Atheistic autonomy ...
Atheistic autonomy ...
Hi Devo,
As promised, here's is a response to your post. Please forgive the delay.
Jim wrote:
[The anti-theist] doesn't have a reasoned (i.e. intelligible, coherent, consistent) defense. Look at Aussie Thinker's attempts in this and the other thread. He tries to come up with fanciful explanations and excuses, but none of them cohere. His worldview is riddled with contradictions and it is exposed as folly.
Devo writes:
And how (in your opinion) is his worldview exposed as folly?
Do you view his "explanations" as adequate? Even possible? If you think an intelligible universe in which God does not exist is possible, then I daresay you've not adequately or tough-mindedly thought through the ramifications of such a proposition.
As to what has been exposed: For one thing, the inconsistency and incoherency of his espoused presuppositions and standards of proof for truth claims. He requires physical proof for claims about an immaterial entity such as God, yet he blindly and arbitrarily accepts, without question, without proof, the universal and invariant nature of immaterial entities called the laws of logic, the laws of mathematics, induction and the scientific method. He has thus failed to demonstrate how, on his worldview, he can rationally evaluate anything presented to him as evidence for God's existence (since he cannot account for the tools that he uses). What is worse, he concedes the consistency and coherency of the Christian worldview, yet admittedly rejects it in favor of his own, which, despite his protests to the contrary, is itself inconsistent and incoherent. It is summed up in his statement, "It happened because it happened." That would never be an acceptable explanation about God's existence (not that I would ever use it), but I'm supposed to accept that as the atheist's explanation about the universe and all that is in it.
Jim previously wrote:
Yes, but this point cannot be separated from the fact that they do so foolishly and indefensibly.
Devo asks:
And isn't this what evidentialists are doing?
No, rather than challenge the atheist's basic underlying presuppositions, the evidentialist enables and encourages the atheist to apply them. The atheist asserts his use of God-less reasoning and God-less methods to evaluate God's world. He should not be allowed to do so, let alone being encouraged to do so.
Devo writes:
My point was in the context of Romans 1, nonbelievers having excuses for other men seems a tad silly - it just isn't the point.
Not at all. The Lord expected us, commanded us, to bring the gospel to others. This involves confronting the false worldviews of unbelievers, casting down false reasoning (2Co 10:5) and debunking the opposition of atheistic science, falsely so-called (1Ti 6:20), exposing the vain reasoning and denigrated thinking of the foolish minds of those who, when they knew God, did not glorify Him (Ro 1:21). Paul's writes in the context of not being ashamed of the Gospel (v. 16) and provides briefings about the types of people we will to be confronting with that gospel (Ro 1:17-2:15). There is now such a difference in my witnessing to and convincing others, knowing that they have no excuse, and any defense they offer up can be exposed as vain, darkened, irrational and condemned, as opposed to when I tried in the past to persuade people by unscriptural and illogical methods. Paul finishes up chapter 2 declaring that it is
his gospel (the gospel of the Mystery, i.e. the uncircumcision gospel, Gal 2:7) by which God will judge the secrets of men in this dispensation. It is consonant with the principle of one needing to be always ready to provide a reasoned defense for the hope that is in him (1Pe 3:15) when we are challenged by the anti-theist. Likewise, when we ask the anti-theist for a reasoned defense for why he rejects the hope that faith in Christ would effect, he has no reasoned defense, period. It doesn't matter whether it is required or you, me or God. He has no reasoned defense, ever. We see this exampled in Paul's dealings with the Athenians on Mars Hill. He did not allow them to judge his worldview on the basis of their own espoused polytheistic standards. Instead, he preached to them about Jesus and the resurrection, and indicted them for their willful ignorance and self-delusion, declaring the True God to whom they were obligated and owed their very breath, even according to their own philosophers (Acts 17:16-32). The interesting this to me is that, at the end of the day, there were those who wished to hear more, and there were those who mocked. So, with some of them, even Paul was unsuccessful, but that doesn't mean their folly was not exposed, and their worldview stripped of its coherence by the words of Paul. Therefore, we ought not to confuse actual visible outcome with cogency and soundness of argument. That is, just because in some cases one thing seems to work (faith-healing-related conversions, resurrection arguments from history and archaeology) and another thing does not (reasoning from the scriptures), does not mean that we choose our method in based on its apparent outcome.
Devo writes:
The powerful context of Romans 1 is that a non-believer will not have an excuse on judgment day. They wont be able to say... "Gee God I didn't know that". Yet here on earth they are fully capable of making those claims.
They are certainly capable of uttering any bit of nonsense they choose, just as the Athenian gainsayers mocked Paul in Acts 17. The point is that they cannot
justifiably, not now or ever, mock the truth or come up with excuses that will stand the test of their own espoused standards. They are thus houses divided against themselves, double-minded, and unstable in all their ways.
Devo writes:
And THAT is what is powerful about Romans 1. Isn't Romans 1 the most powerful case that on judgment day ultimately the most fair judgment is made?
If anything is vindicated or validated in the passage, it is the place of Paul's particular gospel and its ramifications upon unbelieving man of this dispensation. The passage opens and concludes with reference to his gospel.
Devo writes:
A sinful man without Christ's blood as a covering will have no excuse for not recognizing his sin and asking God for forgiveness.
He has no excuse now. He will have no excuse ever.
Devo writes:
I don't buy that arguing scientific facts is answering a fool according to his folly. Why do you think it is?
First of all, I'm not against using scientific facts as long as they are presented biblically (i.e., not as proof or evidence, but as declarations of God's handiwork, nature and character). We have two people. One an atheist. One an evidentialist Christian. Both are well-educated and intelligent men. The atheist says, "There is no God." The evidentialist says, "Really? Well then how do you explain this evidence?" Before either utters another word, the atheist has decided in advance that any evidence presented will be evaluated on the atheistic worldview (materialism, naturalism, matter, time, chance). Just as the Christian evaluates any evidence brought forth by the atheist on the Christian theistic worldview (God created and sustains all things and is the sole authority on reality, ethics, metaphysics, epistemology, logic, mathematics, and the place of man in the universe). Before either utters a word, the Christian theist likewise has decided in advance that any evidence presented will be evaluated on the Christian theistic worldview. So how is the difference of opinion to be resolved when each disputant comes to the table with completely opposing worldviews and standards of evidence? To ask the atheist to consider evidence is to further validate, in his mind, his a priori worldview and all its attending implications. What's worse is that by offering God up for examination, the atheist is being encouraged to use his presumed God-less reasoning in order to evaluate God and His creation. It's like putting God on the witness stand, and then cross-examining Him to prove His existence, and all the while the questioner is using the very tools that could not exist if God did not exist.
Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,
Devo writes:
When a person exchanges the truth (His attributes being clearly visible) for the lie (that there is no God) how on earth is pointing out these visible attributes answering a fool with his folly? It seems the opposite to me.
Pointing them out is fine. Using them to prove God's existence is another matter and a bad argument. The atheist wants to be autonomous. He wants the final say in what he accepts or rejects as evidence. We have to show him that (a) he is not autonomous, despite his best efforts and excuses, and (b) that his own espoused standards cannot be justified on his worldview. That is, not only does he not have autonomy, but he can neither prove nor justify, even in the most general terms, how he goes about warrantedly assuming, on his worldview, such immaterial abstract existence of induction, the laws of mathematics and logic, the scientific method, etc.
Please let me know if I need to clarify or elaborate further.
Jim
