Dr. Gordon Stein
According to Jeffery Jay Lowder of Internet Infidels: "Gordon Stein concedes that
Greg Bahnsen was able to catch him off-guard with TAG [the transcendental
argument for God's existence] (although Stein says he now has a refutation of the
argument)." Lowder goes on, "[H]e was even more surprised to learn that SCCCS
was marketing tapes of the debate. Stein claims that the agreement he signed with
Bahnsen allowed each debater to record the debate for their own personal use, but
contained no provisions whatsoever for mass-duplication and distribution. Stein
does feel this constitutes good grounds for a lawsuit, but does not have any plans
to sue SCCCS."
There are two things to be said in response to this statement.4 First, Dr. Stein's
portrayal of the signed agreement is completely inaccurate. The Agreement
speaks for itself:
Tape Distribution Agreement:
We the undersigned participants in the debate, "Does God Exist?," held
on
February 11, 1985, at the University of California, Irvine, hereby grant to one
another (and to one another's agents or sponsoring organizations) permission
to advertize [sic], distribute and market copies of the audio tape of the debate
without financial consideration or remuneration to ourselves for the other
debater's advertizing [sic], distribution, or sales of that tape.
We further agree (1) not to edit or alter the tape of the debate which is
supplied to us by the Debate Team of U.C.I., and (2) not to distribute or sell any
copies of that tape which have been edited or altered.
This statement is signed by Dr. Bahnsen, Dr. Stein, and the debate moderator.5
Even if a poor memory is to blame for Dr. Stein's error, it is disappointing that
he would not take the time to check out the facts before putting forth the threat
of a lawsuit.
Second, though Dr. Stein confidently asserts that he now has a refutation
of the transcendental argument for God's existence, neither I nor anybody else
at SCCCS has ever heard it. Where is this proffered refutation to be found?
Until Dr. Stein produces something in writing or on tape, we cannot comment
on its substance or value.
One further comment on Dr. Stein. After the debate, he and Dr. Bahnsen
engaged in an extended correspondence. They went over TAG in great detail.
Their exchange ended in an impasse with, not surprisingly, both disputants
believing they had the better of it. Not wanting to let the matter just drop,
Dr. Bahnsen suggested that their letters be published so that more objective
minds could judge the matter (Prov. 12:15). Dr. Stein's response was to
threaten a lawsuit if the correspondence was published.6 It seems threatening
lawsuits is a habit of Dr. Stein's. But even more interesting is the fact that
here Dr. Stein had an extended opportunity to refute TAG, but obviously
failed to do so (or at least does not want anybody to know about it).
Edward Tabash
According to Mr. Lowder, Mr. Tabash asserts that Dr. Bahnsen "handled
himself miserably during the debate," and adds, "he was vicious, harsh, and
treated me like a criminal." Moreover, "he never capably responded to my
arguments discrediting religious supernaturalism."
This is a surprising claim since many who have heard the debate believe
that both men behaved in accordance with debate protocal. Such statements
are one reason Dr. Bahnsen insisted that debates be recorded. We invite you
to listen to the tape and judge for yourself. The only place where Bahnsen
may have seemed harsh to some was when he said Mr. Tabash was a fool.
He made it clear, however, that this was not a personal slander. Rather, he
was quoting from Psalm 14 ("The fool says in his heart 'there is no God'").
Perhaps Mr. Tabash did not agree, but in the absence of his refuting
Christianity the biblical description stands.
Mr. Tabash's claim that Dr. Bahnsen never capably responded to his
arguments is evidence of his self-deception. The truth of the matter is that
Mr. Tabash did not attempt to respond to TAG. It appears he did not even
understand Dr. Bahnsen's argument. Again, listen to the debate and judge
for yourself.7
Dr. Michael Martin
Dr. Michael Martin has had some pointed words for us as well. According to Mr.
Lowder, Dr. Martin describes his experience with SCCCS as "one of the most
unpleasant in his life." What would he have thought had he shown up for the
debate? In any case, if this experience was indeed one of the most unpleasant
of his life we must conclude that life must be good at his tax-payer-supported
post at Boston University.
Dr. Martin has also stated that the event organizer, Marty Fields, was
"mortified by SCCCS's action and expressed amazement that Christians could
act in such an un-Christian way." (The action being referred to is a press
release that SCCCS sent out after the debate was aborted charging Dr. Martin
with having inconsistent and dubious reasons for pulling out.8) Skeptical that
Rev. Fields made such a remark, I spoke with him shortly after I read this
charge and he promptly assured me that he never made such a remark to Dr.
Martin or anybody else. He did think the press release was "harsh at points,"
but this is a far cry from describing it as un-Christian.9
Before turning to more substantive issues let me reiterate that SCCCS's
intention in defending ourselves and Dr. Bahnsen's reputation against these
personal charges is not to embarrass these three men. We would have been
happy to have addressed these matters in private and thereby obviate the need
to air these matters publicly. Moreover, we are not above criticism. If any
of these three men bring forth legitimate complaints about our conduct it
behooves us as Christians to take the necessary steps to correct any wrongs
we have committed. Nevertheless, none of the charges and innuendoes
brought forth so far are justified.
TAG vs TANG
With this said, I shall now turn to Dr. Martin's philosophical attack on
the Christian faith. In response to the transcendental argument for God's
existence (TAG),10 Dr. Martin puts forth what he calls the transcendental
argument for the non-existence of God (TANG).11
Before responding to the details of his argument, some understanding of
TAG is helpful. Basically TAG asserts that only the Christian worldview
provides the necessary preconditions for the intelligibility of human
experience. That is, only the Christian view of God, creation, providence,
revelation, and human nature can make sense of the world in which we live.
So, for example, only the Christian worldview can make sense out of
morality since it alone provides the necessary presuppositions for making
ethical evaluations, namely, an absolute and personal Law Giver who reveals
His moral will to mankind. It does not make sense, however, for the
atheist/materialist to denounce any action as wrong since, according to his
worldview, all that exists is matter in motion. And matter in motion is
inherently non-moral. That is, since the world according to the materialist is
totally explicable in terms of physical processes, and since physical processes
are categorically non-moral, moral considerations have no place in his worldview.
Thus for the materialist to say that stealing is morally wrong makes as much
sense as saying that the secretion of insulin from the pancreas is morally wrong.12
With this thumbnail sketch of TAG in mind, we can now turn to Dr. Martin's
counter-argument, TANG. TANG concludes that, "logic, science and morality
presuppose the falsehood of the Christian world view." Dr. Martin notes that "
If TANG is a sound argument, then obviously TAG is not." He then adds that
even if TANG is a failure this does not mean TAG is successful-both could be
unsound. He, of course, is correct on both counts.
There are two basic ways to respond to this. One is to simply attempt to refute
TANG.13 The problem with this route is that even if successful the soundness of
TAG is still unknown. The other approach is to defend the soundness of TAG and
in so doing, show the unsoundness of TANG-if TAG is sound TANG is not. In
what follows I will try to do some of both. I will show that not only is TANG
unsound, but that TAG is sound.
Logic
Dr. Martin begins with logic. I quote the heart of his argument.
"[1]. . . if something . . . is dependent on God, it is not necessary-it is contingent
on God. [2] And if principles of logic are contingent on God, they are not
logically necessary. Moreover, [3] if principles of logic are contingent on
God, God could change them. [4] Thus, God could make the law of
non-contradiction false."14 Let's take each contention in turn.
Is [1] true? Is it true that if something is dependent upon God (i.e. ontologically
dependent) it is not necessary? Dr. Martin assures us that it is, but fails to give any
argument for this general principle. Perhaps he thinks it is definitional. If this is so
then we may grant him the point. Note, however, that all he would be asserting is
that if logic is dependent on God, then it is not independent of God ('not
independent' is used as a synonym for 'not necessary'). But this is a mere
truism, much like the statement, "water is water." While true, it is completely
uninteresting.
In [2] Dr. Martin contends that if the principles of logic are contingent
(read: dependent) on God they are not logically necessary. How does this follow
from [1] though? It follows only if Dr. Martin means 'not logically necessary' by
'contingent.' But if this is the case then we have to go back to [1] and reinterpret it to
mean "if something is dependent on God it is not logically necessary.' And this
surely is not definitional. Where then is the proof for it? How does it follow
that because something is ontologically dependent upon God that it is not logically
necessary? As it stands it is a mere assertion; an assertion that merely contradicts
the Christian claim that all things, logic included, are dependent upon God, and
yet logic is logically necessary.
Thus Dr. Martin's move from [1] to [2] trades on the ambiguity of the word
'contingent.' In equivocating on the two senses of the word he erroneously
moves from the statement "the principles of logic are contingent on God"
to the statement "the principles of logic are not logically necessary."
Turning to [3] and [4], it is clear that Dr. Martin means these to be a
reductio ad absurdum. But note that [3] is not true at all. Just because the
principles of logic are ontologically dependent upon God does not mean that God
could change them. According to Christian theology, there are some things that
God cannot do. God, for instance, cannot deny Himself (2 Tim. 2:13) or lie
(Titus 1:2). In saying this nothing is taken away from God's omnipotence.
The doctrine of omnipotence does not teach that God can do anything, but
that God can do anything that is in accordance with His nature. Since God is
essentially rational and rationality presupposes the principles of logic, it would
go against His nature to change the principles of logic. Hence God cannot
change them and hence God cannot make the law of non-contradiction false.15
Since [3] is not true then obviously [4] is not either. And since [4] is false,
Dr. Martin's reductio fails. Logic does not presuppose the falsehood of the Christian
worldview. But as Dr. Martin reminds us, even if logic does not presuppose the
falsehood of Christianity this does not mean it presupposes the truth of Christianity.
Perhaps logic comports with both Christian and non-Christian worldviews.
Let us now turn the tables on Dr. Martin and make a defense of TAG.
Recall that the contention of TAG is that principles of logic presuppose the
Christian worldview. How on an atheist worldview can the laws of logic be
justified? Given a world that is constituted solely of material substances (I
assume that Dr. Martin is a materialistic atheist) how does the atheist account
for non-material logical laws? They certainly are not reducible to matter since
if they were, they would not be laws-laws are not something that can be physically
examined. Moreover, since the principles of logic are universal in nature they are
not reducible to any particular physical object or objects. But if they are not
reducible matter what are they?
It does no good to say they are mental abstractions since neither abstractions
nor minds are possible within an atheist worldview. Nor can they be conventional
since if they were they could be changed. And if they can be changed then
absurdities follow-the statement that Bill Clinton is President of the United
States could be both true and false.
Finally, because the principles of logic are abstract and universal, they cannot be
experienced to be true. Thus such things as the law of non-contradiction are just highly
confirmed inductions. Not only are there some laws of logic that are too complex to
be observed, but this view would make logic contingent because there is always the
possibility of a future observation disconfirming that law. But if logic is contingent
then, as Dr. Martin has pointed out, absurdities become possible. To borrow his
example, New Zealand could be both south of China and not south of China.16
Thus the atheistic worldview does not comport with the principles of logic.
If atheists were consistent with their worldview, they would give up on logic and
rationality altogether. But since they do behave rationally (at least some of the time)
this shows that they are borrowing capital from another worldview.
That the Christian worldview can account for the principles of logic is readily
demonstrable. Christianity allows for abstract and universal laws. Abstract because
the Christian worldview teaches that more things exist than material objects. Thus
it makes sense for there to be abstractions. Moreover, the universality of logic is
possible because it is grounded in the character of God. God is by nature logical.
And this all-powerful, all-knowing God orders all things in accordance with them.
Science
Dr. Martin asserts that science and Christianity are incompatible. He argues
that since science presupposes the uniformity of nature and since Christian theology
teaches that God can and does perform miracles (which Dr. Martin defines as
violations of the uniformity of nature) science is inconsistent with Christianity.
But why is this so? Even granting his definition of a miracle, why does it follow
that science becomes impossible if there is no absolute uniformity of nature? Dr.
Martin does not tell us.
I would guess that he would contend that scientists would have an
insurmountable epistemological problem. Scientists would never know
whether to fix the cause of an event to natural laws or to divine intervention.
But this is not true. How does it follow that there is no way to distinguish between
a miracle and a event that is in accordance to natural laws?
Dr. Martin's definition of miracles, moreover, is somewhat defective.
Christian theology teaches that God providentially is in charge of all events.
All events are under his direct control. There are thus no impersonal natural
laws.
Under Dr. Martin's definition, all events are miraculous. The Christian view
of miracles is that they are events God causes to come about in a different way from
His regular pattern for directing events. Thus when humans die they usually stay
dead. But in the case of Jesus, God raised Him up. In doing so God did not
violate a natural law, but rather departed from His regular pattern of action.
Dr. Martin then states, "science assumes that insofar as an event has an
explanation at all, it has a scientific explanation-one that does not presuppose
God." All Dr. Martin is telling us here is his view of science. But this begs the
whole question. Of course atheistic scientists assume this, but Christian scientists
do not. This does nothing to advance Dr. Martin's argument that miracles are
incompatible with science.
Dr. Martin begs the question regarding miracles. As Dr. Bahnsen has
written: unbelievers "often think that they are treating the miracle-claims of the Bible as
independent evidence that the Christian worldview is irrationally unacceptable.
Their reasoning is something like this: we already know miracles do not occur
('How could anybody believe...'), and since Christianity claims that such impossible
things did occur (e.g., virgin birth, resurrection), we can draw the conclusion that
Christianity must be false. But that conclusion is not so much "drawn" as it is taken
for granted from the very outset. The denial of the very posibility of miracles is not a
piece of evidence for rejecting the Christian worldview, but simply a specific
manifestation of that very rejection.
Only if the Christian worldview happens to be false could the possibility of
miracles be cogently precluded. According to Scripture's account, God is the
transcendent and almighty Creator of heaven and earth. Everything owes its very
existence and character to His creative power and definition (Gen. 1; Neh. 9:6;
Col. 1:16-17). He makes things the way they are and determines that they
function as they do. 'His understanding is infinite' (Ps. 147:5). Moreover,
God sovereignly governs every event that transpires, determining what, when,
where, and how anything takes place-from the movement of the planets to the
decrees of kings to the very hairs of our heads (Eph. 1:11). According to the
Bible, He is omnipotent and in total control of the universe. Isaiah 40 celebrates
in famous phraseology the creation, delineating, directing, providence, and power
of Jehovah (vv. 12, 22-28). He has the freedom and control over the created order
that the potter has over the clay (Rom. 9:21). As the Psalmist affirms, 'Our
God is in the heavens; He has done whatsoever He pleased' (115:3)."17
It is on the atheist's worldview that there is no basis to assume the
uniformity of nature. The philosopher David Hume has taught us that to say the
future will be like the past is to beg the question.18 Since the uniformity of
nature is an unjustified assumption on the atheist's worldview, he has no basis
upon which to engage in scientific activities.19
That the uniformity of nature is compatible with the Christian worldview is
easily proven (remember that this unity is not an absolute one). God, who is
providentially in control of all events, has revealed to us that we can count on
regularities in the natural world. The Bible teaches that God providentially causes
the harvest to come in due season, for example. Because of this regularity, we can
be assured that scientific endeavors will be fruitful. Thus, far from presupposing
the falsity of Christianity, science would be impossible without the truth of the
Christian worldview.
Ethics
Dr. Martin last turns to morality. He contends that "objective morality"
is incompatible with Christian theology since morality is dependent upon the will
of God. And since God can will whatever he wishes (he could will that killing
other people for pleasure is good), morality is arbitrary.
This contention only has teeth to those theologians who hold a voluntaristic
view of God.20 But this is not what the Bible teaches. Scripture teaches that God
cannot deny Himself (2 Tim. 2:13) and that He is immutable. Thus God cannot
call good evil nor evil good. Dr. Martin will then press the issue by saying that
it is arbitrary to say that God's immutable character is good. This is to completely
miss the point. Because God is absolute and personal His character defines good.
The notion that there could be an impersonal ethical standard is absurd. Ethics are
necessarily personal. Thus they must either be grounded in an absolute and
personal God or grounded in non-absolute persons. The latter is what atheism
teaches. But this leads to ethical relativism. Without an absolute person, which
non-absolute person should we listen to? There is no non-arbitrary way of deciding.
Thus to say that it is arbitrary to ground goodness in the character of God is simply
to disagree with the Christian worldview.
It is the atheist's worldview that cannot account for ethics. As I stated above,
material processes are non-moral in nature. It makes no sense to say that the orbit of
the moon is morally commendable or reprehensible and neither does it make sense to
say that human actions are commendable or reprehensible since humans are merely
material.
Dr. Bahnsen writes:
"What philosophy of value or morality can the unbeliever
offer which will render it meaningful to condemn some atrocity as objectively
evil? The moral indignation which is expressed by unbelievers when they
encounter the wicked things which transpire in this world does not comport
with the theories of ethics which unbelievers espouse, theories which prove to
be arbitrary or subjective or merely utilitarian or relativistic in character. In
the unbeliever's worldview, there is no good reason for saying that anything is
evil in nature, but only by personal choice or feeling."21
Atheists often contend that we derive ethical norms from the way people
typically behave. Even assuming people typically behave in a good manner (a
big assumption indeed), this gets the atheist nowhere. Asserting that because the
world is this way, it ought to be this way is fallacious. Just because I am presently
using Word 6.0 to write this paper does not mean that I ought to be using Word 6.0.
The atheist has no way out. If he wishes to uphold morality he must give up
his atheism. If he wants to keep his atheism he must give up on morality. So for
an atheist to accuse a Christian of bad behavior, he must presuppose the Christian
worldview. But since he claims not to presuppose the truth of Christianity he
should be consistent and not be concerned over moral matters.
Conclusion
Since TANG fails in all three areas its failure is total. Logic, science, and
morality do not presuppose the non-existence of God. Indeed the very opposite
is true. In order to make sense of any of these subjects, we must presuppose the
God of the Bible. Hence by the very logic that Dr. Martin uses to try to refute
Christianity, he must presuppose the truth of Christianity. And this is precisely
why Dr. Martin and his two atheist colleagues may be branded fools. Though
they know the God of the Bible, they suppress this knowledge and in so doing
deceive themselves.22 Thus professing to be wise they have become fools for
they have exchanged the truth of God for a lie and have worshipped and served
created things rather than their Creator, who is forever praised (Rom.1).
FOOTNOTES
1 For those with Internet access see our web site for details about Dr.
Martin's withdrawal. [http://www.cleaf.com/~covenant].
2 Call CMF and order tapes of the debates. Also, for a detailed analysis and
critique of Dr. Martin's work order "Michael Martin Under the Microscope."
Catalog #ASM3-12 tapes-$68.
3 This reminds me of Gary North's prediction: now that Dr. Bahnsen
is gone everybody will want to debate him.
4 Actually there are three. Since Covenant Media Foundation markets
the debate tapes, it would make little sense to sue SCCCS.
5 For a facsimile of the Agreement see the SCCCS web site.
6 We are presently talking to our attorney to see if his threatened lawsuit
has any merit. If not, look for a publication of their correspondences in the
months ahead.
7 It is interesting to note that, as far as I am aware, neither Dr. Stein nor
Mr. Tabash have distributed the debate tapes themselves. You would think,
however, that if they were confident of their victories that they would want
to get them into as many hands as possible.
8 For a copy of the press release see the SCCCS web site.
9 The press release was indeed harsh at points, but sometimes harshness is
appropriate. Jesus and Paul were harsh to those who blasphemed against God
and those who tried to subvert the Christian faith (Matt. 24; Gal. 1:8, 9) and so
harshness is not necessarily incompatible with Christian ethics. Dr. Martin is a
man who publishes books attacking the existence of God and the Christian faith
and yet refuses to defend his views in a recorded verbal exchange. This is
cowardly and should be labeled so.
10 For a detailed discussion of transcendental arguments in general and
TAG in particular, see Dr. Bahnsen's and my tape series, "Transcendental
Arguments: Nuclear Strength Apologetics." Available from CMF:
Catalog #ASV7-10 tapes-$55.
11 Found in the Autumn 1996 issue of The New Zealand Rationalist
& Humanist and on the "Internet Infidel" Internet web site:
[http://freethought.tamu.edu/infidels].
12 This is not to say, however, that atheists never act morally. Atheists feed
their children, give money to charity and often make good neighbors. But
atheists cannot give a justification for their actions. In the words of Cornelius
Van Til, they are living on "borrowed capital" from the Christian worldview.
Thus they profess one thing, but their actions belie this profession.
13 This is the approach that Professor John Frame has taken in his exchanges
with Dr. Martin. These exchanges can be found on the Internet under the Center
for Reformed Theology and Apologetics home page:
[http://www.reformed.org/apologetics/martin_TAG.html]
14 Bracketed numerals are mine.
15 Note the absurdity of [4] which asserts that God can make the law of
non-contradiction false. Since for something to be false it must be not true,
which assumes there is a distinction between falsity and truth. This distinction
is precisely what the law of non-contradiction implies. Thus to say the law of
non-contradiction is false is to presuppose the truth of the law of non-contradiction.
16 The view that logic is based upon observation is thoroughly refuted by
Gottlob Frege in The Foundations of Arithmetic (Evanston: Northwestern
University Press, 1980).
17 Greg L. Bahnsen, "The Problem of Miracles: Part 1," Biblical Worldview,
Vol. IX:7 (July 1993).
18 Hume's discussion of this problem (often called the traditional problem
of induction) is found in his An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding,
section IV.
19 For elaboration of this point see Dr. Bahnsen's debate with Mr. Tabash.
CMF catalog #AST2-2 tapes-$17.
20 Voluntarism is the view that God's will is His primary attribute. Accordingly,
God can will whatever He wants and can even change His mind. Thus God can one
day assert the goodness of preserving life and the next assert the goodness of murder.
The medieval theologians Duns Scotus and William Occam were advocates of this view.
21 Greg L. Bahnsen, "Does the Unbeliever Take Evil Seriously? The Problem of
Evil: Part 2" Biblical Worldview, Vol. VII:12 (Dec. 1991).
22 For an analytical discussion of this psychological phenomenon see
Greg L. Bahnsen, "The Apologetical Implications of Self-Deception," available
from CMF: Catalog #ASD4-2 tapes-$10.
![[IMAGE]](penptsm.gif)
![[IMAGE]](scccshm.gif)
Dr. Gordon Stein
Tape Distribution Agreement:
We the undersigned participants in the debate, "Does God Exist?," held on February 11, 1985, at the University of California, Irvine, hereby grant to one another (and to one another's agents or sponsoring organizations) permission to advertize [sic], distribute and market copies of the audio tape of the debate without financial consideration or remuneration to ourselves for the other debater's advertizing [sic], distribution, or sales of that tape.
We further agree (1) not to edit or alter the tape of the debate which is supplied to us by the Debate Team of U.C.I., and (2) not to distribute or sell any copies of that tape which have been edited or altered.
Edward Tabash
Dr. Michael Martin
TAG vs TANG
Before responding to the details of his argument, some understanding of
TAG is helpful. Basically TAG asserts that only the Christian worldview
provides the necessary preconditions for the intelligibility of human
experience. That is, only the Christian view of God, creation, providence,
revelation, and human nature can make sense of the world in which we live.
So, for example, only the Christian worldview can make sense out of
morality since it alone provides the necessary presuppositions for making
ethical evaluations, namely, an absolute and personal Law Giver who reveals
His moral will to mankind. It does not make sense, however, for the
atheist/materialist to denounce any action as wrong since, according to his
worldview, all that exists is matter in motion. And matter in motion is
inherently non-moral. That is, since the world according to the materialist is
totally explicable in terms of physical processes, and since physical processes
are categorically non-moral, moral considerations have no place in his worldview.
Thus for the materialist to say that stealing is morally wrong makes as much
sense as saying that the secretion of insulin from the pancreas is morally wrong.12
With this thumbnail sketch of TAG in mind, we can now turn to Dr. Martin's
counter-argument, TANG. TANG concludes that, "logic, science and morality
presuppose the falsehood of the Christian world view." Dr. Martin notes that "
If TANG is a sound argument, then obviously TAG is not." He then adds that
even if TANG is a failure this does not mean TAG is successful-both could be
unsound. He, of course, is correct on both counts.
There are two basic ways to respond to this. One is to simply attempt to refute
TANG.13 The problem with this route is that even if successful the soundness of
TAG is still unknown. The other approach is to defend the soundness of TAG and
in so doing, show the unsoundness of TANG-if TAG is sound TANG is not. In
what follows I will try to do some of both. I will show that not only is TANG
unsound, but that TAG is sound.
Logic
Dr. Martin begins with logic. I quote the heart of his argument.
"[1]. . . if something . . . is dependent on God, it is not necessary-it is contingent
on God. [2] And if principles of logic are contingent on God, they are not
logically necessary. Moreover, [3] if principles of logic are contingent on
God, God could change them. [4] Thus, God could make the law of
non-contradiction false."14 Let's take each contention in turn.
Is [1] true? Is it true that if something is dependent upon God (i.e. ontologically
dependent) it is not necessary? Dr. Martin assures us that it is, but fails to give any
argument for this general principle. Perhaps he thinks it is definitional. If this is so
then we may grant him the point. Note, however, that all he would be asserting is
that if logic is dependent on God, then it is not independent of God ('not
independent' is used as a synonym for 'not necessary'). But this is a mere
truism, much like the statement, "water is water." While true, it is completely
uninteresting.
In [2] Dr. Martin contends that if the principles of logic are contingent
(read: dependent) on God they are not logically necessary. How does this follow
from [1] though? It follows only if Dr. Martin means 'not logically necessary' by
'contingent.' But if this is the case then we have to go back to [1] and reinterpret it to
mean "if something is dependent on God it is not logically necessary.' And this
surely is not definitional. Where then is the proof for it? How does it follow
that because something is ontologically dependent upon God that it is not logically
necessary? As it stands it is a mere assertion; an assertion that merely contradicts
the Christian claim that all things, logic included, are dependent upon God, and
yet logic is logically necessary.
Thus Dr. Martin's move from [1] to [2] trades on the ambiguity of the word
'contingent.' In equivocating on the two senses of the word he erroneously
moves from the statement "the principles of logic are contingent on God"
to the statement "the principles of logic are not logically necessary."
Turning to [3] and [4], it is clear that Dr. Martin means these to be a
reductio ad absurdum. But note that [3] is not true at all. Just because the
principles of logic are ontologically dependent upon God does not mean that God
could change them. According to Christian theology, there are some things that
God cannot do. God, for instance, cannot deny Himself (2 Tim. 2:13) or lie
(Titus 1:2). In saying this nothing is taken away from God's omnipotence.
The doctrine of omnipotence does not teach that God can do anything, but
that God can do anything that is in accordance with His nature. Since God is
essentially rational and rationality presupposes the principles of logic, it would
go against His nature to change the principles of logic. Hence God cannot
change them and hence God cannot make the law of non-contradiction false.15
Since [3] is not true then obviously [4] is not either. And since [4] is false,
Dr. Martin's reductio fails. Logic does not presuppose the falsehood of the Christian
worldview. But as Dr. Martin reminds us, even if logic does not presuppose the
falsehood of Christianity this does not mean it presupposes the truth of Christianity.
Perhaps logic comports with both Christian and non-Christian worldviews.
Let us now turn the tables on Dr. Martin and make a defense of TAG.
Recall that the contention of TAG is that principles of logic presuppose the
Christian worldview. How on an atheist worldview can the laws of logic be
justified? Given a world that is constituted solely of material substances (I
assume that Dr. Martin is a materialistic atheist) how does the atheist account
for non-material logical laws? They certainly are not reducible to matter since
if they were, they would not be laws-laws are not something that can be physically
examined. Moreover, since the principles of logic are universal in nature they are
not reducible to any particular physical object or objects. But if they are not
reducible matter what are they?
It does no good to say they are mental abstractions since neither abstractions
nor minds are possible within an atheist worldview. Nor can they be conventional
since if they were they could be changed. And if they can be changed then
absurdities follow-the statement that Bill Clinton is President of the United
States could be both true and false.
Finally, because the principles of logic are abstract and universal, they cannot be
experienced to be true. Thus such things as the law of non-contradiction are just highly
confirmed inductions. Not only are there some laws of logic that are too complex to
be observed, but this view would make logic contingent because there is always the
possibility of a future observation disconfirming that law. But if logic is contingent
then, as Dr. Martin has pointed out, absurdities become possible. To borrow his
example, New Zealand could be both south of China and not south of China.16
Thus the atheistic worldview does not comport with the principles of logic.
If atheists were consistent with their worldview, they would give up on logic and
rationality altogether. But since they do behave rationally (at least some of the time)
this shows that they are borrowing capital from another worldview.
That the Christian worldview can account for the principles of logic is readily
demonstrable. Christianity allows for abstract and universal laws. Abstract because
the Christian worldview teaches that more things exist than material objects. Thus
it makes sense for there to be abstractions. Moreover, the universality of logic is
possible because it is grounded in the character of God. God is by nature logical.
And this all-powerful, all-knowing God orders all things in accordance with them.
Science
Dr. Martin asserts that science and Christianity are incompatible. He argues
that since science presupposes the uniformity of nature and since Christian theology
teaches that God can and does perform miracles (which Dr. Martin defines as
violations of the uniformity of nature) science is inconsistent with Christianity.
But why is this so? Even granting his definition of a miracle, why does it follow
that science becomes impossible if there is no absolute uniformity of nature? Dr.
Martin does not tell us.
I would guess that he would contend that scientists would have an
insurmountable epistemological problem. Scientists would never know
whether to fix the cause of an event to natural laws or to divine intervention.
But this is not true. How does it follow that there is no way to distinguish between
a miracle and a event that is in accordance to natural laws?
Dr. Martin's definition of miracles, moreover, is somewhat defective.
Christian theology teaches that God providentially is in charge of all events.
All events are under his direct control. There are thus no impersonal natural
laws.
Under Dr. Martin's definition, all events are miraculous. The Christian view
of miracles is that they are events God causes to come about in a different way from
His regular pattern for directing events. Thus when humans die they usually stay
dead. But in the case of Jesus, God raised Him up. In doing so God did not
violate a natural law, but rather departed from His regular pattern of action.
Dr. Martin then states, "science assumes that insofar as an event has an
explanation at all, it has a scientific explanation-one that does not presuppose
God." All Dr. Martin is telling us here is his view of science. But this begs the
whole question. Of course atheistic scientists assume this, but Christian scientists
do not. This does nothing to advance Dr. Martin's argument that miracles are
incompatible with science.
Dr. Martin begs the question regarding miracles. As Dr. Bahnsen has
written: unbelievers "often think that they are treating the miracle-claims of the Bible as
independent evidence that the Christian worldview is irrationally unacceptable.
Their reasoning is something like this: we already know miracles do not occur
('How could anybody believe...'), and since Christianity claims that such impossible
things did occur (e.g., virgin birth, resurrection), we can draw the conclusion that
Christianity must be false. But that conclusion is not so much "drawn" as it is taken
for granted from the very outset. The denial of the very posibility of miracles is not a
piece of evidence for rejecting the Christian worldview, but simply a specific
manifestation of that very rejection.
Only if the Christian worldview happens to be false could the possibility of
miracles be cogently precluded. According to Scripture's account, God is the
transcendent and almighty Creator of heaven and earth. Everything owes its very
existence and character to His creative power and definition (Gen. 1; Neh. 9:6;
Col. 1:16-17). He makes things the way they are and determines that they
function as they do. 'His understanding is infinite' (Ps. 147:5). Moreover,
God sovereignly governs every event that transpires, determining what, when,
where, and how anything takes place-from the movement of the planets to the
decrees of kings to the very hairs of our heads (Eph. 1:11). According to the
Bible, He is omnipotent and in total control of the universe. Isaiah 40 celebrates
in famous phraseology the creation, delineating, directing, providence, and power
of Jehovah (vv. 12, 22-28). He has the freedom and control over the created order
that the potter has over the clay (Rom. 9:21). As the Psalmist affirms, 'Our
God is in the heavens; He has done whatsoever He pleased' (115:3)."17
It is on the atheist's worldview that there is no basis to assume the
uniformity of nature. The philosopher David Hume has taught us that to say the
future will be like the past is to beg the question.18 Since the uniformity of
nature is an unjustified assumption on the atheist's worldview, he has no basis
upon which to engage in scientific activities.19
That the uniformity of nature is compatible with the Christian worldview is
easily proven (remember that this unity is not an absolute one). God, who is
providentially in control of all events, has revealed to us that we can count on
regularities in the natural world. The Bible teaches that God providentially causes
the harvest to come in due season, for example. Because of this regularity, we can
be assured that scientific endeavors will be fruitful. Thus, far from presupposing
the falsity of Christianity, science would be impossible without the truth of the
Christian worldview.
Ethics
Dr. Martin last turns to morality. He contends that "objective morality"
is incompatible with Christian theology since morality is dependent upon the will
of God. And since God can will whatever he wishes (he could will that killing
other people for pleasure is good), morality is arbitrary.
This contention only has teeth to those theologians who hold a voluntaristic
view of God.20 But this is not what the Bible teaches. Scripture teaches that God
cannot deny Himself (2 Tim. 2:13) and that He is immutable. Thus God cannot
call good evil nor evil good. Dr. Martin will then press the issue by saying that
it is arbitrary to say that God's immutable character is good. This is to completely
miss the point. Because God is absolute and personal His character defines good.
The notion that there could be an impersonal ethical standard is absurd. Ethics are
necessarily personal. Thus they must either be grounded in an absolute and
personal God or grounded in non-absolute persons. The latter is what atheism
teaches. But this leads to ethical relativism. Without an absolute person, which
non-absolute person should we listen to? There is no non-arbitrary way of deciding.
Thus to say that it is arbitrary to ground goodness in the character of God is simply
to disagree with the Christian worldview.
It is the atheist's worldview that cannot account for ethics. As I stated above,
material processes are non-moral in nature. It makes no sense to say that the orbit of
the moon is morally commendable or reprehensible and neither does it make sense to
say that human actions are commendable or reprehensible since humans are merely
material.
Dr. Bahnsen writes:
"What philosophy of value or morality can the unbeliever
offer which will render it meaningful to condemn some atrocity as objectively
evil? The moral indignation which is expressed by unbelievers when they
encounter the wicked things which transpire in this world does not comport
with the theories of ethics which unbelievers espouse, theories which prove to
be arbitrary or subjective or merely utilitarian or relativistic in character. In
the unbeliever's worldview, there is no good reason for saying that anything is
evil in nature, but only by personal choice or feeling."21
Atheists often contend that we derive ethical norms from the way people
typically behave. Even assuming people typically behave in a good manner (a
big assumption indeed), this gets the atheist nowhere. Asserting that because the
world is this way, it ought to be this way is fallacious. Just because I am presently
using Word 6.0 to write this paper does not mean that I ought to be using Word 6.0.
The atheist has no way out. If he wishes to uphold morality he must give up
his atheism. If he wants to keep his atheism he must give up on morality. So for
an atheist to accuse a Christian of bad behavior, he must presuppose the Christian
worldview. But since he claims not to presuppose the truth of Christianity he
should be consistent and not be concerned over moral matters.
Conclusion
Since TANG fails in all three areas its failure is total. Logic, science, and
morality do not presuppose the non-existence of God. Indeed the very opposite
is true. In order to make sense of any of these subjects, we must presuppose the
God of the Bible. Hence by the very logic that Dr. Martin uses to try to refute
Christianity, he must presuppose the truth of Christianity. And this is precisely
why Dr. Martin and his two atheist colleagues may be branded fools. Though
they know the God of the Bible, they suppress this knowledge and in so doing
deceive themselves.22 Thus professing to be wise they have become fools for
they have exchanged the truth of God for a lie and have worshipped and served
created things rather than their Creator, who is forever praised (Rom.1).
FOOTNOTES
1 For those with Internet access see our web site for details about Dr.
Martin's withdrawal. [http://www.cleaf.com/~covenant].
2 Call CMF and order tapes of the debates. Also, for a detailed analysis and
critique of Dr. Martin's work order "Michael Martin Under the Microscope."
Catalog #ASM3-12 tapes-$68.
3 This reminds me of Gary North's prediction: now that Dr. Bahnsen
is gone everybody will want to debate him.
4 Actually there are three. Since Covenant Media Foundation markets
the debate tapes, it would make little sense to sue SCCCS.
5 For a facsimile of the Agreement see the SCCCS web site.
6 We are presently talking to our attorney to see if his threatened lawsuit
has any merit. If not, look for a publication of their correspondences in the
months ahead.
7 It is interesting to note that, as far as I am aware, neither Dr. Stein nor
Mr. Tabash have distributed the debate tapes themselves. You would think,
however, that if they were confident of their victories that they would want
to get them into as many hands as possible.
8 For a copy of the press release see the SCCCS web site.
9 The press release was indeed harsh at points, but sometimes harshness is
appropriate. Jesus and Paul were harsh to those who blasphemed against God
and those who tried to subvert the Christian faith (Matt. 24; Gal. 1:8, 9) and so
harshness is not necessarily incompatible with Christian ethics. Dr. Martin is a
man who publishes books attacking the existence of God and the Christian faith
and yet refuses to defend his views in a recorded verbal exchange. This is
cowardly and should be labeled so.
10 For a detailed discussion of transcendental arguments in general and
TAG in particular, see Dr. Bahnsen's and my tape series, "Transcendental
Arguments: Nuclear Strength Apologetics." Available from CMF:
Catalog #ASV7-10 tapes-$55.
11 Found in the Autumn 1996 issue of The New Zealand Rationalist
& Humanist and on the "Internet Infidel" Internet web site:
[http://freethought.tamu.edu/infidels].
12 This is not to say, however, that atheists never act morally. Atheists feed
their children, give money to charity and often make good neighbors. But
atheists cannot give a justification for their actions. In the words of Cornelius
Van Til, they are living on "borrowed capital" from the Christian worldview.
Thus they profess one thing, but their actions belie this profession.
13 This is the approach that Professor John Frame has taken in his exchanges
with Dr. Martin. These exchanges can be found on the Internet under the Center
for Reformed Theology and Apologetics home page:
[http://www.reformed.org/apologetics/martin_TAG.html]
14 Bracketed numerals are mine.
15 Note the absurdity of [4] which asserts that God can make the law of
non-contradiction false. Since for something to be false it must be not true,
which assumes there is a distinction between falsity and truth. This distinction
is precisely what the law of non-contradiction implies. Thus to say the law of
non-contradiction is false is to presuppose the truth of the law of non-contradiction.
16 The view that logic is based upon observation is thoroughly refuted by
Gottlob Frege in The Foundations of Arithmetic (Evanston: Northwestern
University Press, 1980).
17 Greg L. Bahnsen, "The Problem of Miracles: Part 1," Biblical Worldview,
Vol. IX:7 (July 1993).
18 Hume's discussion of this problem (often called the traditional problem
of induction) is found in his An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding,
section IV.
19 For elaboration of this point see Dr. Bahnsen's debate with Mr. Tabash.
CMF catalog #AST2-2 tapes-$17.
20 Voluntarism is the view that God's will is His primary attribute. Accordingly,
God can will whatever He wants and can even change His mind. Thus God can one
day assert the goodness of preserving life and the next assert the goodness of murder.
The medieval theologians Duns Scotus and William Occam were advocates of this view.
21 Greg L. Bahnsen, "Does the Unbeliever Take Evil Seriously? The Problem of
Evil: Part 2" Biblical Worldview, Vol. VII:12 (Dec. 1991).
22 For an analytical discussion of this psychological phenomenon see
Greg L. Bahnsen, "The Apologetical Implications of Self-Deception," available
from CMF: Catalog #ASD4-2 tapes-$10.
With this thumbnail sketch of TAG in mind, we can now turn to Dr. Martin's counter-argument, TANG. TANG concludes that, "logic, science and morality presuppose the falsehood of the Christian world view." Dr. Martin notes that " If TANG is a sound argument, then obviously TAG is not." He then adds that even if TANG is a failure this does not mean TAG is successful-both could be unsound. He, of course, is correct on both counts.
There are two basic ways to respond to this. One is to simply attempt to refute
TANG.13 The problem with this route is that even if successful the soundness of
TAG is still unknown. The other approach is to defend the soundness of TAG and
in so doing, show the unsoundness of TANG-if TAG is sound TANG is not. In
what follows I will try to do some of both. I will show that not only is TANG
unsound, but that TAG is sound.
Logic
Dr. Martin begins with logic. I quote the heart of his argument.
"[1]. . . if something . . . is dependent on God, it is not necessary-it is contingent
on God. [2] And if principles of logic are contingent on God, they are not
logically necessary. Moreover, [3] if principles of logic are contingent on
God, God could change them. [4] Thus, God could make the law of
non-contradiction false."14 Let's take each contention in turn.
Is [1] true? Is it true that if something is dependent upon God (i.e. ontologically
dependent) it is not necessary? Dr. Martin assures us that it is, but fails to give any
argument for this general principle. Perhaps he thinks it is definitional. If this is so
then we may grant him the point. Note, however, that all he would be asserting is
that if logic is dependent on God, then it is not independent of God ('not
independent' is used as a synonym for 'not necessary'). But this is a mere
truism, much like the statement, "water is water." While true, it is completely
uninteresting.
In [2] Dr. Martin contends that if the principles of logic are contingent
(read: dependent) on God they are not logically necessary. How does this follow
from [1] though? It follows only if Dr. Martin means 'not logically necessary' by
'contingent.' But if this is the case then we have to go back to [1] and reinterpret it to
mean "if something is dependent on God it is not logically necessary.' And this
surely is not definitional. Where then is the proof for it? How does it follow
that because something is ontologically dependent upon God that it is not logically
necessary? As it stands it is a mere assertion; an assertion that merely contradicts
the Christian claim that all things, logic included, are dependent upon God, and
yet logic is logically necessary.
Thus Dr. Martin's move from [1] to [2] trades on the ambiguity of the word
'contingent.' In equivocating on the two senses of the word he erroneously
moves from the statement "the principles of logic are contingent on God"
to the statement "the principles of logic are not logically necessary."
Turning to [3] and [4], it is clear that Dr. Martin means these to be a
reductio ad absurdum. But note that [3] is not true at all. Just because the
principles of logic are ontologically dependent upon God does not mean that God
could change them. According to Christian theology, there are some things that
God cannot do. God, for instance, cannot deny Himself (2 Tim. 2:13) or lie
(Titus 1:2). In saying this nothing is taken away from God's omnipotence.
The doctrine of omnipotence does not teach that God can do anything, but
that God can do anything that is in accordance with His nature. Since God is
essentially rational and rationality presupposes the principles of logic, it would
go against His nature to change the principles of logic. Hence God cannot
change them and hence God cannot make the law of non-contradiction false.15
Since [3] is not true then obviously [4] is not either. And since [4] is false,
Dr. Martin's reductio fails. Logic does not presuppose the falsehood of the Christian
worldview. But as Dr. Martin reminds us, even if logic does not presuppose the
falsehood of Christianity this does not mean it presupposes the truth of Christianity.
Perhaps logic comports with both Christian and non-Christian worldviews.
Let us now turn the tables on Dr. Martin and make a defense of TAG.
Recall that the contention of TAG is that principles of logic presuppose the
Christian worldview. How on an atheist worldview can the laws of logic be
justified? Given a world that is constituted solely of material substances (I
assume that Dr. Martin is a materialistic atheist) how does the atheist account
for non-material logical laws? They certainly are not reducible to matter since
if they were, they would not be laws-laws are not something that can be physically
examined. Moreover, since the principles of logic are universal in nature they are
not reducible to any particular physical object or objects. But if they are not
reducible matter what are they?
It does no good to say they are mental abstractions since neither abstractions
nor minds are possible within an atheist worldview. Nor can they be conventional
since if they were they could be changed. And if they can be changed then
absurdities follow-the statement that Bill Clinton is President of the United
States could be both true and false.
Finally, because the principles of logic are abstract and universal, they cannot be
experienced to be true. Thus such things as the law of non-contradiction are just highly
confirmed inductions. Not only are there some laws of logic that are too complex to
be observed, but this view would make logic contingent because there is always the
possibility of a future observation disconfirming that law. But if logic is contingent
then, as Dr. Martin has pointed out, absurdities become possible. To borrow his
example, New Zealand could be both south of China and not south of China.16
Thus the atheistic worldview does not comport with the principles of logic.
If atheists were consistent with their worldview, they would give up on logic and
rationality altogether. But since they do behave rationally (at least some of the time)
this shows that they are borrowing capital from another worldview.
That the Christian worldview can account for the principles of logic is readily
demonstrable. Christianity allows for abstract and universal laws. Abstract because
the Christian worldview teaches that more things exist than material objects. Thus
it makes sense for there to be abstractions. Moreover, the universality of logic is
possible because it is grounded in the character of God. God is by nature logical.
And this all-powerful, all-knowing God orders all things in accordance with them.
Science
Dr. Martin asserts that science and Christianity are incompatible. He argues
that since science presupposes the uniformity of nature and since Christian theology
teaches that God can and does perform miracles (which Dr. Martin defines as
violations of the uniformity of nature) science is inconsistent with Christianity.
But why is this so? Even granting his definition of a miracle, why does it follow
that science becomes impossible if there is no absolute uniformity of nature? Dr.
Martin does not tell us.
I would guess that he would contend that scientists would have an
insurmountable epistemological problem. Scientists would never know
whether to fix the cause of an event to natural laws or to divine intervention.
But this is not true. How does it follow that there is no way to distinguish between
a miracle and a event that is in accordance to natural laws?
Dr. Martin's definition of miracles, moreover, is somewhat defective.
Christian theology teaches that God providentially is in charge of all events.
All events are under his direct control. There are thus no impersonal natural
laws.
Under Dr. Martin's definition, all events are miraculous. The Christian view
of miracles is that they are events God causes to come about in a different way from
His regular pattern for directing events. Thus when humans die they usually stay
dead. But in the case of Jesus, God raised Him up. In doing so God did not
violate a natural law, but rather departed from His regular pattern of action.
Dr. Martin then states, "science assumes that insofar as an event has an
explanation at all, it has a scientific explanation-one that does not presuppose
God." All Dr. Martin is telling us here is his view of science. But this begs the
whole question. Of course atheistic scientists assume this, but Christian scientists
do not. This does nothing to advance Dr. Martin's argument that miracles are
incompatible with science.
Dr. Martin begs the question regarding miracles. As Dr. Bahnsen has
written: unbelievers "often think that they are treating the miracle-claims of the Bible as
independent evidence that the Christian worldview is irrationally unacceptable.
Their reasoning is something like this: we already know miracles do not occur
('How could anybody believe...'), and since Christianity claims that such impossible
things did occur (e.g., virgin birth, resurrection), we can draw the conclusion that
Christianity must be false. But that conclusion is not so much "drawn" as it is taken
for granted from the very outset. The denial of the very posibility of miracles is not a
piece of evidence for rejecting the Christian worldview, but simply a specific
manifestation of that very rejection.
Only if the Christian worldview happens to be false could the possibility of
miracles be cogently precluded. According to Scripture's account, God is the
transcendent and almighty Creator of heaven and earth. Everything owes its very
existence and character to His creative power and definition (Gen. 1; Neh. 9:6;
Col. 1:16-17). He makes things the way they are and determines that they
function as they do. 'His understanding is infinite' (Ps. 147:5). Moreover,
God sovereignly governs every event that transpires, determining what, when,
where, and how anything takes place-from the movement of the planets to the
decrees of kings to the very hairs of our heads (Eph. 1:11). According to the
Bible, He is omnipotent and in total control of the universe. Isaiah 40 celebrates
in famous phraseology the creation, delineating, directing, providence, and power
of Jehovah (vv. 12, 22-28). He has the freedom and control over the created order
that the potter has over the clay (Rom. 9:21). As the Psalmist affirms, 'Our
God is in the heavens; He has done whatsoever He pleased' (115:3)."17
It is on the atheist's worldview that there is no basis to assume the
uniformity of nature. The philosopher David Hume has taught us that to say the
future will be like the past is to beg the question.18 Since the uniformity of
nature is an unjustified assumption on the atheist's worldview, he has no basis
upon which to engage in scientific activities.19
That the uniformity of nature is compatible with the Christian worldview is
easily proven (remember that this unity is not an absolute one). God, who is
providentially in control of all events, has revealed to us that we can count on
regularities in the natural world. The Bible teaches that God providentially causes
the harvest to come in due season, for example. Because of this regularity, we can
be assured that scientific endeavors will be fruitful. Thus, far from presupposing
the falsity of Christianity, science would be impossible without the truth of the
Christian worldview.
Ethics
Dr. Martin last turns to morality. He contends that "objective morality"
is incompatible with Christian theology since morality is dependent upon the will
of God. And since God can will whatever he wishes (he could will that killing
other people for pleasure is good), morality is arbitrary.
This contention only has teeth to those theologians who hold a voluntaristic
view of God.20 But this is not what the Bible teaches. Scripture teaches that God
cannot deny Himself (2 Tim. 2:13) and that He is immutable. Thus God cannot
call good evil nor evil good. Dr. Martin will then press the issue by saying that
it is arbitrary to say that God's immutable character is good. This is to completely
miss the point. Because God is absolute and personal His character defines good.
The notion that there could be an impersonal ethical standard is absurd. Ethics are
necessarily personal. Thus they must either be grounded in an absolute and
personal God or grounded in non-absolute persons. The latter is what atheism
teaches. But this leads to ethical relativism. Without an absolute person, which
non-absolute person should we listen to? There is no non-arbitrary way of deciding.
Thus to say that it is arbitrary to ground goodness in the character of God is simply
to disagree with the Christian worldview.
It is the atheist's worldview that cannot account for ethics. As I stated above,
material processes are non-moral in nature. It makes no sense to say that the orbit of
the moon is morally commendable or reprehensible and neither does it make sense to
say that human actions are commendable or reprehensible since humans are merely
material.
Dr. Bahnsen writes:
"What philosophy of value or morality can the unbeliever
offer which will render it meaningful to condemn some atrocity as objectively
evil? The moral indignation which is expressed by unbelievers when they
encounter the wicked things which transpire in this world does not comport
with the theories of ethics which unbelievers espouse, theories which prove to
be arbitrary or subjective or merely utilitarian or relativistic in character. In
the unbeliever's worldview, there is no good reason for saying that anything is
evil in nature, but only by personal choice or feeling."21
Atheists often contend that we derive ethical norms from the way people
typically behave. Even assuming people typically behave in a good manner (a
big assumption indeed), this gets the atheist nowhere. Asserting that because the
world is this way, it ought to be this way is fallacious. Just because I am presently
using Word 6.0 to write this paper does not mean that I ought to be using Word 6.0.
The atheist has no way out. If he wishes to uphold morality he must give up
his atheism. If he wants to keep his atheism he must give up on morality. So for
an atheist to accuse a Christian of bad behavior, he must presuppose the Christian
worldview. But since he claims not to presuppose the truth of Christianity he
should be consistent and not be concerned over moral matters.
Conclusion
Since TANG fails in all three areas its failure is total. Logic, science, and
morality do not presuppose the non-existence of God. Indeed the very opposite
is true. In order to make sense of any of these subjects, we must presuppose the
God of the Bible. Hence by the very logic that Dr. Martin uses to try to refute
Christianity, he must presuppose the truth of Christianity. And this is precisely
why Dr. Martin and his two atheist colleagues may be branded fools. Though
they know the God of the Bible, they suppress this knowledge and in so doing
deceive themselves.22 Thus professing to be wise they have become fools for
they have exchanged the truth of God for a lie and have worshipped and served
created things rather than their Creator, who is forever praised (Rom.1).
FOOTNOTES
1 For those with Internet access see our web site for details about Dr.
Martin's withdrawal. [http://www.cleaf.com/~covenant].
2 Call CMF and order tapes of the debates. Also, for a detailed analysis and
critique of Dr. Martin's work order "Michael Martin Under the Microscope."
Catalog #ASM3-12 tapes-$68.
3 This reminds me of Gary North's prediction: now that Dr. Bahnsen
is gone everybody will want to debate him.
4 Actually there are three. Since Covenant Media Foundation markets
the debate tapes, it would make little sense to sue SCCCS.
5 For a facsimile of the Agreement see the SCCCS web site.
6 We are presently talking to our attorney to see if his threatened lawsuit
has any merit. If not, look for a publication of their correspondences in the
months ahead.
7 It is interesting to note that, as far as I am aware, neither Dr. Stein nor
Mr. Tabash have distributed the debate tapes themselves. You would think,
however, that if they were confident of their victories that they would want
to get them into as many hands as possible.
8 For a copy of the press release see the SCCCS web site.
9 The press release was indeed harsh at points, but sometimes harshness is
appropriate. Jesus and Paul were harsh to those who blasphemed against God
and those who tried to subvert the Christian faith (Matt. 24; Gal. 1:8, 9) and so
harshness is not necessarily incompatible with Christian ethics. Dr. Martin is a
man who publishes books attacking the existence of God and the Christian faith
and yet refuses to defend his views in a recorded verbal exchange. This is
cowardly and should be labeled so.
10 For a detailed discussion of transcendental arguments in general and
TAG in particular, see Dr. Bahnsen's and my tape series, "Transcendental
Arguments: Nuclear Strength Apologetics." Available from CMF:
Catalog #ASV7-10 tapes-$55.
11 Found in the Autumn 1996 issue of The New Zealand Rationalist
& Humanist and on the "Internet Infidel" Internet web site:
[http://freethought.tamu.edu/infidels].
12 This is not to say, however, that atheists never act morally. Atheists feed
their children, give money to charity and often make good neighbors. But
atheists cannot give a justification for their actions. In the words of Cornelius
Van Til, they are living on "borrowed capital" from the Christian worldview.
Thus they profess one thing, but their actions belie this profession.
13 This is the approach that Professor John Frame has taken in his exchanges
with Dr. Martin. These exchanges can be found on the Internet under the Center
for Reformed Theology and Apologetics home page:
[http://www.reformed.org/apologetics/martin_TAG.html]
14 Bracketed numerals are mine.
15 Note the absurdity of [4] which asserts that God can make the law of
non-contradiction false. Since for something to be false it must be not true,
which assumes there is a distinction between falsity and truth. This distinction
is precisely what the law of non-contradiction implies. Thus to say the law of
non-contradiction is false is to presuppose the truth of the law of non-contradiction.
16 The view that logic is based upon observation is thoroughly refuted by
Gottlob Frege in The Foundations of Arithmetic (Evanston: Northwestern
University Press, 1980).
17 Greg L. Bahnsen, "The Problem of Miracles: Part 1," Biblical Worldview,
Vol. IX:7 (July 1993).
18 Hume's discussion of this problem (often called the traditional problem
of induction) is found in his An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding,
section IV.
19 For elaboration of this point see Dr. Bahnsen's debate with Mr. Tabash.
CMF catalog #AST2-2 tapes-$17.
20 Voluntarism is the view that God's will is His primary attribute. Accordingly,
God can will whatever He wants and can even change His mind. Thus God can one
day assert the goodness of preserving life and the next assert the goodness of murder.
The medieval theologians Duns Scotus and William Occam were advocates of this view.
21 Greg L. Bahnsen, "Does the Unbeliever Take Evil Seriously? The Problem of
Evil: Part 2" Biblical Worldview, Vol. VII:12 (Dec. 1991).
22 For an analytical discussion of this psychological phenomenon see
Greg L. Bahnsen, "The Apologetical Implications of Self-Deception," available
from CMF: Catalog #ASD4-2 tapes-$10.
Logic
Dr. Martin begins with logic. I quote the heart of his argument.
"[1]. . . if something . . . is dependent on God, it is not necessary-it is contingent
on God. [2] And if principles of logic are contingent on God, they are not
logically necessary. Moreover, [3] if principles of logic are contingent on
God, God could change them. [4] Thus, God could make the law of
non-contradiction false."14 Let's take each contention in turn.
Is [1] true? Is it true that if something is dependent upon God (i.e. ontologically
dependent) it is not necessary? Dr. Martin assures us that it is, but fails to give any
argument for this general principle. Perhaps he thinks it is definitional. If this is so
then we may grant him the point. Note, however, that all he would be asserting is
that if logic is dependent on God, then it is not independent of God ('not
independent' is used as a synonym for 'not necessary'). But this is a mere
truism, much like the statement, "water is water." While true, it is completely
uninteresting.
In [2] Dr. Martin contends that if the principles of logic are contingent
(read: dependent) on God they are not logically necessary. How does this follow
from [1] though? It follows only if Dr. Martin means 'not logically necessary' by
'contingent.' But if this is the case then we have to go back to [1] and reinterpret it to
mean "if something is dependent on God it is not logically necessary.' And this
surely is not definitional. Where then is the proof for it? How does it follow
that because something is ontologically dependent upon God that it is not logically
necessary? As it stands it is a mere assertion; an assertion that merely contradicts
the Christian claim that all things, logic included, are dependent upon God, and
yet logic is logically necessary.
Thus Dr. Martin's move from [1] to [2] trades on the ambiguity of the word
'contingent.' In equivocating on the two senses of the word he erroneously
moves from the statement "the principles of logic are contingent on God"
to the statement "the principles of logic are not logically necessary."
Turning to [3] and [4], it is clear that Dr. Martin means these to be a
reductio ad absurdum. But note that [3] is not true at all. Just because the
principles of logic are ontologically dependent upon God does not mean that God
could change them. According to Christian theology, there are some things that
God cannot do. God, for instance, cannot deny Himself (2 Tim. 2:13) or lie
(Titus 1:2). In saying this nothing is taken away from God's omnipotence.
The doctrine of omnipotence does not teach that God can do anything, but
that God can do anything that is in accordance with His nature. Since God is
essentially rational and rationality presupposes the principles of logic, it would
go against His nature to change the principles of logic. Hence God cannot
change them and hence God cannot make the law of non-contradiction false.15
Since [3] is not true then obviously [4] is not either. And since [4] is false,
Dr. Martin's reductio fails. Logic does not presuppose the falsehood of the Christian
worldview. But as Dr. Martin reminds us, even if logic does not presuppose the
falsehood of Christianity this does not mean it presupposes the truth of Christianity.
Perhaps logic comports with both Christian and non-Christian worldviews.
Let us now turn the tables on Dr. Martin and make a defense of TAG.
Recall that the contention of TAG is that principles of logic presuppose the
Christian worldview. How on an atheist worldview can the laws of logic be
justified? Given a world that is constituted solely of material substances (I
assume that Dr. Martin is a materialistic atheist) how does the atheist account
for non-material logical laws? They certainly are not reducible to matter since
if they were, they would not be laws-laws are not something that can be physically
examined. Moreover, since the principles of logic are universal in nature they are
not reducible to any particular physical object or objects. But if they are not
reducible matter what are they?
It does no good to say they are mental abstractions since neither abstractions
nor minds are possible within an atheist worldview. Nor can they be conventional
since if they were they could be changed. And if they can be changed then
absurdities follow-the statement that Bill Clinton is President of the United
States could be both true and false.
Finally, because the principles of logic are abstract and universal, they cannot be
experienced to be true. Thus such things as the law of non-contradiction are just highly
confirmed inductions. Not only are there some laws of logic that are too complex to
be observed, but this view would make logic contingent because there is always the
possibility of a future observation disconfirming that law. But if logic is contingent
then, as Dr. Martin has pointed out, absurdities become possible. To borrow his
example, New Zealand could be both south of China and not south of China.16
Thus the atheistic worldview does not comport with the principles of logic.
If atheists were consistent with their worldview, they would give up on logic and
rationality altogether. But since they do behave rationally (at least some of the time)
this shows that they are borrowing capital from another worldview.
That the Christian worldview can account for the principles of logic is readily
demonstrable. Christianity allows for abstract and universal laws. Abstract because
the Christian worldview teaches that more things exist than material objects. Thus
it makes sense for there to be abstractions. Moreover, the universality of logic is
possible because it is grounded in the character of God. God is by nature logical.
And this all-powerful, all-knowing God orders all things in accordance with them.
Science
Dr. Martin asserts that science and Christianity are incompatible. He argues
that since science presupposes the uniformity of nature and since Christian theology
teaches that God can and does perform miracles (which Dr. Martin defines as
violations of the uniformity of nature) science is inconsistent with Christianity.
But why is this so? Even granting his definition of a miracle, why does it follow
that science becomes impossible if there is no absolute uniformity of nature? Dr.
Martin does not tell us.
I would guess that he would contend that scientists would have an
insurmountable epistemological problem. Scientists would never know
whether to fix the cause of an event to natural laws or to divine intervention.
But this is not true. How does it follow that there is no way to distinguish between
a miracle and a event that is in accordance to natural laws?
Dr. Martin's definition of miracles, moreover, is somewhat defective.
Christian theology teaches that God providentially is in charge of all events.
All events are under his direct control. There are thus no impersonal natural
laws.
Under Dr. Martin's definition, all events are miraculous. The Christian view
of miracles is that they are events God causes to come about in a different way from
His regular pattern for directing events. Thus when humans die they usually stay
dead. But in the case of Jesus, God raised Him up. In doing so God did not
violate a natural law, but rather departed from His regular pattern of action.
Dr. Martin then states, "science assumes that insofar as an event has an
explanation at all, it has a scientific explanation-one that does not presuppose
God." All Dr. Martin is telling us here is his view of science. But this begs the
whole question. Of course atheistic scientists assume this, but Christian scientists
do not. This does nothing to advance Dr. Martin's argument that miracles are
incompatible with science.
Dr. Martin begs the question regarding miracles. As Dr. Bahnsen has
written: unbelievers "often think that they are treating the miracle-claims of the Bible as
independent evidence that the Christian worldview is irrationally unacceptable.
Their reasoning is something like this: we already know miracles do not occur
('How could anybody believe...'), and since Christianity claims that such impossible
things did occur (e.g., virgin birth, resurrection), we can draw the conclusion that
Christianity must be false. But that conclusion is not so much "drawn" as it is taken
for granted from the very outset. The denial of the very posibility of miracles is not a
piece of evidence for rejecting the Christian worldview, but simply a specific
manifestation of that very rejection.
Only if the Christian worldview happens to be false could the possibility of
miracles be cogently precluded. According to Scripture's account, God is the
transcendent and almighty Creator of heaven and earth. Everything owes its very
existence and character to His creative power and definition (Gen. 1; Neh. 9:6;
Col. 1:16-17). He makes things the way they are and determines that they
function as they do. 'His understanding is infinite' (Ps. 147:5). Moreover,
God sovereignly governs every event that transpires, determining what, when,
where, and how anything takes place-from the movement of the planets to the
decrees of kings to the very hairs of our heads (Eph. 1:11). According to the
Bible, He is omnipotent and in total control of the universe. Isaiah 40 celebrates
in famous phraseology the creation, delineating, directing, providence, and power
of Jehovah (vv. 12, 22-28). He has the freedom and control over the created order
that the potter has over the clay (Rom. 9:21). As the Psalmist affirms, 'Our
God is in the heavens; He has done whatsoever He pleased' (115:3)."17
It is on the atheist's worldview that there is no basis to assume the
uniformity of nature. The philosopher David Hume has taught us that to say the
future will be like the past is to beg the question.18 Since the uniformity of
nature is an unjustified assumption on the atheist's worldview, he has no basis
upon which to engage in scientific activities.19
That the uniformity of nature is compatible with the Christian worldview is
easily proven (remember that this unity is not an absolute one). God, who is
providentially in control of all events, has revealed to us that we can count on
regularities in the natural world. The Bible teaches that God providentially causes
the harvest to come in due season, for example. Because of this regularity, we can
be assured that scientific endeavors will be fruitful. Thus, far from presupposing
the falsity of Christianity, science would be impossible without the truth of the
Christian worldview.
Ethics
Dr. Martin last turns to morality. He contends that "objective morality"
is incompatible with Christian theology since morality is dependent upon the will
of God. And since God can will whatever he wishes (he could will that killing
other people for pleasure is good), morality is arbitrary.
This contention only has teeth to those theologians who hold a voluntaristic
view of God.20 But this is not what the Bible teaches. Scripture teaches that God
cannot deny Himself (2 Tim. 2:13) and that He is immutable. Thus God cannot
call good evil nor evil good. Dr. Martin will then press the issue by saying that
it is arbitrary to say that God's immutable character is good. This is to completely
miss the point. Because God is absolute and personal His character defines good.
The notion that there could be an impersonal ethical standard is absurd. Ethics are
necessarily personal. Thus they must either be grounded in an absolute and
personal God or grounded in non-absolute persons. The latter is what atheism
teaches. But this leads to ethical relativism. Without an absolute person, which
non-absolute person should we listen to? There is no non-arbitrary way of deciding.
Thus to say that it is arbitrary to ground goodness in the character of God is simply
to disagree with the Christian worldview.
It is the atheist's worldview that cannot account for ethics. As I stated above,
material processes are non-moral in nature. It makes no sense to say that the orbit of
the moon is morally commendable or reprehensible and neither does it make sense to
say that human actions are commendable or reprehensible since humans are merely
material.
Dr. Bahnsen writes:
"What philosophy of value or morality can the unbeliever
offer which will render it meaningful to condemn some atrocity as objectively
evil? The moral indignation which is expressed by unbelievers when they
encounter the wicked things which transpire in this world does not comport
with the theories of ethics which unbelievers espouse, theories which prove to
be arbitrary or subjective or merely utilitarian or relativistic in character. In
the unbeliever's worldview, there is no good reason for saying that anything is
evil in nature, but only by personal choice or feeling."21
Atheists often contend that we derive ethical norms from the way people
typically behave. Even assuming people typically behave in a good manner (a
big assumption indeed), this gets the atheist nowhere. Asserting that because the
world is this way, it ought to be this way is fallacious. Just because I am presently
using Word 6.0 to write this paper does not mean that I ought to be using Word 6.0.
The atheist has no way out. If he wishes to uphold morality he must give up
his atheism. If he wants to keep his atheism he must give up on morality. So for
an atheist to accuse a Christian of bad behavior, he must presuppose the Christian
worldview. But since he claims not to presuppose the truth of Christianity he
should be consistent and not be concerned over moral matters.
Conclusion
Since TANG fails in all three areas its failure is total. Logic, science, and
morality do not presuppose the non-existence of God. Indeed the very opposite
is true. In order to make sense of any of these subjects, we must presuppose the
God of the Bible. Hence by the very logic that Dr. Martin uses to try to refute
Christianity, he must presuppose the truth of Christianity. And this is precisely
why Dr. Martin and his two atheist colleagues may be branded fools. Though
they know the God of the Bible, they suppress this knowledge and in so doing
deceive themselves.22 Thus professing to be wise they have become fools for
they have exchanged the truth of God for a lie and have worshipped and served
created things rather than their Creator, who is forever praised (Rom.1).
FOOTNOTES
1 For those with Internet access see our web site for details about Dr.
Martin's withdrawal. [http://www.cleaf.com/~covenant].
2 Call CMF and order tapes of the debates. Also, for a detailed analysis and
critique of Dr. Martin's work order "Michael Martin Under the Microscope."
Catalog #ASM3-12 tapes-$68.
3 This reminds me of Gary North's prediction: now that Dr. Bahnsen
is gone everybody will want to debate him.
4 Actually there are three. Since Covenant Media Foundation markets
the debate tapes, it would make little sense to sue SCCCS.
5 For a facsimile of the Agreement see the SCCCS web site.
6 We are presently talking to our attorney to see if his threatened lawsuit
has any merit. If not, look for a publication of their correspondences in the
months ahead.
7 It is interesting to note that, as far as I am aware, neither Dr. Stein nor
Mr. Tabash have distributed the debate tapes themselves. You would think,
however, that if they were confident of their victories that they would want
to get them into as many hands as possible.
8 For a copy of the press release see the SCCCS web site.
9 The press release was indeed harsh at points, but sometimes harshness is
appropriate. Jesus and Paul were harsh to those who blasphemed against God
and those who tried to subvert the Christian faith (Matt. 24; Gal. 1:8, 9) and so
harshness is not necessarily incompatible with Christian ethics. Dr. Martin is a
man who publishes books attacking the existence of God and the Christian faith
and yet refuses to defend his views in a recorded verbal exchange. This is
cowardly and should be labeled so.
10 For a detailed discussion of transcendental arguments in general and
TAG in particular, see Dr. Bahnsen's and my tape series, "Transcendental
Arguments: Nuclear Strength Apologetics." Available from CMF:
Catalog #ASV7-10 tapes-$55.
11 Found in the Autumn 1996 issue of The New Zealand Rationalist
& Humanist and on the "Internet Infidel" Internet web site:
[http://freethought.tamu.edu/infidels].
12 This is not to say, however, that atheists never act morally. Atheists feed
their children, give money to charity and often make good neighbors. But
atheists cannot give a justification for their actions. In the words of Cornelius
Van Til, they are living on "borrowed capital" from the Christian worldview.
Thus they profess one thing, but their actions belie this profession.
13 This is the approach that Professor John Frame has taken in his exchanges
with Dr. Martin. These exchanges can be found on the Internet under the Center
for Reformed Theology and Apologetics home page:
[http://www.reformed.org/apologetics/martin_TAG.html]
14 Bracketed numerals are mine.
15 Note the absurdity of [4] which asserts that God can make the law of
non-contradiction false. Since for something to be false it must be not true,
which assumes there is a distinction between falsity and truth. This distinction
is precisely what the law of non-contradiction implies. Thus to say the law of
non-contradiction is false is to presuppose the truth of the law of non-contradiction.
16 The view that logic is based upon observation is thoroughly refuted by
Gottlob Frege in The Foundations of Arithmetic (Evanston: Northwestern
University Press, 1980).
17 Greg L. Bahnsen, "The Problem of Miracles: Part 1," Biblical Worldview,
Vol. IX:7 (July 1993).
18 Hume's discussion of this problem (often called the traditional problem
of induction) is found in his An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding,
section IV.
19 For elaboration of this point see Dr. Bahnsen's debate with Mr. Tabash.
CMF catalog #AST2-2 tapes-$17.
20 Voluntarism is the view that God's will is His primary attribute. Accordingly,
God can will whatever He wants and can even change His mind. Thus God can one
day assert the goodness of preserving life and the next assert the goodness of murder.
The medieval theologians Duns Scotus and William Occam were advocates of this view.
21 Greg L. Bahnsen, "Does the Unbeliever Take Evil Seriously? The Problem of
Evil: Part 2" Biblical Worldview, Vol. VII:12 (Dec. 1991).
22 For an analytical discussion of this psychological phenomenon see
Greg L. Bahnsen, "The Apologetical Implications of Self-Deception," available
from CMF: Catalog #ASD4-2 tapes-$10.
Is [1] true? Is it true that if something is dependent upon God (i.e. ontologically
dependent) it is not necessary? Dr. Martin assures us that it is, but fails to give any
argument for this general principle. Perhaps he thinks it is definitional. If this is so
then we may grant him the point. Note, however, that all he would be asserting is
that if logic is dependent on God, then it is not independent of God ('not
independent' is used as a synonym for 'not necessary'). But this is a mere
truism, much like the statement, "water is water." While true, it is completely
uninteresting.
In [2] Dr. Martin contends that if the principles of logic are contingent
(read: dependent) on God they are not logically necessary. How does this follow
from [1] though? It follows only if Dr. Martin means 'not logically necessary' by
'contingent.' But if this is the case then we have to go back to [1] and reinterpret it to
mean "if something is dependent on God it is not logically necessary.' And this
surely is not definitional. Where then is the proof for it? How does it follow
that because something is ontologically dependent upon God that it is not logically
necessary? As it stands it is a mere assertion; an assertion that merely contradicts
the Christian claim that all things, logic included, are dependent upon God, and
yet logic is logically necessary.
Thus Dr. Martin's move from [1] to [2] trades on the ambiguity of the word
'contingent.' In equivocating on the two senses of the word he erroneously
moves from the statement "the principles of logic are contingent on God"
to the statement "the principles of logic are not logically necessary."
Turning to [3] and [4], it is clear that Dr. Martin means these to be a
reductio ad absurdum. But note that [3] is not true at all. Just because the
principles of logic are ontologically dependent upon God does not mean that God
could change them. According to Christian theology, there are some things that
God cannot do. God, for instance, cannot deny Himself (2 Tim. 2:13) or lie
(Titus 1:2). In saying this nothing is taken away from God's omnipotence.
The doctrine of omnipotence does not teach that God can do anything, but
that God can do anything that is in accordance with His nature. Since God is
essentially rational and rationality presupposes the principles of logic, it would
go against His nature to change the principles of logic. Hence God cannot
change them and hence God cannot make the law of non-contradiction false.15
Since [3] is not true then obviously [4] is not either. And since [4] is false,
Dr. Martin's reductio fails. Logic does not presuppose the falsehood of the Christian
worldview. But as Dr. Martin reminds us, even if logic does not presuppose the
falsehood of Christianity this does not mean it presupposes the truth of Christianity.
Perhaps logic comports with both Christian and non-Christian worldviews.
Let us now turn the tables on Dr. Martin and make a defense of TAG.
Recall that the contention of TAG is that principles of logic presuppose the
Christian worldview. How on an atheist worldview can the laws of logic be
justified? Given a world that is constituted solely of material substances (I
assume that Dr. Martin is a materialistic atheist) how does the atheist account
for non-material logical laws? They certainly are not reducible to matter since
if they were, they would not be laws-laws are not something that can be physically
examined. Moreover, since the principles of logic are universal in nature they are
not reducible to any particular physical object or objects. But if they are not
reducible matter what are they?
It does no good to say they are mental abstractions since neither abstractions
nor minds are possible within an atheist worldview. Nor can they be conventional
since if they were they could be changed. And if they can be changed then
absurdities follow-the statement that Bill Clinton is President of the United
States could be both true and false.
Finally, because the principles of logic are abstract and universal, they cannot be
experienced to be true. Thus such things as the law of non-contradiction are just highly
confirmed inductions. Not only are there some laws of logic that are too complex to
be observed, but this view would make logic contingent because there is always the
possibility of a future observation disconfirming that law. But if logic is contingent
then, as Dr. Martin has pointed out, absurdities become possible. To borrow his
example, New Zealand could be both south of China and not south of China.16
Thus the atheistic worldview does not comport with the principles of logic.
If atheists were consistent with their worldview, they would give up on logic and
rationality altogether. But since they do behave rationally (at least some of the time)
this shows that they are borrowing capital from another worldview.
That the Christian worldview can account for the principles of logic is readily
demonstrable. Christianity allows for abstract and universal laws. Abstract because
the Christian worldview teaches that more things exist than material objects. Thus
it makes sense for there to be abstractions. Moreover, the universality of logic is
possible because it is grounded in the character of God. God is by nature logical.
And this all-powerful, all-knowing God orders all things in accordance with them.
Science
Dr. Martin asserts that science and Christianity are incompatible. He argues
that since science presupposes the uniformity of nature and since Christian theology
teaches that God can and does perform miracles (which Dr. Martin defines as
violations of the uniformity of nature) science is inconsistent with Christianity.
But why is this so? Even granting his definition of a miracle, why does it follow
that science becomes impossible if there is no absolute uniformity of nature? Dr.
Martin does not tell us.
I would guess that he would contend that scientists would have an
insurmountable epistemological problem. Scientists would never know
whether to fix the cause of an event to natural laws or to divine intervention.
But this is not true. How does it follow that there is no way to distinguish between
a miracle and a event that is in accordance to natural laws?
Dr. Martin's definition of miracles, moreover, is somewhat defective.
Christian theology teaches that God providentially is in charge of all events.
All events are under his direct control. There are thus no impersonal natural
laws.
Under Dr. Martin's definition, all events are miraculous. The Christian view
of miracles is that they are events God causes to come about in a different way from
His regular pattern for directing events. Thus when humans die they usually stay
dead. But in the case of Jesus, God raised Him up. In doing so God did not
violate a natural law, but rather departed from His regular pattern of action.
Dr. Martin then states, "science assumes that insofar as an event has an
explanation at all, it has a scientific explanation-one that does not presuppose
God." All Dr. Martin is telling us here is his view of science. But this begs the
whole question. Of course atheistic scientists assume this, but Christian scientists
do not. This does nothing to advance Dr. Martin's argument that miracles are
incompatible with science.
Dr. Martin begs the question regarding miracles. As Dr. Bahnsen has
written: unbelievers "often think that they are treating the miracle-claims of the Bible as
independent evidence that the Christian worldview is irrationally unacceptable.
Their reasoning is something like this: we already know miracles do not occur
('How could anybody believe...'), and since Christianity claims that such impossible
things did occur (e.g., virgin birth, resurrection), we can draw the conclusion that
Christianity must be false. But that conclusion is not so much "drawn" as it is taken
for granted from the very outset. The denial of the very posibility of miracles is not a
piece of evidence for rejecting the Christian worldview, but simply a specific
manifestation of that very rejection.
Only if the Christian worldview happens to be false could the possibility of
miracles be cogently precluded. According to Scripture's account, God is the
transcendent and almighty Creator of heaven and earth. Everything owes its very
existence and character to His creative power and definition (Gen. 1; Neh. 9:6;
Col. 1:16-17). He makes things the way they are and determines that they
function as they do. 'His understanding is infinite' (Ps. 147:5). Moreover,
God sovereignly governs every event that transpires, determining what, when,
where, and how anything takes place-from the movement of the planets to the
decrees of kings to the very hairs of our heads (Eph. 1:11). According to the
Bible, He is omnipotent and in total control of the universe. Isaiah 40 celebrates
in famous phraseology the creation, delineating, directing, providence, and power
of Jehovah (vv. 12, 22-28). He has the freedom and control over the created order
that the potter has over the clay (Rom. 9:21). As the Psalmist affirms, 'Our
God is in the heavens; He has done whatsoever He pleased' (115:3)."17
It is on the atheist's worldview that there is no basis to assume the
uniformity of nature. The philosopher David Hume has taught us that to say the
future will be like the past is to beg the question.18 Since the uniformity of
nature is an unjustified assumption on the atheist's worldview, he has no basis
upon which to engage in scientific activities.19
That the uniformity of nature is compatible with the Christian worldview is
easily proven (remember that this unity is not an absolute one). God, who is
providentially in control of all events, has revealed to us that we can count on
regularities in the natural world. The Bible teaches that God providentially causes
the harvest to come in due season, for example. Because of this regularity, we can
be assured that scientific endeavors will be fruitful. Thus, far from presupposing
the falsity of Christianity, science would be impossible without the truth of the
Christian worldview.
Ethics
Dr. Martin last turns to morality. He contends that "objective morality"
is incompatible with Christian theology since morality is dependent upon the will
of God. And since God can will whatever he wishes (he could will that killing
other people for pleasure is good), morality is arbitrary.
This contention only has teeth to those theologians who hold a voluntaristic
view of God.20 But this is not what the Bible teaches. Scripture teaches that God
cannot deny Himself (2 Tim. 2:13) and that He is immutable. Thus God cannot
call good evil nor evil good. Dr. Martin will then press the issue by saying that
it is arbitrary to say that God's immutable character is good. This is to completely
miss the point. Because God is absolute and personal His character defines good.
The notion that there could be an impersonal ethical standard is absurd. Ethics are
necessarily personal. Thus they must either be grounded in an absolute and
personal God or grounded in non-absolute persons. The latter is what atheism
teaches. But this leads to ethical relativism. Without an absolute person, which
non-absolute person should we listen to? There is no non-arbitrary way of deciding.
Thus to say that it is arbitrary to ground goodness in the character of God is simply
to disagree with the Christian worldview.
It is the atheist's worldview that cannot account for ethics. As I stated above,
material processes are non-moral in nature. It makes no sense to say that the orbit of
the moon is morally commendable or reprehensible and neither does it make sense to
say that human actions are commendable or reprehensible since humans are merely
material.
Dr. Bahnsen writes:
"What philosophy of value or morality can the unbeliever
offer which will render it meaningful to condemn some atrocity as objectively
evil? The moral indignation which is expressed by unbelievers when they
encounter the wicked things which transpire in this world does not comport
with the theories of ethics which unbelievers espouse, theories which prove to
be arbitrary or subjective or merely utilitarian or relativistic in character. In
the unbeliever's worldview, there is no good reason for saying that anything is
evil in nature, but only by personal choice or feeling."21
Atheists often contend that we derive ethical norms from the way people
typically behave. Even assuming people typically behave in a good manner (a
big assumption indeed), this gets the atheist nowhere. Asserting that because the
world is this way, it ought to be this way is fallacious. Just because I am presently
using Word 6.0 to write this paper does not mean that I ought to be using Word 6.0.
The atheist has no way out. If he wishes to uphold morality he must give up
his atheism. If he wants to keep his atheism he must give up on morality. So for
an atheist to accuse a Christian of bad behavior, he must presuppose the Christian
worldview. But since he claims not to presuppose the truth of Christianity he
should be consistent and not be concerned over moral matters.
Conclusion
Since TANG fails in all three areas its failure is total. Logic, science, and
morality do not presuppose the non-existence of God. Indeed the very opposite
is true. In order to make sense of any of these subjects, we must presuppose the
God of the Bible. Hence by the very logic that Dr. Martin uses to try to refute
Christianity, he must presuppose the truth of Christianity. And this is precisely
why Dr. Martin and his two atheist colleagues may be branded fools. Though
they know the God of the Bible, they suppress this knowledge and in so doing
deceive themselves.22 Thus professing to be wise they have become fools for
they have exchanged the truth of God for a lie and have worshipped and served
created things rather than their Creator, who is forever praised (Rom.1).
FOOTNOTES
1 For those with Internet access see our web site for details about Dr.
Martin's withdrawal. [http://www.cleaf.com/~covenant].
2 Call CMF and order tapes of the debates. Also, for a detailed analysis and
critique of Dr. Martin's work order "Michael Martin Under the Microscope."
Catalog #ASM3-12 tapes-$68.
3 This reminds me of Gary North's prediction: now that Dr. Bahnsen
is gone everybody will want to debate him.
4 Actually there are three. Since Covenant Media Foundation markets
the debate tapes, it would make little sense to sue SCCCS.
5 For a facsimile of the Agreement see the SCCCS web site.
6 We are presently talking to our attorney to see if his threatened lawsuit
has any merit. If not, look for a publication of their correspondences in the
months ahead.
7 It is interesting to note that, as far as I am aware, neither Dr. Stein nor
Mr. Tabash have distributed the debate tapes themselves. You would think,
however, that if they were confident of their victories that they would want
to get them into as many hands as possible.
8 For a copy of the press release see the SCCCS web site.
9 The press release was indeed harsh at points, but sometimes harshness is
appropriate. Jesus and Paul were harsh to those who blasphemed against God
and those who tried to subvert the Christian faith (Matt. 24; Gal. 1:8, 9) and so
harshness is not necessarily incompatible with Christian ethics. Dr. Martin is a
man who publishes books attacking the existence of God and the Christian faith
and yet refuses to defend his views in a recorded verbal exchange. This is
cowardly and should be labeled so.
10 For a detailed discussion of transcendental arguments in general and
TAG in particular, see Dr. Bahnsen's and my tape series, "Transcendental
Arguments: Nuclear Strength Apologetics." Available from CMF:
Catalog #ASV7-10 tapes-$55.
11 Found in the Autumn 1996 issue of The New Zealand Rationalist
& Humanist and on the "Internet Infidel" Internet web site:
[http://freethought.tamu.edu/infidels].
12 This is not to say, however, that atheists never act morally. Atheists feed
their children, give money to charity and often make good neighbors. But
atheists cannot give a justification for their actions. In the words of Cornelius
Van Til, they are living on "borrowed capital" from the Christian worldview.
Thus they profess one thing, but their actions belie this profession.
13 This is the approach that Professor John Frame has taken in his exchanges
with Dr. Martin. These exchanges can be found on the Internet under the Center
for Reformed Theology and Apologetics home page:
[http://www.reformed.org/apologetics/martin_TAG.html]
14 Bracketed numerals are mine.
15 Note the absurdity of [4] which asserts that God can make the law of
non-contradiction false. Since for something to be false it must be not true,
which assumes there is a distinction between falsity and truth. This distinction
is precisely what the law of non-contradiction implies. Thus to say the law of
non-contradiction is false is to presuppose the truth of the law of non-contradiction.
16 The view that logic is based upon observation is thoroughly refuted by
Gottlob Frege in The Foundations of Arithmetic (Evanston: Northwestern
University Press, 1980).
17 Greg L. Bahnsen, "The Problem of Miracles: Part 1," Biblical Worldview,
Vol. IX:7 (July 1993).
18 Hume's discussion of this problem (often called the traditional problem
of induction) is found in his An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding,
section IV.
19 For elaboration of this point see Dr. Bahnsen's debate with Mr. Tabash.
CMF catalog #AST2-2 tapes-$17.
20 Voluntarism is the view that God's will is His primary attribute. Accordingly,
God can will whatever He wants and can even change His mind. Thus God can one
day assert the goodness of preserving life and the next assert the goodness of murder.
The medieval theologians Duns Scotus and William Occam were advocates of this view.
21 Greg L. Bahnsen, "Does the Unbeliever Take Evil Seriously? The Problem of
Evil: Part 2" Biblical Worldview, Vol. VII:12 (Dec. 1991).
22 For an analytical discussion of this psychological phenomenon see
Greg L. Bahnsen, "The Apologetical Implications of Self-Deception," available
from CMF: Catalog #ASD4-2 tapes-$10.
In [2] Dr. Martin contends that if the principles of logic are contingent (read: dependent) on God they are not logically necessary. How does this follow from [1] though? It follows only if Dr. Martin means 'not logically necessary' by 'contingent.' But if this is the case then we have to go back to [1] and reinterpret it to mean "if something is dependent on God it is not logically necessary.' And this surely is not definitional. Where then is the proof for it? How does it follow that because something is ontologically dependent upon God that it is not logically necessary? As it stands it is a mere assertion; an assertion that merely contradicts the Christian claim that all things, logic included, are dependent upon God, and yet logic is logically necessary.
Thus Dr. Martin's move from [1] to [2] trades on the ambiguity of the word 'contingent.' In equivocating on the two senses of the word he erroneously moves from the statement "the principles of logic are contingent on God" to the statement "the principles of logic are not logically necessary."
Turning to [3] and [4], it is clear that Dr. Martin means these to be a reductio ad absurdum. But note that [3] is not true at all. Just because the principles of logic are ontologically dependent upon God does not mean that God could change them. According to Christian theology, there are some things that God cannot do. God, for instance, cannot deny Himself (2 Tim. 2:13) or lie (Titus 1:2). In saying this nothing is taken away from God's omnipotence. The doctrine of omnipotence does not teach that God can do anything, but that God can do anything that is in accordance with His nature. Since God is essentially rational and rationality presupposes the principles of logic, it would go against His nature to change the principles of logic. Hence God cannot change them and hence God cannot make the law of non-contradiction false.15
Since [3] is not true then obviously [4] is not either. And since [4] is false, Dr. Martin's reductio fails. Logic does not presuppose the falsehood of the Christian worldview. But as Dr. Martin reminds us, even if logic does not presuppose the falsehood of Christianity this does not mean it presupposes the truth of Christianity. Perhaps logic comports with both Christian and non-Christian worldviews.
Let us now turn the tables on Dr. Martin and make a defense of TAG. Recall that the contention of TAG is that principles of logic presuppose the Christian worldview. How on an atheist worldview can the laws of logic be justified? Given a world that is constituted solely of material substances (I assume that Dr. Martin is a materialistic atheist) how does the atheist account for non-material logical laws? They certainly are not reducible to matter since if they were, they would not be laws-laws are not something that can be physically examined. Moreover, since the principles of logic are universal in nature they are not reducible to any particular physical object or objects. But if they are not reducible matter what are they?
It does no good to say they are mental abstractions since neither abstractions nor minds are possible within an atheist worldview. Nor can they be conventional since if they were they could be changed. And if they can be changed then absurdities follow-the statement that Bill Clinton is President of the United States could be both true and false.
Finally, because the principles of logic are abstract and universal, they cannot be experienced to be true. Thus such things as the law of non-contradiction are just highly confirmed inductions. Not only are there some laws of logic that are too complex to be observed, but this view would make logic contingent because there is always the possibility of a future observation disconfirming that law. But if logic is contingent then, as Dr. Martin has pointed out, absurdities become possible. To borrow his example, New Zealand could be both south of China and not south of China.16
Thus the atheistic worldview does not comport with the principles of logic. If atheists were consistent with their worldview, they would give up on logic and rationality altogether. But since they do behave rationally (at least some of the time) this shows that they are borrowing capital from another worldview.
That the Christian worldview can account for the principles of logic is readily demonstrable. Christianity allows for abstract and universal laws. Abstract because the Christian worldview teaches that more things exist than material objects. Thus it makes sense for there to be abstractions. Moreover, the universality of logic is possible because it is grounded in the character of God. God is by nature logical. And this all-powerful, all-knowing God orders all things in accordance with them.
Science
Dr. Martin asserts that science and Christianity are incompatible. He argues that since science presupposes the uniformity of nature and since Christian theology teaches that God can and does perform miracles (which Dr. Martin defines as violations of the uniformity of nature) science is inconsistent with Christianity. But why is this so? Even granting his definition of a miracle, why does it follow that science becomes impossible if there is no absolute uniformity of nature? Dr. Martin does not tell us.
I would guess that he would contend that scientists would have an insurmountable epistemological problem. Scientists would never know whether to fix the cause of an event to natural laws or to divine intervention. But this is not true. How does it follow that there is no way to distinguish between a miracle and a event that is in accordance to natural laws?
Dr. Martin's definition of miracles, moreover, is somewhat defective. Christian theology teaches that God providentially is in charge of all events. All events are under his direct control. There are thus no impersonal natural laws.
Under Dr. Martin's definition, all events are miraculous. The Christian view of miracles is that they are events God causes to come about in a different way from His regular pattern for directing events. Thus when humans die they usually stay dead. But in the case of Jesus, God raised Him up. In doing so God did not violate a natural law, but rather departed from His regular pattern of action.
Dr. Martin then states, "science assumes that insofar as an event has an explanation at all, it has a scientific explanation-one that does not presuppose God." All Dr. Martin is telling us here is his view of science. But this begs the whole question. Of course atheistic scientists assume this, but Christian scientists do not. This does nothing to advance Dr. Martin's argument that miracles are incompatible with science.
Dr. Martin begs the question regarding miracles. As Dr. Bahnsen has written: unbelievers "often think that they are treating the miracle-claims of the Bible as independent evidence that the Christian worldview is irrationally unacceptable. Their reasoning is something like this: we already know miracles do not occur ('How could anybody believe...'), and since Christianity claims that such impossible things did occur (e.g., virgin birth, resurrection), we can draw the conclusion that Christianity must be false. But that conclusion is not so much "drawn" as it is taken for granted from the very outset. The denial of the very posibility of miracles is not a piece of evidence for rejecting the Christian worldview, but simply a specific manifestation of that very rejection.
Only if the Christian worldview happens to be false could the possibility of miracles be cogently precluded. According to Scripture's account, God is the transcendent and almighty Creator of heaven and earth. Everything owes its very existence and character to His creative power and definition (Gen. 1; Neh. 9:6; Col. 1:16-17). He makes things the way they are and determines that they function as they do. 'His understanding is infinite' (Ps. 147:5). Moreover, God sovereignly governs every event that transpires, determining what, when, where, and how anything takes place-from the movement of the planets to the decrees of kings to the very hairs of our heads (Eph. 1:11). According to the Bible, He is omnipotent and in total control of the universe. Isaiah 40 celebrates in famous phraseology the creation, delineating, directing, providence, and power of Jehovah (vv. 12, 22-28). He has the freedom and control over the created order that the potter has over the clay (Rom. 9:21). As the Psalmist affirms, 'Our God is in the heavens; He has done whatsoever He pleased' (115:3)."17
It is on the atheist's worldview that there is no basis to assume the uniformity of nature. The philosopher David Hume has taught us that to say the future will be like the past is to beg the question.18 Since the uniformity of nature is an unjustified assumption on the atheist's worldview, he has no basis upon which to engage in scientific activities.19
That the uniformity of nature is compatible with the Christian worldview is easily proven (remember that this unity is not an absolute one). God, who is providentially in control of all events, has revealed to us that we can count on regularities in the natural world. The Bible teaches that God providentially causes the harvest to come in due season, for example. Because of this regularity, we can be assured that scientific endeavors will be fruitful. Thus, far from presupposing the falsity of Christianity, science would be impossible without the truth of the Christian worldview.
Ethics
Dr. Martin last turns to morality. He contends that "objective morality" is incompatible with Christian theology since morality is dependent upon the will of God. And since God can will whatever he wishes (he could will that killing other people for pleasure is good), morality is arbitrary.
This contention only has teeth to those theologians who hold a voluntaristic view of God.20 But this is not what the Bible teaches. Scripture teaches that God cannot deny Himself (2 Tim. 2:13) and that He is immutable. Thus God cannot call good evil nor evil good. Dr. Martin will then press the issue by saying that it is arbitrary to say that God's immutable character is good. This is to completely miss the point. Because God is absolute and personal His character defines good. The notion that there could be an impersonal ethical standard is absurd. Ethics are necessarily personal. Thus they must either be grounded in an absolute and personal God or grounded in non-absolute persons. The latter is what atheism teaches. But this leads to ethical relativism. Without an absolute person, which non-absolute person should we listen to? There is no non-arbitrary way of deciding. Thus to say that it is arbitrary to ground goodness in the character of God is simply to disagree with the Christian worldview.
It is the atheist's worldview that cannot account for ethics. As I stated above, material processes are non-moral in nature. It makes no sense to say that the orbit of the moon is morally commendable or reprehensible and neither does it make sense to say that human actions are commendable or reprehensible since humans are merely material.
Dr. Bahnsen writes:
"What philosophy of value or morality can the unbeliever offer which will render it meaningful to condemn some atrocity as objectively evil? The moral indignation which is expressed by unbelievers when they encounter the wicked things which transpire in this world does not comport with the theories of ethics which unbelievers espouse, theories which prove to be arbitrary or subjective or merely utilitarian or relativistic in character. In the unbeliever's worldview, there is no good reason for saying that anything is evil in nature, but only by personal choice or feeling."21
Atheists often contend that we derive ethical norms from the way people typically behave. Even assuming people typically behave in a good manner (a big assumption indeed), this gets the atheist nowhere. Asserting that because the world is this way, it ought to be this way is fallacious. Just because I am presently using Word 6.0 to write this paper does not mean that I ought to be using Word 6.0.
The atheist has no way out. If he wishes to uphold morality he must give up his atheism. If he wants to keep his atheism he must give up on morality. So for an atheist to accuse a Christian of bad behavior, he must presuppose the Christian worldview. But since he claims not to presuppose the truth of Christianity he should be consistent and not be concerned over moral matters.
Conclusion
Since TANG fails in all three areas its failure is total. Logic, science, and morality do not presuppose the non-existence of God. Indeed the very opposite is true. In order to make sense of any of these subjects, we must presuppose the God of the Bible. Hence by the very logic that Dr. Martin uses to try to refute Christianity, he must presuppose the truth of Christianity. And this is precisely why Dr. Martin and his two atheist colleagues may be branded fools. Though they know the God of the Bible, they suppress this knowledge and in so doing deceive themselves.22 Thus professing to be wise they have become fools for they have exchanged the truth of God for a lie and have worshipped and served created things rather than their Creator, who is forever praised (Rom.1).
FOOTNOTES
1 For those with Internet access see our web site for details about Dr. Martin's withdrawal. [http://www.cleaf.com/~covenant].
2 Call CMF and order tapes of the debates. Also, for a detailed analysis and critique of Dr. Martin's work order "Michael Martin Under the Microscope." Catalog #ASM3-12 tapes-$68.
3 This reminds me of Gary North's prediction: now that Dr. Bahnsen is gone everybody will want to debate him.
4 Actually there are three. Since Covenant Media Foundation markets the debate tapes, it would make little sense to sue SCCCS.
5 For a facsimile of the Agreement see the SCCCS web site.
6 We are presently talking to our attorney to see if his threatened lawsuit has any merit. If not, look for a publication of their correspondences in the months ahead.
7 It is interesting to note that, as far as I am aware, neither Dr. Stein nor Mr. Tabash have distributed the debate tapes themselves. You would think, however, that if they were confident of their victories that they would want to get them into as many hands as possible.
8 For a copy of the press release see the SCCCS web site.
9 The press release was indeed harsh at points, but sometimes harshness is appropriate. Jesus and Paul were harsh to those who blasphemed against God and those who tried to subvert the Christian faith (Matt. 24; Gal. 1:8, 9) and so harshness is not necessarily incompatible with Christian ethics. Dr. Martin is a man who publishes books attacking the existence of God and the Christian faith and yet refuses to defend his views in a recorded verbal exchange. This is cowardly and should be labeled so.
10 For a detailed discussion of transcendental arguments in general and TAG in particular, see Dr. Bahnsen's and my tape series, "Transcendental Arguments: Nuclear Strength Apologetics." Available from CMF: Catalog #ASV7-10 tapes-$55.
11 Found in the Autumn 1996 issue of The New Zealand Rationalist & Humanist and on the "Internet Infidel" Internet web site: [http://freethought.tamu.edu/infidels].
12 This is not to say, however, that atheists never act morally. Atheists feed their children, give money to charity and often make good neighbors. But atheists cannot give a justification for their actions. In the words of Cornelius Van Til, they are living on "borrowed capital" from the Christian worldview. Thus they profess one thing, but their actions belie this profession.
13 This is the approach that Professor John Frame has taken in his exchanges with Dr. Martin. These exchanges can be found on the Internet under the Center for Reformed Theology and Apologetics home page: [http://www.reformed.org/apologetics/martin_TAG.html]
14 Bracketed numerals are mine.
15 Note the absurdity of [4] which asserts that God can make the law of non-contradiction false. Since for something to be false it must be not true, which assumes there is a distinction between falsity and truth. This distinction is precisely what the law of non-contradiction implies. Thus to say the law of non-contradiction is false is to presuppose the truth of the law of non-contradiction.
16 The view that logic is based upon observation is thoroughly refuted by Gottlob Frege in The Foundations of Arithmetic (Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1980).
17 Greg L. Bahnsen, "The Problem of Miracles: Part 1," Biblical Worldview, Vol. IX:7 (July 1993).
18 Hume's discussion of this problem (often called the traditional problem
of induction) is found in his An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding,
section IV.
19 For elaboration of this point see Dr. Bahnsen's debate with Mr. Tabash.
CMF catalog #AST2-2 tapes-$17.
20 Voluntarism is the view that God's will is His primary attribute. Accordingly,
God can will whatever He wants and can even change His mind. Thus God can one
day assert the goodness of preserving life and the next assert the goodness of murder.
The medieval theologians Duns Scotus and William Occam were advocates of this view.
21 Greg L. Bahnsen, "Does the Unbeliever Take Evil Seriously? The Problem of
Evil: Part 2" Biblical Worldview, Vol. VII:12 (Dec. 1991).
22 For an analytical discussion of this psychological phenomenon see
Greg L. Bahnsen, "The Apologetical Implications of Self-Deception," available
from CMF: Catalog #ASD4-2 tapes-$10.
19 For elaboration of this point see Dr. Bahnsen's debate with Mr. Tabash. CMF catalog #AST2-2 tapes-$17.
20 Voluntarism is the view that God's will is His primary attribute. Accordingly, God can will whatever He wants and can even change His mind. Thus God can one day assert the goodness of preserving life and the next assert the goodness of murder. The medieval theologians Duns Scotus and William Occam were advocates of this view.