Holes in the Atheistic Worldview

rightandwrong-webAs I was reading up on the passage of Proposition 8 in California, I came across some interesting statements made by those who are actively against the proposition.  Jennifer Pizer, a staff lawyer for Lambda Legal (the nation’s oldest and largest legal organization working for the civil rights of lesbians, gay men, and people with HIV/AIDS), said: “We think it is early to go into federal court and ask federal courts to say we have a federal right to marry.” (1)

Why?  Because they would lose.  There are lawsuits currently in California courts saying that Proposition 8 was passed unlawfully and,  “Other lawsuits could follow, but gay rights groups have called on supporters not to file cases in federal court. They fear that a loss at the U.S. Supreme Court could set back the marriage movement decades.” (2)

Now, here’s the hole in their system.  In order for there to be right and wrong, there has to be some standard of right and wrong.  If do you not believe that God is the standard (obviously if you think homosexuality is a good, and right thing, you do not believe God is the standard, because His Word is clear that homosexuality is sin – 1 Corinthians 6:9-11; 1 Timothy 1:8-11), and therefore, for Atheist, “Morality is defined as the principles of ethical behavior given by society, culture, family, and religion.” (3)

But here’s the problem – society just spoke, and said it is wrong to say that marriage is between two people of the same sex, but rather is only between one man and one woman.  Therefore, under their own standard of morals, they must submit to what society has said it right.  But no, they, being a minority rebel, and fight – and therefore by their own standards are immoral.

I hope you’ve drawn lines into other problems with an Atheistic worldview – because if moral standards come from society, that means at one time, slavery in America was actually a good thing!  And that the ban on intermarriage between whites and blacks was actually morally right until the majority said it was wrong.  But they would not say such a thing – and therefore have a gaping hole in their world view.

And if, you, as an Atheist hold to morals from the “fact” that, “happiness and suffering of other human beings matter to us such that we should seek, whenever possible, to increase their happiness and decrease their suffering.” (4) then you also have a problem.  For in the situation of a masochist, who actually enjoys giving pain to others, you have a dilemma, for you will have to choose who will be unhappy – either the masochist, or the victim.  I assume you would choose to free the victim – but why?  You have a hole in your system as well.

Morals only make sense if the God of the Bible exists.

and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.” (Romans 1:32)


What is Evangelism?

A great quote from Mark Dever’s Nine Marks quoting John Cheesman in The Grace of God in the Gospel (I guess I like Cheesman!):

“Evangelism is not a making of proselytytes; it is not persuading people to make a decision; it is not proving that God exists, or making a good case for the truth of Christianity; it is not inviting someone to a meeting, it is not exposing the contemporary dilemma, or arousing interest in Christianity; it is not wearing a badge saying ‘Jesus Saves’!  Some of these things are right and good in their place, but none of them should be confused with evangelism.  To evangelize is to declare on the authority of God what he has done to save sinners, to warn men of their lost condition, to direct them to repent, and to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.”

Review of Van Til’s “The Defense of the Faith”

[Another short review of an Apologetics book] I must say, Van Til had a mind.  To be honest, it was a little much for me.  He dealt with issues that perhaps a philosopher interacts with, but as a student of God’s Word I have not really even heard of, or in many ways I do not really have an interest in knowing.  It was amazing to me, for someone who is presented as founding his “apologetic” on the Word of God, that he found it so easy to go page after page without even mentioning the Bible!  He really was too steeped in philosophy to be of much benefit to me personally.  But with that being said, I did have a few questions about what he wrote. Continue reading →

Review of Greg Bahnsen’s “Always Ready”

[Another short review of an Apologetics book] Dr. Greg Bahnsen was a smart man, and as such, a lot of what he said went over my head.  I am not all that into philosophy and all the argumentation that is involved in such circles, but I will comment on those parts which I found helpful, and or had an issue with.
His first section on neutrality was excellent (p. 9), and really eye opening.  It made me wonder if modern apologetics was not over-reacting to post-modern thought.  Just as in the first “apologetic” ventures the Church really was over-reacting to philosophy and its stance that Christianity was barbaric, maybe current “apologetics” is over-reacting to post-modernism, in the fact that as a post-modern, neutrality is upheld as essential to understanding.  To be honest, my understanding of the apologetic world is not all that comprehensive, but I enjoyed Bahnsen’s remarks on the fact that giving neutrality was giving too much.  We must look to Scripture – never coming to Scripture with a system and look to prove it. Continue reading →

Dr. Greg Bahnsen versus Dr. Gordon Stein – The Great Debate: Does God Exist?

We are listening to this debate in my Apologetics class.  This is hailed as one of the most sucessful debates ever by a presupositional apologist.  And since it took me a while to track down a copy of it on the web, I thought I would post it here for everyone.

You can download it here: Greg-Bahnsen-vs-Gordon-Stein-The-famous-debate-that-people-still-talk-about.mp3

And you can download the transcript of it here: Bahnsen_Stein_Debate_Transcript

It was held at the University of California, Irvine, in 1985.

Is the use of logic based on a presupposition?

In the discussion of Apologetics, the question is posed does anyone come to the table without presuppositions?  The Atheist claims Christians commit logical fallacies and therefore should be ignored.  But how does one decide what a “logical fallacy” is?  How does one prove the fact that logic is what we should base our “beliefs” on?  Or must one presuppose that logic should be the basis for ones argument of God’s existence?  For example: “We must use logic because it is logical”

Is that not a circular argument?

Is Presuppositional Apologetics Circular in Its Reasoning?

In my Apologetics and Evangelism class, there was a very interesting quote I thought I would share.  It is against the claim that Presuppositional Apologetics is circular in its reasoning.  What do you think?

“To deny circularity when it comes to an ultimate authority is to subject oneself to an infinite regress of reasons. If a person holds to a certain view, A, then when A is challenged he appeals to reasons B and C. But, of course, B and C will certainly be challenged as to why they should be accepted, and then the person would have to offer D, E, F, and G, as arguments for B and C. And the process goes on and on. Obviously it has to stop somewhere because an infinite regress of arguments cannot demonstrate the truth of one’s conclusions. Thus, every worldview (and every argument) must have an ultimate, unquestioned, self-authenticating starting point. Another example: Imagine someone asking you whether the meter stick in your house was actually a meter long. How would you demonstrate such a thing? You could take it to your next-door neighbor and compare it to his meter stick and say, “see, it’s a meter.” However, the next question is obvious, “How do we know your neighbor’s meter stick is really a meter?” This process would go on infinitely unless there were an ultimate meter stick (which, if I am not mistaken, actually existed at one time and was measured by two fine lines marked on a bar of platinum-iridium allow). It is this ultimate meter stick that defines a meter. When asked how one knows whether the ultimate meter stick is a meter, the answer is obviously circular: The ultimate meter stick is a meter because it is a meter. This same thing is true for Scripture. The Bible does not just happen to be true (the meter stick in your house), rather it is the very criterion for truth (the ultimate meter stick) and therefore the final stopping point in intellectual justification” (Michael J. Kruger, “The Sufficiency of Scripture in Apologetics,” in The Master’s Seminary Journal, 12/1 (Spring 2001) 81, n. 31).