God and Free Will

Is it possible to have free will and yet to choose the same thing in every possible world? It would seem that if an entity were to make the same choice freely, in every possible world, such a choice would be necessary. And yet, one of the apparent requirements of free will is that it be possible for the agent in question to choose otherwise. This is quite a quandery.

Fundamental Assumptions of Liberal Ideology

At least some of  the assumptions of Liberal and Postmodern ideology have to do with the issue of tolerance. Those of a liberal and/or postmodern persuasion appear to believe, in many cases at least, that believing a behavior is immoral without proper justification. Such justification must consist of showing some way in which the behavior harms other people. So, for example, murder is wrong because it does harm to an individual and his/her family. Harm therefore, can be defined as any detrimental effect on a persons physical and/or psychological well-being. When an action is defined as immoral that doesn't cause harm in this way, a red flag is raised in the eyes of the socially liberal. This is especially true when it comes to the issue of homosexuality, where homosexual acts tend to be seen as a reflection of a persons very identity. It is concluded from this, that homosexuals have a right to openly practice homosexual behavior. So two assumptions can be established so far; harm is the basic qualifier for immoral behavior, and people have a fundamental right to express themselves, especially in regards to what gives them their identity.

A third assumption seems to exist in the Postmodern conception of tolerance as well, however. Tolerance seems to be viewed as not only reluctantly coexisting with people of differing philosophies, ethnicities, theologies etc., but also gleefully accepting those differences as within the confines of what one considered good, moral, beautiful etc. If taken to its logical conclusion, this principle would seem to imply that to believe that a different lifestyle, belief system, ethnicity etc. is not good or less good than yours is to commit a cardinal sin. To counteract this illogical conclusion, the first two assumptions are employed, implying that tolerance must be employed to those behaviors, viewpoints and backgrounds which do not cause harm to others and/or reflect a persons right to be who they are. 

This maneuver however, still leaves problems. For one thing, the principle of tolerating others as postmodern's define it appears to be self-defeating as it seems to require believing that anyone who disagrees with the principle of tolerance is immoral, even though such disagreements don't cause harm, and may even violate someone's rights to express themselves in regards to what gives them their identity. Another problem it leaves is that the postmodern system of thought doesn't adequately address the central dilemma of tolerance, that being how do we disagree with one another without hating one another? Postmodernism simply says that we should believe that all positions are good, at least those that do not lead to harming individuals. But this seems to dilute a persons position considerably, what use is believing that another person is wrong on an issue if you are forced to believe that their position is just as good as yours? Isn't the whole reason you hold a particular view is that your's is the best? There would seem little use, then, in having diversity as the only thing which really divides people is personal preference.

Christianity, I think gives a better answer to the dilemma of tolerance. While it is true that other viewpoints contrary to Christian teaching are wrong and therefore in some sense evil, it is the Christian's duty to respect and care for those who hold those positions. It is the Christians duty for a number of reasons. First of all, Christians hold to the idea that all of us humans are in the same boat in terms of righteousness, as such, we are in no position to condemn, judge or punish other people for their immoral behavior and lifestyles. Additionally, Christians do not generally hold that they are somehow better because they have figured out the truth whereas others have not. Christian theology and Biblical teaching are pretty clear that our knowledge of God and His salvation is not something which can be credited to our discovery, but God’s self-revelation. Another major reason Christians have a duty to care for others is the intrinsic value we all have being created in God’s image. We have been given unparalleled worth in all of creation and we should treat each other appropriately. Finally, Christians are commanded by God to love others. Mark 12:31 records that the second greatest commandment is to love your neighbor as yourself. So Christians have no excuse, they have an obligation to tolerate others.

It should be important to note here, however, that this tolerance is not as those of a moderately postmodern persuasion define it. It is not accepting others positions as good, it is accepting other people despite their wickedness and despite their flaws.

Additional note; I am only referring to a more moderate version of postmodernism, particularly how it is portrayed in popular culture such as on tv shows like “The View”. Thus, this basic critique may not hold up against more sophisticated versions of postmodern thought, though, from what I’ve seen, I doubt it won’t.

Gods Silence Part 1

There seems to be a series of questions which can be posed against the Christian as to why God is so hidden or silent in the world.

Question #1: Why didn't God wait to send His son until humans had the technology to document his miracles, death and resurrection?

Like all questions there is an argument behind this. The reasoning of this argument, I believe, goes as follows;

1) If Christ would have come when His miracles could have been documented He would have convinced the most  people of His existence and the truth of His claims.

2) Christ did not come when His miracles could have been documented.

3) Therefore Christ did not convince the most people of His existence and the truth of His claims.

4) Christ came to convince the most people of His existence and the truth of His claims

5) Therefore, Christ failed to convince the most people of His existence and the truth of His claims

6) God does not fail

7) Therefore, Christ is not God

Now, this argument could be attacked in a number of ways, but the most vulnerable premise seems to be 1. There are a number of problems with 1. First of all, there is the issue of how it is possible to know what would happen if Christ came later. How would history have played out if Christianity had not existed? How would technology and society have developed? These questions don't seem answerable by agents in our position. Whats more, there are some serious problems with God waiting to send His son. For one thing, we know in this timeline it took 2000 years for recording technology to be developed. That's 2000 more years of hundreds of millions of people not being saved. Additionally we know first hand how fast Christianity can and has spread throughout the world. today 2.2 billion people affiliate themselves with Christianity. Interestingly most of the regions of the greatest growth are in Africa and Asia, continents with a great many 3rd world countries as well as nations who are not so friendly to the Christian tradition.

Is Christian ethics based upon fear?

Does Christianity teach that our primary motivation for doing good is the fear of hell?

The reasoning behind this seems to be that because there is the threat of going to hell for doing evil, that threat must be the motivation for Christians doing good. Well there's just one tiny problem, Christians, at least Protestants, don't believe its possible to get out of that punishment by doing good. The only way to get out of hell is to do commit one's life to Christ for the forgiveness of sins and receive the Holy Spirit for sanctification. Aha, the atheist will say, that only pushes the question back one step, isn't your only motivation for salvation then to escape hell. No but it is a motivation certainly, the main motivation should be, at least, to desire to worship and enjoy God forever.

Honestly, I don't see why atheists view this as a serious objection. For one thing it assumes motivation is a central part of what makes ethical decision ethical. But why should we believe that, especially on a naturalist view? The objection may be more effective if posed as an objection against the consistency of Christian ethics. But that even has shortfalls as it can easily be shown that there are noble and ethical motivations for doing good. Additionally, even the Christian worldview allows for the idea that an action can be moral even if one or more of one's motives is not moral. Which is another problem with this argument, it seems to assume that there can only be one motivation for an action. This seems obviously false.

In conclusion then, it would seem that if the atheist wants to make any sort of argument out of this objection, they have some work to do.

http://www.rationalchristianity.net/fear_morality.html

An examination of Norman Geisler’s latest attack on Mike Licona

Earlier this January Geisler was at it again. He has accused Mike Licona of denying inerrancy by allowing for contradictions in the text. You can find this article here; http://www.normgeisler.com/articles/Bible/Inspiration-Inerrancy/Licona/LiconaContradictionsInGospels.pdf

Being an undergrad, my knowledge and understanding of the issues presented in this article are limited. That being said, using logic alone I found a few flaws in Geisler’s reasoning. First allow me to explain briefly what this recent tirade by Geisler is all about. The issue is where John states that Jesus was nailed to the cross on the day of preparation for the passover in chapter 19 verse 14. This seems inconsistent with the synoptics claim that Jesus was nailed to the cross on the day after the passover. Mike Licona has claimed that perhaps John changed the day to make a theological point. Naturally Norman Geisler has become quite distressed by this claim, as inerrancy teaches the Bible cannot contain any contradictions. His objection is as follows;

1) No proposition in the Bible is claimed to be both true and false at the same time and in the same sense.
2) The proposition; Jesus was crucified the day after the passover is in the Bible.
3) The proposition; Jesus was not crucified the day after the passover is in the Bible.
4) Therefore, the Bible contains a proposition that is claimed to be both true and false at the same time and in the same sense.

The issue is with premise 3. If Licona is correct, then John isn’t really making the claim that Jesus was crucified on the day of preparation of the passover but merely using a literary technique to make a point, which from my research appears to be a common practice for Greco-Roman biographies. To explain this further, in our culture, we make claim to strictly propose that they are true, in the ancient world, this is not the case. In the issue of time for example, today we view time as a mathematical measurement, in ancient palestine, they saw time as much more relative. Chronological order was not really an issue for them, so they just often didn't make serious claims about the exact time an even occurred. So there really is no contradiction here according to Licona. Now I have no interest in defending or critiquing Licona’s view here. My main point of contention is that Licona’s view, if true, does not violate inerrancy.

A second issue I found with Geisler’s reasoning is his claim that scripture is its own best interpreter. It seems he means by this that the Bible is its own genre of literature. This view of scripture seems to suffer from the same issue as the Alexandrian school. That being, interpretation becomes completely arbitrary. If the Bible contains unique genre’s of literature, then there can be no objective basis for interpretation. By all accounts the gospels could appear to be biographies, but since they are unique in their genre, they may be a divine poetic account or allegorical for the human spiritual experience. Who’s to say? The fact is Christians have always affirmed that the Bible is unique in its content and ultimate source, it is not unique in issues of language or interpretation. In these respects the Bible was purposefully designed for us to understand what it says. The fact that Geisler, a highly regarded intellectual among evangelicals, cannot seem to grasp even this simple distinction is surprising.

Honestly, I hope I am misunderstanding what Geisler is saying here, or perhaps I have simply made an error in my reasoning. Because if I understand Geisler and Licona correctly and my reasoning is valid, then Geisler has made some very rookie mistakes.

An examination of the gospels as Greco-Roman biographies;
http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/gospelbioi.html

Licona’s view;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJ8rZukh_Bc&feature=youtu.be

Reformed epistemology and Presuppositional apologetics

One problem about presuppositional apologetics which I hinted at in my last post is that when it speaks of circular reasoning being inevitable it seems to assuming that everything we believe we claim certainty about. More specifically presuppositionalists appear to be using the classic trilemma of skepticism; all propositions ultimately end up in circular reasoning, an infinite regress or brute facts. For one thing this trilemma seems self-defeating in the sense that we could never be certain that its correct if it is indeed correct. But more important to this discussion, the trilemma would only apply to claims to certainty if correct. Enter properly basic beliefs. Properly basic beliefs are such that you don’t have to justify them in order to be justified in believing them. One way this can be the case is if the truth of a belief is apparent to you in a significant way and that belief has no defeaters or reasons for doubting its true. For example, the external world, we experience it every day and have no reason for thinking its not there beyond the possibility that its not. So one could say that even though we aren’t certain, we are justified in believing the external world exists.

Reformed epistemology argues that this is the case with God. God is something many people experience and have no reason for doubting. So for them at least, their belief in God is justified. This is a weaker claim than the presuppositionalist’s, but it is similar in some ways. Reformed epistemologists like Alvin Plantinga agree with the presuppositionalist that arguments for God’s existence are not needed and that a defensive apologetic is really all that is necessary for Christianity to be rational.

One thing I like about reformed epistemology is that it allows those who don’t have the education to learn about arguments for and against God’s existence to still be rational in their belief of God. Some potential problems include the infamous Great Pumpkin objection. What beliefs couldn’t be considered properly basic under reformed epistemology?

For more information about this view, including a response to some objections see;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformed_epistemology
http://people.brandeis.edu/~teuber/without_evidence_or_argument.pdf

Presuppositional Calamity Part 2;

This time I thought I’d analyze some of the support, both biblical and otherwise, for presuppositional apologetics, presented by John Frame, J.D. Trimble Chair of theology and philosophy at Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando California. Here I hope to break down the logic in his arguments and see whether they hold up to scrutiny;

here is the article from which I will be basing my critique; http://www.frame-poythress.org/presuppositional-apologetics/

Section 1; Presupposing God in Apologetic Argument

Frame begins by pointing out that no one learns anything in a vacuum, we all come at various topics and issues, with biases and presuppositions. A truth which is difficult to deny. The author continues by making the additional point that our presuppositions often act as axioms or paradigms of our reasoning, allowing certain conclusions from the inquiries we engage in and blocking others. Some of these presuppositions are inescapable or completely basic to the way we think, like laws of logic or ethical principles. Frame is correct in asserting that both of these presuppositions can be paradigms for our world-view, they prevent us from reaching certain conclusions.

In the beginning of the fourth paragraph John claims that believers know God exists and know Him to be the God of Christianity with certainty. This doesn’t seem to be the case, if this were true it would mean that we can know God’s character, meaning we can know with certainty God will fulfill His promises. The problem is where is room for faith, for trusting God, in this picture? I don’t see any. To support this assertion John cites 1 Corinthians 2:9-16 and 2 Timothy 3:16 of which he says teach that the Spirit gives believers the mind of Christ. Even if we grant that interpretation, that doesn’t lead to the conclusion that believers will know various things with certainty, it could simply mean that the way a believer thinks in terms of priorities is changed. Frame goes on to cite 1 John 5:7 though he probably meant to include 8-11 as well. But all this passage affirms is that we have the testimony of God in us, by how we were changed by God, and all this requires is that God’s presence in our lives is apparent to us, not certain.

To summarize the next couple paragraphs, Frame basically says that spiritual warfare is intellectual as well as moral, which is certainly true, no disagreement here. However, John then goes on to say that Peter uses the Word of God as a trump card, “the only source of supernatural knowledge” to defeat his opponents in debate. Frame acts as if Peter used the Bible as his only tool of apologetics. While it is true that Peter used the Bible (which I know was only the Old Testament back then) as  a tool to convince, it certainly wasn’t his only tool. And the reason he merely quoted scripture here is because he was speaking to Jews, who shared the same point of view as he did.

Frame goes on to put another premise in place in his main argument for presuppositional apologetics. He argues that because non-Christians hold different presuppositions than Christians, Christians could never present an argument which could convince the non-Christian. Here Frame gets very tangled in a mess of poor reasoning. For one thing, Frame seems to assume that all of our presuppositions are axioms that we hold without question. This is simply not the case, we all presume at least some of the various ethical principles we hold to, but beyond an emotional response many of us would be willing to re-examin those principles upon an objection like pointing out an inconsistency between two or more of those presupposed principles. A second problem occurs when the author states; “But if the apologist presents an argument that does not presuppose the truths of scripture, how can he be faithful to his Lord? And how can he produce an intelligible argument unless he presupposes those conditions that are necessary for intelligibility?” It seems as though John is assuming here that 1) basic Christian doctrines must be presupposed in order to believed at all and 2) Christian doctrine lays the foundation for all reasoning and inquiry. Both of these seem pretty absurd when brought to the foreground, and thus far we have seen no solid support for either.

Unfortunately the mistakes continue as Frame claims that there is no neutrality between Christians and non-Christians presuppositions. If I understand him correctly, John seems to be saying that there are no common presuppositions between any two world-views, or sets of presuppositions. If thats the case then I’m quite perplexed as to how one could think this. At the very least one could say that Christians and non-Christians alike presuppose that logic is a reliable path to truth. What’s worse is how Frame supports his assertion, using Matt. 6:24. How, I ask, does Jesus saying “one cannot serve two masters” support the assertion that Christians and non-Christians cannot hold to similar presuppositions? Is Frame suggesting here that to hold to any presupposition made by a non-believer is to try to serve two masters? If so, then what if a non-believer holds to the presupposition that God exists, or presupposes Christian ethics? John then concludes by saying that the Bible must be the ultimate criterion of truth in error. Ok lets grant that assertion, what does that get us? All that means is that if something contradicts the Bible then the Christian cannot hold it to be true. Ok, so what? How does this require the Christian to presuppose the truth of God’s Word in the arguments he/she uses in defense of the faith? It may require that Christians hold to the truth of God’s Word regardless of arguments and evidence, but that doesn’t negate the use of such arguments to bolster one’s beliefs and/or lead others to Christ.

2. The Problem of Circularity

Having attempted to establish that the only way to argue to Christianity is from Christianity, John Frame now attempts to address the obvious circular reasoning in such a proposal by claiming that a good defense is a good offense. In other words, in order to defend Christianity, assuming that scripture is the axiom of all the believers thoughts and reasoning, one must critique the consistency of the axioms proposed by competing world-views. There is no doubt that pointing out inconsistencies in someone else's worldview is an effective critique, but it also assumes neutrality, that is the common assumption that in order for a system of thought to even be possibly true, it must be logically consistent. Frame doesn’t seem to notice this, but does point out that such a method of apologetics could never prove Christianity to be true, and so would disagree with his interpretation of Romans 1:20, that all non-believers are without excuse for not believing in Christianity.

Finally, John gives 4 points which represent his views on how to do apologetics effectively;

1) Circular reasoning is unavoidable, it exists in every system of thought. All of our reasoning is ultimately circular.

2) There are two types of circular arguments; Narrowly circular arguments such as the Bible is the Word of God because it is the Word of God, which are not persuasive, and broadly circular arguments like the argument from fulfilled prophecy, which Frame says is circular because it must be in accord with a biblical world-view and epistemology.

3) Here Frame states, “God created our minds to think within the Christian circle: hearing God’s Word obediently and interpreting our experience by means of that Word. That is the only legitimate way to think, and we cannot abandon it to please the unbeliever. A good psychologist will not abandon reality as he perceives it to communicate with a delusional patient; so must it be with apologists.”

4) Ultimately saving knowledge of God must come from God’s grace, not from human reasoning.

Response;

1) Disagree; not all reasoning is circular, take logic for example, it is what could be considered an inescapable or self-evident truth because in order to deny logic, one must first affirm it. I also don’t think even given that all of our reasoning is based in unjustified assertions or presuppositions that our reasoning is forced into circular reasoning. Think about what circular reasoning is, you are saying that they believe something is true, because it is true, why can’t someone say they believe something is true for no reason at all? It would still be irrational but it wouldn’t be circular reasoning.

2) This one is tricky, again it seems like Frame is assuming the Bible prescribes a specific epistemology, which is not shared by other world views and is not self-evident. This claim seems peculiar as I don’t know of any epistemology which would be considered the epistemology taught in the Bible, perhaps Frame means to say that the Bible prescribes itself as the ultimate epistemic tool, if thats the case, doe Frame seriously think that the Bible gives us all of the information there is to know? If so then Frame is simply mistaken. If Frame means to imply that the Bible says that all of our knowledge should come from God, then that doesn’t mean we would have to presuppose  the Bible in order to prove the Bible, it seems possible that God could give us knowledge which helped us prove the Bible through scientific or philosophical means. Even if there is no neutral or shared presuppositions God could give us knowledge which, even granting another’s presuppositions led to the conclusion that Christianity is true. As an example of this concept take a look at the Kalam Cosmological argument. If someone presupposed that science was reliable and that causation was universal (two presuppositions which appear to be quite neutral indeed), that someone could be led from those presuppositions to the conclusion that the universe had a beginning and requires a cause. Here we have someone being led to new conclusions based on presuppositions which many Christians and non-believers hold to.

3) Here Frame proposes that we must think within the Christian world-view. What is this supposed to mean? Must every thought we think be about Christ or the recital of a verse? Certainly not! At the very least we could propose a hypothetical situation or set of propositions and test their consistency and soundness, which is what all rational discourse centers around. Frame acts like you have to give mental assent to an argument before you critique it. This is pure absurdity. Am I believing Frames argument now while critiquing him? Such a position seems impossible.

4) Even granting this point, why couldn’t human reasoning (which Frame admits ultimately comes from God) open up an unbelievers mind to Christianity? This would still allow for God’s grace to infuse the knowledge of Him and His salvation into a persons mind and heart. Furthermore, what is unbiblical about believing that theistic arguments for God’s existence are an instantiation of His grace?

3. Ah the Transcendental argument (aka T.A.G.). Here we see a curious move by the presuppositionalist. On the one hand Frame wants to say that you must argue from the Bible and not to the Bible, and yet on the other he wants to use the TAG, a purely philosophical argument, to argue to God’s existence. Even more curious is that even if the TAG argument is successful it would only show that a God exists, and not necessarily the Christian God. But most curious of all is the fact that if Frame is right, we know prima-facie that the TAG argument fails as it must somehow presuppose Christ and the Bible. Frame gives 3 final points responding to possible questions regarding the TAG argument (none of which I’ve raised already).

1) Is it possible to refute all the alternatives to Christian theism? Frame thinks so but doesn’t show how. If it is by most traditional approaches then Frame would be employing the evidentialist method he so deplores. If it is by some other approach consistent with presuppositionalism it will certainly contain circular reasoning, which again would be useless.

2) Is a negative or reductio argument (aka the TAG argument) the only way to show that Christian theism alone grounds intelligibility? Frame says no, Thomas Aquinases first cause argument, if successful would show that ultimately intelligibility is rooted in God. I don’t see how that would work. Frame seems to think, like most proponents of the TAG argument, that the laws of logic are not self-evident, but some abstract objects needing a cause. How Frame could reject the incorrigibility of logic I don’t know, and how a fundamental truth of reasoning could have a cause I know not either. In any case Aquinas’s case would only show that God is the source of all change or all movement from potentiality to actuality. Obviously nothing in the laws of logic would involve such a movement.

3) Is the transcendental argument a simplification of apologetics? A simplification of apologetics I would see as a good thing, the more objections you can knock out with an argument the stronger that argument is. Frame seems to disagree, belaboring the point that presuppositionalists still have to go on the defensive, answering proposed contradictions within the Bible etc (which seems like what they were trying to avoid in the first place but whatever).

Conclusion;

Presuppositionalism, as it is presented by Frame and others, has some serious problems to deal with. On the one hand, it wants to say that human reason is useless due to the noetic effects of total depravity. All reason ultimately is based on circular reasoning. On the other hand the presuppositionalist wishes to affirm that all reasoning we use is based upon the truth of Christianity and the Christian God. They want to say that the Bible is what we must use to prove the Bible, but then go on to use philosophy to prove their view is correct. Presuppositionalism seems to be as vague and as unhelpful as Objectivism. Disturbingly it uses much the same ways of thinking. Objectivism argues that God’s existence is not self evident but is logically impossible, because if He did exist He would have to exist outside of existence. This is because all that can exist is the universe… for some reason. Similarly Presuppositionalism says that God is actually self-evident, because reason presupposes God’s existence, again, for some unknown reason (perhaps because the Bible says so or because of some circular philosophical argument). I’ve heard and will look into more in another post that the original work of Van Til and Clark is much more sophisticated and coherent than the babble that Frame puts forth. Indeed it seems Frame wishes to somehow combine the two views of Van Til and Clark. The problem is, Clark thought Christianity was unprovable while Van Til thought Christianity was self-evident (which kind of makes sense of the mess Frame put himself in).