Step 1 Materialism disprove by empirical facts
a. The existence of the mind
Materialism assumes that only the physical universe exists. Therefore, everything has evolved from our material environment.
However, humans do have at least one immaterial organ called the mind. Our minds can process information and develop ideas that do not come to us through the physical environment. Scientist are incapable of refuting this idea, since encountering this argument validates the existence of their own minds.
Some have claimed that while the mind is immaterial, it is the by-product of the brain. This worldview fails to explain why ideas foreign to the environment are still being produced.
The implications of an immaterial substance such as the mind are staggering. The mind being immaterial is not necessarily subject to scientific law. Even the death of the brain doesn't stop the existence of the mind. Theoretically a mind could live in an immaterial plane forever.
b. The existence of other minds (spirits, God)
Now that we have found evidence of another dimension where these ideas are given out. It stands to reason that if the mind may exist in this realm and all humanity has a mind. Then there is a realm of spirits. This realm may contain not only human spirits but other spiritual beings as well.
c. The science of psychology
While it is true that psychology is not a hard science, psychology applies the scientific method to the human mind. With nearly two centuries of documentation is we have enough evidence to show that the the mind and the spiritual/mental worlds are indeed a reality.
Some may look this argument and wonder "why do we have to answer the objections of materialism if only a small population actually hold these views?" We must answer these objections in order that others do not use this scheme as a way of denying the Christians their right to present a truth claim. When in search of truth we must find more than conviction but also authority.
Step 2 Religion proved as an empirical fact
A. Regardless of worldview, humanity relates itself to something which is transcendent.
B. Humanity also finds itself inadequate, needing to ascend to a higher plane.
What we are doing here is establishing universally accepted facts. Many people do not notice just how authoritative their beliefs are. But upon when majority opinions are discovered, they shrink the intellectual opposition drastically. It is the experience of all people that they relation to something higher and they find themselves to be short of it. Humanity is designed as a religious race. There has to be a reason and truth behind it.
Step 3 The Christian Experience has the right to be assumed.
(Christian experience is understood as the sum and universal experience of Christians from gospel presentation through death; also known as Christian testimony)
(as a prerequisite to this argument a full gospel presentation is advisable.)
A. Christian experience answers the universal needs of religion.
Since religion is empirically true, we now see how that correlates with the christian religious experience. Christianity obviously answers these universal maxims. Qualifying it's existence as a truth claim.
B. Christian experience has a great multitude of witnesses which claim faith as fact.
So essentially as the old argument goes "on the testimony of two witnesses" truth is established in a court of law. The millions of christian testimonies is now weighed as evidence to the christian truth claim.
C. Christian witness is not just subjective but historical as well.
We need to notice the wide variety of witnesses. All walks of life, young-old, nationality-skin color, past-future all religious backgrounds, professions etc. This shows the truth and durability of the NT religion.
This method at this point becomes very practical to ministers. Because they not only prepare the lost for the gospel. They also build the gospel presentation into it. Apologetics is now properly assisting evangelism.
Step 4 The Christian experience implies revelation
A. If the effect of Christian experience is true, then the cause of divine revelation is valid.
B. If divine revelation is fact then Christianity is no longer subjective, but objective fact. (this is because the divine word teaches such of itself.)
This is a key stage of the apologetic argument. We are now moving from subjective claims to objective facts. Presuppositionalism has always had problems establishing it's authority to those skeptical because their facts are not universally accepted. Classical apologetics has always had trouble using their subjective evidence to make absolute assertions. The combination of both strengths is then reinforced in the gospel presentation which reaches the minds of all and reinforces the convictions of the faithful.
Notice the law of cause and effect being used to translate the logic.
Step 5 Christianity with authority as presuppositional fact.
A. All alternative worldview religions must pass the test of logical coherence before their criticisms may be rendered valid.
(we know of course all the false religions will fail.)
B. Questions of coherence may be asked by Christians towards the scriptures. Other worldviews will lack authority to criticize since they will be proved to be irrational.
(the Bible is coherent. So at this point we seek answers from the scriptures over any concerns.)
By faith and a lot of experience I understand that the Bible has no contradictions. While we must be prepared to answer objects we are in desperate need to demand answers of the alternative religions. A spoonful of sugar may help the medicine go down. But everybody knows... too much sugar rots out your teeth!
step 6 biblical support for the steps of the argument
a. 2Corinthians4:7, Romans 1:19-20
b. psalm 117, acts 17:22-30
c. 1corinthians 15:1-9, 2 corinthians 3:2-3
d. galatians 1, matthew 5:18-22
e. job 38-40
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Matt,
I'm not a fan of philosophy. I undestand that it definitely has its benefits, but all too often if narrow-mindedly makes truth claims that fit its author's own philosophical construct and appear to be irrefutable. However when subjected to a different philosophical construct things very often come out differently.
Regarding the presupositional method, I think it also has its benefits, particulary against atheists, i.e. the existence of evil and what that concept entails. However outside of the theist/atheist polemic, I don't think presuppositionalism has much value, at least as I understand it. If presuppositional apologetics are what you're interested in then I highly suggest you download and listen to this podcast. I think it shows that Christian presuppositional apologetics can only possibly lead to the Catholic Church.
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/08/episode-14-from-presuppositional-pca-to-rome/
I hope you seriously listen to it. At the very least it'll give you a better understanding of the issues involved, and therefore enable you to present articles that are much more fair and well written.
Matt,
While I'm irreversably a Catholic Christian, I think your article presupposes some facts and thus, of course, puts forth no evidence for them. One of these fact claims is that since empirical evidence shows the existance of religion then Christianity must that religion. I see two problems here. The first is that if you're arguing against an atheist, then you are assuming biblical revelation to make the empirical evidence claim (Romans). I don't think this line of argument will be very convincing to an atheist. The second problem I see is that you assume that even if an atheist/agnostic/non-Christian accepts that empirical evidence "proves" the factual existance of religion that this religion must be Christianity, especially as you see it, as opposed to how someone in Russia or anywhere else might see it. There are many other similar problems just like these two in your article, as I see it.
craig,
Though not in a rude way I think you were a little too critical of this system of thought. Though it is designed around my worldview obviously I think not only did I meet these concerns but some of my argumentation is applicable for you as well.
lets look...
you see the is not one argument. It is two philosophies Subjective empiricism(E.Y. Mullins) and rational presuppositionalism/ scripturalism(Gordon Clark)
linked together in 6 stages.
Atheism is eliminated early because it lacks any understanding of metaphysics. The argument used for the existence of other minds is the very argument that lead to convert major atheist philosopher Anthony flew over to the side of theism.
Then I begin to set up a scientific recognition of other metaphysical realities for psychology and then religion.
This is the building block of subjective empiricism.
Subjective empiricism takes our personal and more importantly our community experience of the gospel and translates it into scientific language.
Now the atheist was eliminated at the start and must observe my evidence of truth. Atheism always has a week point because they have never shown a positive case for no existence of God.
The great thing of subjective empiricism is that I can express my experience which is the gospel of Jesus Christ. This of course is the power of God unto salvation Romans1:16
So you witness to the lost as you work out the argument!
Now in order to reach the lost mind philosophic arguments are costructed subjectively.( hence subjective empiricism) however this argument doesn't sto with the subjective but like a mousetrap transforms into a transcendent.
Once I prove subjective truth. i use the law of cause and effect.
What is it that causes the subjective truth of the christian faith?
Christian revelation
so then Christian revelation is true.
The Bible which is christian revelation claims to be the objective word of God.
check mate!
you are now in the world of
presuppositionalism. The mouse trap is closed because the scriptures are the source of absolute truth.
I am a little surprised that you are critical of philosophy seeing that Catholicism usuallyrelies heavily on it.
First platonism then aristotelian, and a few secular philosophies today.
I think it's awesome that you are trying to use philosophy to further explain your religion. I think your premise is a little shaky. I think a lot of scientist would argue that they is very little metaphysical or non-material about the mind.
There is nothing physical about the mind. Only the brain.
Scientist have to ignore EVERYTHING about the study of psycology in order to prove this assumption. In which case we are not allowed to come up with new ideas. Where from the ground do you find calculus? Where did nature provide us microsoft? How can there be a subject of faith or theology? They say it is not rational yet people get degrees in it. Even darwin was trained solely in theology so is evolution then irrational at the start?
If evolution is a rational idea. then theology is a rational subject. If theology is a rational subject the world of immaterial is possible. The immaterial world is a reality and can not be scientifically be debunked. What evidence is there that there is nothing immaterial in existence?
Again however Scientist(athiest scientist since there are many theist)
assume they have higher authority. What proof do they have that they have a greater truth than scripture?
Post a Comment