Van Til's Argument, Part I

The late Christian philosopher and theologian, Cornelius Van Til is simultaneously the source of much fanfare and disdain in the world of Christian apologetics. Van Til is typically seen as the originator of what is today known as the "presuppositionalist" method of Christian defense. This method has been further expounded and refined by Van Til followers such as Greg Bahnsen and John Frame among others.

Van Til utilized a "Transcendental Argument" for Christianity. In essence, he noted that in order for reasoning of any sort to be possible, God must exist and be its source. To argue that God is non-existent, Van Til inferred, was like constructing a logical argument for the nonexistence of logic. Such reasoning defeats itself. For the very thing being denied in the argument (e.g., logic) must exist in order to make the argument.

Thus, Van Til and his camp have relied on the claim that if any sort of reasoning can take place, God must exist to make this possible. God is the source of all things including the laws of logic and our thought life. Thus, the very fact that the atheist is reasoning demonstrates that God exists. Upon arguing, then, the atheist has conceded the reality of God.

Critics of Van Til's argument are myriad and include the Christian apologists working today: Craig, Moreland, Geisler, Habermas, etc.

From reading the critiques of these critics, I tend to agree that the Transcendental Argument as it has been interpreted by Vant Til's followers and his critics is fallacious. It simply posits that God is necessary for reasoning and leave it at that. The question is never answered as to WHY we should think that if God is nonexistent, then reasoning is impossible.

Of course, one could construct an argument that if God is nonexistent than logic and minds and thus reasoning won't exist. This has in fact been done with great success by scholars like Plantinga, Reppert, Quentin Smith and others. However, in taking this approach, one abandons the "presuppositionalist" school and opts for traditional argumentation in proving God's reality.

However, I'm not sure one must opt for the traditional route in this way. The controversy seems to lie with what the nontheist is willing to grant regarding the preconditions of argumentation. If one agrees that logic requires the reality of nonphysical laws of logic and that such laws must reside in a mind, then one in effect does seem to concede that a personal mind like God does exist. For humans discovered logic, they didn't invent it. Thus, there must be a mind outside of and prior to humans that holds these logical laws.

Thus, if the atheist concedes this much, then the apologists need not ARGUE that reasoning requires God. He merely has to point out to the nonbeliever that according to the nonbelievers own beliefs a God must be real. The atheist's very reasoning presupposes it. Thus, the "presuppositional" apologetic is back in full force.

But how can we make atheists agree to or see that they really do have these preconceptions about reasoning and logic? That's something I wish to explore in the next post.

Evolutionism and the Vision of the Anointed

I wrote recently concerning what the great columnist Thomas Sowell has called the "vision of the anointed" (see his book by the same name). That vision is, in essence, one of superiority.

The "anointed" are typically the liberal elites: professors, media pundits, politicians, judges. Their vision of the world rests on their belief that they are wiser, more morally virtuous than the common man. As such, they wish to impose their vision of the world on the rest of us via expanded government roles. As Sowell notes, there is a pattern to the anointed's thinking and implementation. For instance, "Sex Education" was pushed rigorously in schools by the anointed because they saw a "crisis" of teenage pregnancy. Thus, they sought to infiltrate the schools with sexual lessons that most parents didn't want their kids to get and which most parents deemed inappropriate. This despite the fact that teenage pregnancy and STD's were DECLINING prior to the development of sex ed.

Why did the anointed see a "crisis" then and push for this terrible solution to it? Sowell notes that the crisis was generated in the anointeds' own minds, as they believe that kids should be "liberated" in sexual areas and should not be constrained on sexual issues in the way that most common Americans and Christians wish to do. They saw their view as liberating and the traditional view as repressive, thus reinforcing their idea that they're morally superior. They then undermined families and public opinion to impose their idea of how kids should learn and what they should know about sex.

The results of this have been tragic. Teenage pregnancy and sexual disease have spiked significantly since the implementation of sex ed. The problem is seriously worse than prior to such programs. The anointed's policy has backfired, a fact we seldom hear about and certainly won't hear about from the anointed in the media or education systems.

These mistakes and problems have occurred in a string of social issues: sex ed, the Welfare state, environmentalism and myriad other issues. Such policies are meant as "solutions" to "crises", although they standardly make the crisis far worse than ever. The problem as Sowell states is that the anointed vision does not deal in reality or evidence. They have a skewed vision of the nature of the man and the world and base their ideas on those. This vision is so fundamental to their life and thinking that it overrules any counterevidence to its truth. Thus, the policies they implement cannot accurately address problems and cannot be altered since they are not open to conflicting evidence.

I have one more area where I believe the vision of the anointed runs rampant: origins. Evolutionism is a view of origins which states that all living creatures are products of chance and time and they have no intelligent maker. Most of the world's elitists are strict evolutionists and most common folk are not. The power of the vision of evolutionist elites can be seen in their interpretation of evidences. For instance, the fossil record contains no significant signs of evolution, but nonetheless evolutionists believe it occurred billions of times throughout earth history. Also, we all learned in school that there was a "chemical soup" on earth 14 billion years ago that ultimately gave rise to the first life by mere coincidence. Of course, there was never empirical evidence for such a "soup". Its existence came straight from the minds of the anointed in their determination to provide naturalistic view of the world.

Evolutionists carry all the signs of the vision of the anointed. They see a "crisis" in origins (i.e. "How do we account for all this apparent design) that can be resolved by appealing to Darwinism. But the crisis seems imagined since it is fundamentally obvious that the world is a designed order as observed such thinkers like Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas and most great thinkers through history. Why apply a naturalistic vision to a world that is obviously made a supernatural person? Evolutionism also seems impervious to criticism and counterevidence as has been noted by creationists and intelligent design advocates for a long time. Even many evolutionists themselves state that we must at all costs rule out any other theories of origins. And we certainly can teach counter-theories in school, despite the fact that most people want this taught. Evolutionists also see themselves as morally and intellectually superior to their supernaturalist opponents. The vitriol spewed towards creationists is unmatched in the academic world. There have been numerous examples of professors being fired for not teaching evolutionism or for teaching its rival theories. Creationists are often deemed at having an uninformed bias, while evolutionists are "objective".

The same problem that haunts most theories of the anointed haunt evolutionism. Its teachings denigrate the human person and see him as an animal among animals. It helped tear down the Christian tradition in Europe and the social results are clear and tragic. Moreover, it will keep people from knowing the truth about their origins and, most importantly, their Creator all for one reason: because the vision of the anointed rules the day and, if it's up to them, our lives.