — on the basis of the claim — we could never know that it were true. Why? Simply because the statement in question is not itself known as the result of empirical testing and experience. Therefore, according to its own strict standards, the statement could not amount to significant knowledge about the objective world. It simply reflects the subjective (perhaps meaningless!) bias of the one who pronounces it. Hence the anti-metaphysician not only has his own preconceived conclusions (presuppositions), but it turns out that he cannot live according to them (Rom. 2:1). On the basis of his own assumptions he refutes himself (II Tim. 2:25). As Paul put it about those who suppress the truth in unrighteousness: ‘They become futile in their speculations (Rom. 1:21)!
FURTHER DIFFICULTIES
There are other difficulties with the position expressed by (1) as well. We can easily see that it amounts to a presupposition for the unbeliever. What rational basis or evidence is there for the position that all knowledge must be empirical in nature? That is not a conclusion supported by other reasoning, and the premise does not admit of empirical verification since it deals with what is universally or necessarily the case (not a historical or contingent truth). Moreover, the statement itself precludes any other type of verification or support other than empirical warrants or evidence. Thus the anti-metaphysical opponent of the Christian faith holds to this dogma in a presuppositional fashion — as something which controls inquiry, rather than being the result of inquiry.
That anti-metaphysical presupposition, however, has certain devastating results. Notice that if all knowledge must be empirical in nature, then the uniformity of nature cannot be known to be true. And without the knowledge and assurance that the future will be like the past (e.g., if salt dissolved in water on Wednesday, it will do likewise and not explode on Friday) we could not draw empirical generalizations and projections — in which case the whole enterprise of natural science would immediately be undermined.”
Dr. Greg Bahnsen
Always Ready — pg. 187-188
That was a great book. I bought extras to give away. It is a great introduction to presuppositionalism.
and this is just one of the reasons why apologetics is important. Anna saw a challenge to biblical Christianity answered. (As I’m sure she’s seen many times before).
Bahnsen repeated in various lectures that a person will hold to a completely irrational position before they acknowledge the biblical position. Even if God provided proof and they saw a dead man walking they would explain it away. Some of the apostles did (Mt 28:17). Peter said that he saw these things with his own eyes but we have something more sure, the Scriptures 2Pet 1:16-21.
Jerry,
I saw this last night again. This college kid despite my articulating in my own words the Bahnsen truths and despite showing his contradiction over and over again and the self refuting nature of what he was saying kept accusing me of “irrationality,” “ciruclar reasoning,” “logical fallacies,” and other sophomoric cat calling. He was standing there butt naked having been undressed by me and all he could do was scream absurdities at me.
I used to be bothered by that until I listened to a serious of Bahnsen lectures where he recounts a visit (and recurring visits) from a 18 year old JW young lady. While listening I thought, “this is surely going to end in her conversion.” But it didn’t and Bahnsen just matter of factly noted that conversion isn’t by argumentation.
I thought then … “Well, obviously the problem isn’t with technique when people don’t see what is being set before them.”
That’s why all of these conversations ought to end with a simple Gospel appeal…because that’s where the power is, through the Holy Spirit convicting the sinner through hearing the truth. The discussions can be a means, but it’s God’s Word that will pierce their souls.
That’s why all of these conversations ought to end with a simple Gospel appeal…because that’s where the power is, through the Holy Spirit convicting the sinner through hearing the truth. The discussions can be a means, but it’s God’s Word that will pierce their souls.
I’m encouraged to read this post Bret. I’m sure when the time comes on Dec. 19th when I’m asked to defend my answers, I will be met with incredulity, “How can you believe that Christ illumines all minds to know!?” “Do you really believe that God is the source of all truth, even though people can have the truth without believing in God?!”
May God grant me the peace and patience to answer well when I am tested.
Bret,
It is frustrating, especially when it is only going to be one conversation. But, as Bahnsen quoted Dr Van Til, “you can’t argue someone into heaven”. They are always surprized when it is pointed out that they use circular reasoning without realizing they are using it also. Their reason is their justification that they are reasoning correctly.
I’m glad I’ve listened to plenty of Bahnsen. It been a great help to me. I’ve been very blessed by his work
He has a series titled Getting Down and Dirty which is 8 lectures which pretty much covers most attacks against Christianity which are commonly used if anyone would like to find his apologetical work in a thorough basic form.
Covenant Media pretty much has exclusive rights to Bahnsen’s lectures. Not expensive at all if you download
http://www.cmfnow.com/
I just started into North’s Crossed Fingers. Have you read it yet?
Carmon,
I agree 100%.
I ended the conversation with an appeal to repent and turn and trust Jesus. It is interesting that it was especially at this point my conversation partner went especially ballistic.
Jerry,
Gary DeMar recenty had that book for 75% off and I toyed with buying it but I bought Westminster’s Confession, Theonomy; an Informed Response, Bringing In The Sheaves, and a couple others instead. I wish I could have bought that one but one has to be somewhat discriminating about what they buy. Maybe I was put off a little by a Doug Wilson review of that book where he said it read like an 800 page tract.
I’ve listened and read a good deal of Dr. Bahnsen likewise though I don’t think I’ve listened to that series you recommended.
Joshua,
All you can do is be as cogent and rational from a Christian worldview as possible. It would be good if you could read just a little on Van Til’s apologetical method before your orals. I think that would help. Still, you will be fine. Do what you did in your paper on Rhetoric you sent me. Gently expose the irrationality and contradiction of the pagan’s starting point and go from there. Look to explain how the pagan can get things right in spite of themselves and how that reality allows the believer and the pagan to possibly work together. Common grace and felicitous inconsistency are wonderful things.
We will be praying for you.
Bret
I may be able to pick up something on Van Til from the church library before my orals. I have a copy of Bahnsen’s Always Ready, which I’ve been reading through again.
Thanks for your prayers.
Bret,
I love studying history and also apologetics. I am always looking for apologetic help. In the Getting Down and Dirty series Bahnsen has a lecture titled The Problem of Pain, Suffering and Evil. He absolutely nailed it in that lecture. It is a gem. Bahnsen is the first one that has ever answered that question in a way which I was happy and satisfied with the answer. It is well worth the hour spent listening to it. I listened to it 3 or 4 times so I could really “get it.”
Bret,
did you know that Crossed Fingers is available for download for free at http://www.freebooks.org?
Alex
No I didn’t.
Thanks Alex.
Bret
sorry, it’s at http://www.garynorth.com/freebooks