Pretended neutrality ...
Pretended neutrality ...
Yes, I've read the debate. The fact that you don't see the statement as being true shows that either I haven't been clear, you haven't been reading carefully, or maybe a little of both. Allow me post a transcript of Greg Bahnsen's opening speech in his debate with Gordon Stein in which he more expertly expresses the points I've been trying to make. People are probably tired of hearing from me anyway.
-------------
Arguing For the Christian God
_
First of all it’s necessary at the outset of the debate to define our terms, that’s always the case._ In the particular here, I should make it clear what I mean when I use the term God._ I want to specify that I’m arguing particularly in favor of Christian theism, and for it as a unit of system of thought, and not for anything like theism in general, and there are reasons for that…three.
_
1. The various conceptions of deity found in the world religions are in most cases logically incompatible leaving no unambiguous sense to general theism, whatever that might be.
2. Secondly, I have not found the non-Christian religions to be philosophically defensible, each of them being internally incoherent or undermining human reason and experience.
3. And thirdly since I by the grace of God am a Christian, I cannot from the heart adequately defend those religious faiths with which I disagree._ My commitment is to the Triune God and Christian world-view based on God’s revelation in the Old and New Testaments._
So first then, I am defending Christian theism.
_
Issues of Debate
_
Secondly, I want to observe and we should indicate what it is (and is not) at issue in the debate and on the basis of which we hope you will consider the debate._ It must be clear that we are debating about philosophical systems, not the people who adhere to or profess them._ Our concern is with the objective merits of the case which can be made for atheism, or Christian theism: not relative, subjective or personal matters._ And again I have three reasons or illustrations of this.
_
1. The personalities of those individuals who adhere to different systems of thought are not really relevant to the truth or falsity of the claims made by those systems._ Atheists and Christians can equally be found emotional, unlearned, intolerant, or rude in their approaches.
2. Secondly, subjective claims made about the experience of inner satisfaction or peace (claims that are made interestingly by both Christians and Atheists in their literature) and promotional claims made about the superiority of Christianity or Atheism for instance (some atheist literature suggests that greater mental health comes through the independence of the atheist outlook): these sorts of things are always subject to conflicting interpretations and explanations being, I think, more autobiographical rather than telling us anything for sure about the truths of the system under consideration.
3. Thirdly, the issue is not whether the atheists or professing Christians have ever done anything undesirable or morally unacceptable._ One need only think respectively of the atheist involvement in the Reign of Terror in the French Revolution and the professing Christian involved in the Spanish Inquisition._ Now the question is not whether adherents of these systems have lived spotless lives, but whether atheism or Christian theism as philosophical systems are objectively true.
And so I’ll be defending Christian theism, and I’ll be defending it as a philosophical system.
_
Concession To Knowledge Pertaining to Ovarian maturation of Japanese Quail.
_
My last introductory remark is simply to the effect that I want to concede to my opponent all issues pertaining to the control of ovarian maturation in Japanese quail._ Okay?_ The subject of his doctoral dissertation in 1974 at Ohio State?_ (Audience laughter)
_
I would not pretend to hold my own in a discussion with him of the empirical details of his narrow domain of specialized natural science._ However our subject tonight is really much different, calling for intelligent reflection upon issues, which are philosophical or theological in character.
_
For some reason Dr. Stein has over the last decade left his field of expertise and given his life to a campaign for atheism. Whatever his perception of the reason for that, I do not believe that it is because of any cogent philosophical case which might be made for atheism as a world-view, and it is to this subject which I now turn for tonight’s debate.
_
Opening Case
_
My opening case for the existence of God will cover three areas of thought._ They are the nature of evidence, the presuppositional conflict of world-views, and finally the transcendental argument for God’s existence.
_
The Nature Of Evidence
_
First of all the nature of evidence._ How should the difference of opinion between the atheist and the theist be rationally resolved?_ What Dr. Stein has written indicates that he, like many atheists, has not reflected adequately on this question._ He writes, and I quote:
_
“The question of the existence of God is a factual question and should be answered in the same way as any other factual question”, end of quote.
_
The assumptions that all existence claims are questions about matters of fact; the assumption that these are all answered in the very same way is not merely oversimplified and misleading, it is simply mistaken._ The existence, factuality, or reality of different kinds of things is not established or disconfirmed in the same way in every case.
_
We might ask, “Is there a box of crackers in the pantry?” and we know how we would go about answering that question._ But that is a far cry from the way we go about answering, uh, determining the reality of say barometric pressure, quasars, gravitational attraction, elasticity, radioactivity, natural laws, names, grammar, numbers, the university itself (that you’re now at), past events, categories, future contingencies, laws of thought, political obligations, individual identity over time, causation, memories, dreams or even love or beauty.
_
In such case cases, one does not do anything like walking to the pantry and looking inside for the crackers._ There are thousands of existence or factual questions and they are not at all answered in the same way in each case._ Just think of the differences and argumentation and types of evidence used by biologists, grammarians, physicists, mathematicians, lawyers, logicians, mechanics, merchants, and artists. It should be obvious that the type of evidence which one looks for in existence or factual claims will be determined by the field of discussion and especially by the metaphysical nature of the entity mentioned in the claim under question.
_
Dr. Stein’s remark that the existence of a god is answered; (rephrase) the question of the existence of god is answered in the same way as any other factual question mistakenly reduces the theistic question to the same level as a box of crackers in the pantry, which we will hereafter call the crackers in the pantry fallacy.
_
The presuppositional conflict of world-views
_
Secondly then I would like to talk about the presuppositional conflict of world-views._ Dr. Stein has written about the nature of evidence in the theistic debate, and what he has said points to a second philosophical error of significant proportions._ In passing we would note how unclear he is by the way, in speaking of the evidence which must be used describing it variously as logic, facts or reason._ Each of these terms is susceptible to a whole host of differing senses, not only in philosophy, but especially in ordinary usage depending on who is using the terms._ I take it he wishes to judge hypothesis and the “common sense” by test of logical coherence and empirical observation.
_
The problem arises when Dr. Stein elsewhere insists that every claim which someone makes must be treated as a hypothesis which must be tested by such evidence before accepting it._ “There is to be nothing”, he says, “which smacks of begging the question or circular reasoning.”
_
This I think is oversimplified thinking and again misleading (what might call the pretended neutrality fallacy)._ One can see this by considering the following quotation of Dr. Stein._ And I quote:
_
“The use of logic or reason is the only valid way to examine the truth or falsity of a statement which claims to be factual.”_ That’s the end of the quote.
_
One must eventually ask Dr. Stein then how he proves this statement itself._ That is, how does he prove that logic or reason is the only way to prove factual statements?_ He is now on the horns of a real epistemological dilemma._ If he says that the statement is proven by logic or reason, then he is engaging in circular reasoning and he is begging the question, which he staunchly forbids._ If he says that the statement is proven in some other fashion, then he refutes the statement itself!_ That logic or reasoning is the only way to prove things.
_
Now my point is not to fault Dr. Stein’s commitment to logic or reason, but to observe that it actually has the nature of a pre-commitment or a presupposition._ It is not something he has proven by empirical experience or logic, but it is rather that by which he proceeds to prove everything else._ He is not presuppositionally neutral in his approach to factual questions and disputes._ He does not avoid begging crucial questions rather than proving them in what we might cal the “garden variety ordinary way.”_
_
Now this tendency to beg crucial questions is openly exposed by Dr. Stein when the issue becomes the existence of God (because he demands that the theist present him with evidence for the existence of God)._ Now a theist like myself would gladly and readily do so._ There is the evidence of the created order itself, testifying to the wisdom, power, plan and glory of God._ One should not miss the testimony of the solar system, the persuasion of the sea, the amazing intricacies of the human body._ There’s the evidence of history; God’s deliverance of His people, the miracles at Passover night and the Red Sea._ The visions of Isaiah, the Shekinah Glory in the temple, the virgin birth of Jesus, His mighty miracles, His resurrection from the dead. There’s the evidence of special revelation, the wonder of the Bible as God’s word unsurpassed in it’s coherence over time and it’s historical accuracy and it’s life renewing power.
_
In short, there is no shortage of empirical indicators or evidences of God’s existence, from the thousand stars of the heavens to the five hundred witnesses of Christ’s resurrection._ But Dr Stein precludes the very possibility of any of this empirical evidence counting as proof of God’s existence._ He writes and now I quote:
_
“Supernatural explanations are not allowed in science._ The theist is hard put to document his claims to the existence of the supernatural if he is in effect forbidden from invoking the supernatural as a part of his explanation._ Of course this is entirely fair as it would be begging the question to use what has to be proved as a part of the explanation.”_ End of quote.
_
In advance you see, Dr. Stein is committed to disallowing any theistic interpretation of nature, history or experience._ What he seems to overlook is that this is just as much begging the question on his own part as it is on the part of the theist, who appeals to such evidence._ He has not at all proven, by empirical observation and logic, his pre-commitment to naturalism._ He has assumed it in advance, accepting and rejecting all further factual claims in terms of that controlling and unproven assumption.
_
Now the theist does the very same thing, don’t get me wrong._ When certain empirical evidences are put forth as allegedly disproving the existence of God, the theist regiments his commitment in terms of his presuppositions as well._ See, just as the naturalist would insist that Christ could not have risen from the dead, or that there is a natural explanation yet to be found of how he did rise from the dead, so the super naturalist insists that the alleged discrepancies in the Bible have an explanation, some yet to be found perhaps, and that the evil of this world has a sufficient reason behind it, known at least to God.
_
They both have their governing presuppositions by which the facts of experience are interpreted._ Even as all philosophical systems, all world-views do._ At the most fundamental levels of everyone’s thinking and beliefs, there are primary convictions about reality, man, the world, knowledge, truth, behavior and such things._ Convictions, about which all other experiences organized, interpreted and applied.
_
Dr. Stein has such presuppositions and so do I, and so do all of you._ And it is these presuppositions, which determine what we accept by ordinary reasoning and evidence, for they are assumed in all of our reasoning, even about reasoning itself.
_
The Transcendental Argument For the Existence Of God
_
So I come thirdly then to the transcendental proof of God’s existence._ How should the difference of opinion between the theist and the atheist be rationally resolved?_ That was my opening question._ We’ve seen two of Dr. Steins error regarding it:_ The crackers in the pantry fallacy, and the pretended neutrality fallacy.
_
In the process of discussing them, we’ve observed that belief in the existence of God is not tested in any ordinary way like other factual claims; and the reason for that is metaphysically because of the non-natural character of God and epistemologically because of the presuppositional character of commitment for or against His existence.
_
Arguments over conflicting presuppositions between world-views therefore must be resolved somewhat differently and yet still rationally than conflicts over factual existence claims within a world-view or system of thoughts._ When we go to look at the different world-views that atheists and theists have, I suggest that we can prove the existence of God from the impossibility of the contrary.
_
The transcendental proof for God’s existence is that without Him, it is impossible to prove anything._ The atheist world-view is irrational and cannot consistently provide the preconditions of intelligible experience, science, logic or morality._ The atheist world-view cannot allow for laws of logic, the uniformity of nature, the ability for the mind to understand the world, and moral absolutes._ In that sense, the atheist world-view cannot account for our debate tonight.
--------End of excerpt------------
My thanks to the following website for providing this excerpt:
http://www.geocities.com/jeremyandrobin/bahnsensteindebate.html
I encourage anyone who is interested in the nature of this debate to acquire the Bahnsen-Stein audio debate. It is available online as an audio stream. A link was posted earlier in this thread. Let me know if you'd like me to post it again.
Submitted for your consideration,
Jim
