V. Problems for Unbelieving Worldviews
http://www.youtube.com/user/gregbahnsen#g/c/E4D6369D18700F91
Specific examples on how to defend the faith
Acts 17:16
Setting: Paul in Athens, the philosophic capital of Ancient Greece
Provoked by pervasiveness of idolatry, so he reasoned in the synagogues and marketplace everyday.
Dealt with their views and his views, but they just wanted to mock him.
Showed internal contradiction in their worldview.
Declares providence of God (that man may find Him)
The 4 Main Problems:
1) Question of Moral Absolutes (Ethics)
Everyone will have a moral point of view. Even those who have no moral point of view; they have a morality of no morality.
a) "Good" is what evokes approval
- social - then by definition, can't criticize societies for what they do; no longer looks at the attributes of the subject approved / implies that good and evil are intuitive, so no way to resolve differences
- personal - emotivist theory (expression of personal emotions)
b) "Good" is what achieves certain chosen ends
- social happiness
- individual wellbeing
Then you must ask, why is that good? (assuming end is good, etc.)
2) Uniformity of Nature (Science)
Why is this relevant to science? What does science study? Predictability
But we have not experience of the future.
3) Universals and Laws (Concepts and Logic)
Concepts are immaterial & abstract
Logic - meant to regulate human reasoning
e.g.: unbeliever knows that God is a faithful, intelligent, personal, reliable, consistent being, but they don't want to acknowledge it & come up with a phony logically theory
4) Personal Freedom & Dignity
Assumptions of human nature... humans are different from other animals & thus our thinking, and should be recognized with more dignity. But why should we if all living things are equal or must be respected.
Naturalistic worldview cannot account for personal freedom & dignity.
If it's true, then the naturalist has no reason to believe it. Implies all our thinking is chemical and physics = same order as weeds growing. Then you're just forced to say it's true because of the laws of physics, and also no reason to argue.
***2 Analysis of Bahnsen's discussions with unbelievers***
George Smith (Atheism: The Case Against God):
- Definitions are very important.
- Smith defined an atheist as someone who hasn't been convinced of the existence of God; therefore not really someone who has evidence AGAINST God.
- Relationship of faith and reason.
- Smith believed that faith was without/goes beyond reason; opposing concepts
- Augustinian: faith is the foundation of all reasoning; one believes in order to understand
- Self-deception
Bertrand Russell (Why I Don't Believe in God):
A philosopher that changed his mind a lot.
- Inadequate Epistomology
- Knew Christianity was wrong, but didn't know for sure nor have an adequate theory of knowledge.
- Hostile toward religion in general, and Christianity in particular; an impediment to human progress. YET believe in asserting value on a world made of matter
- Unaided reason cannot prove anything
- Existence of God cannot go without unaided reason; BUT unaided reason cannot prove anything
- No objective standard for evaluating
- There are serious defects on the character of Jesus & there is no foundation on objective and universal values. BUT one cannot judge with no basis.
- Appeal to emotions
- Russell's was also an emotional adversion, guilty of the same thing he was accusing others of
- Christianity impedes moral progress
- Would need a view on morality, but he has no absolute view
No comments:
Post a Comment