Are Atheists Just Guessing? A follow up on a broken thought.

This past Thursday, I had the privilege of joining Vocab Malone and Pastor Vermon on Backpack Radio. The topic revolved around Facebook debates, epistemology and apologetics. To make a long story short, after having debated a few local atheists on their facebook page, I was asked if I would like to come on the show and speak to above subjects. The show is known for having both well-known scholars on, as well as the "average Joe" (fyi, I fall into the latter category ;). While the show is prerecorded, it is recorded as if it is live. I was not given a list of specific questions to answer, just general themes which we would be dealing with in each segment. Being my first time on the radio, and also being a seminary student who loves to preach right out of his manuscript, one can imagine that there were a few times when I got ahead of myself and felt a little "jumbled" in my answesr. One answer stuck out to me almost immediately after having given it, which I would like to clarify/address with this post.

In the second segment, I believe it was Vermon who asked me what exactly epistemology was. After defining epistemology ("a theory of knowledge"), and opening up the components of having "justified true belief," I made a statement that was somewhat unclear and may sound unfair or inaccurate without some clarification. In describing what it means for true belief to be "justified," I used the analogy of me and someone else taking a quiz. In the scenario the correct answer was (b), which both me and my neighbor got correct. However, in my case I simply guessed, whereas my neighbor studied and "knew" the answer was (b). I simply had a "hunch" or a "guess," juxtaposed to my neighbor who had a reason for his selection. In the analogy, we both got the answer right, but only my neighbor;s answer was justifiably right, in epistemological terms. I then made the claim that atheists who justify their belief in unchanging, universal laws of logic and science, based off of the fact that they "work;" are like the person who guesses on quiz, gets the right answer, and assumes that they were justified in being right. I had indeed jotted down this point in my notes, as I had planned on making it. However, in the context in which I said it, it felt premature and requiring more explanation. Not wanting to go on a deeper rabbit trail from the original question (what is epistemology?), I sort of panicked and gave a broken explanation of the point and tried to move on. So with the background aside, I think I need to clarify my point.

At the very best my thought seemed broken, at the very worst, it seemed as if I was accusing atheists of being purely arbitrary or erratic in their formulations. I know that most atheists value the scientific method, and believe they have reasons for their unbelief, so I want to make it clear that that is not what I was trying to convey. My intended point was this. The atheist claims that reality is fundamentally unguided, unconscious, and irrational (or at least non-rational). Furthermore, they believe that the human mind has arisen through non-rational processes, by means of a mechanism for survival, not a mechanism for arriving at "truth" (namely, natural selection). And yet the entire scientific enterprise rests upon the presumption that the functioning of the human mind corresponds to reality, and that reality operates according to regularities. They are saying that reality is one way (based upon their worldview), but they are talking and acting in it, as if it is another way. When questioned as to what grounds they have for believing in unchanging, universal laws given their worldview; atheists often say something to the effect that it "works to act as if reality is that way" (ie ordered and rational).

However, there are two main problems with this answer. First, that answer does not resolve the tension in their worldview. After all, how can the way reality behaves, or "works" (as if it is rational reflecting order around universals) be reconciled with what they presuppose about it (that it is non-rational and composed of chaotically interacting particulars)? But secondly, and most importantly, it also doesn't answer the question. Do laws of logic, and rational regularities in nature, have some sort of ontological grounding or existence? Or, are these merely human concepts that find some correspondence 'here and there?' If it is the former, then the atheist needs to explain how such structures can exist in their metaphysical worldview. However, if it is the latter, which is the answer I normally get from atheists, then they have a problem of justification. A handful of human observations, in comparison to the vast age of the universe (according to the atheist), does not "justify" belief in universal laws of thought or science. One could only justify such a claim if they had observed every square inch of the universe, for every second, in the life of the universe. But in the big picture, all we have are a few observations, which appear as if they correspond to the concept of rational "laws" and regularities. So if the atheist is right, we are like the person who picked a few answer on a test that happened to be right. But there is no justification there. And if you do not have justification for universal laws of thought or science, then you have no knowledge. Greg Bahnsen elaborates:

"It should be noted here that by "justified" we mean that the person actually has sound reasons (good evidence), not simply that he thinks his evidence is good or sufficient in light of the pool of information available to him [...] Accordingly, having a warrant for one's belief(s) is essential to knowledge. This explains why the issue of justification has always been a critical one throughout the history of epistemology. E.g., when and how are claims that we make well founded? Or, how do we acquire, or what is the source of, reliable beliefs? On what basis is intellectual authority conferred upon our ideas? By what standard are our judgments to be evaluated? How do we know what we know?" (Bahnsen,"Van Til's Apologetics," 178)

In answer to those questions, Dr. Bahnsen, and all sounds Christians, will say that the answer to all of those questions is God's revelation. The infinite, personal God of Christianity has revealed some things pertaining to Himself, ourselves, and reality; such that we can be certain. Furthermore, he sends the Holy Spirit into our hearts, to "internalize" the Word of God, so that it becomes not just a distant object, or a hypothetical, but immanently apparent to us as subjects made in His image. When God's revelation is presupposed, and the content of it believed, one has a justification for true belief in laws of logic, and laws of science (as well as a whole host of other things). Anything else is just guess work, commonly known as speculation. Furthermore, history itself attests to the fact that science arose out of the worldview of Christendom, not atheism. No one took an unbiased "leap in the dark" about reality and discovered that science "works." No, we have a much more certain ground to stand on than that. And thankfully, so does the atheist, which is exactly how he knows what he knows, because in his heart of hearts, he truly knows God.

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened." (Rom. 1:18-21)

(P.S. More follow up posts pertaining to my interview may be forthcoming :)

Calvin on Evidences and Establishing the Authority of Scripture

Presuppositional apologetics is simply Reformed apologetics. There is nothing new under the sun:

Yet they who strive to build up firm faith in Scripture through disputations are doing things backwards. For my part, although I do not excel either in great dexterity or eloquence, if I were struggling against the most crafty sort of despisers of God, who seek to appear shrewd and witty in disparaging Scripture, I am confident it would not be difficult for me to silence their clamorous voices. And if it were a useful labor to refute their cavils, I would with no great trouble shatter the boasts they mutter in their lurking places. But even if anyone clears God's Sacred Word from man's evil speaking, he will not at once imprint upon their hearts that certainty which piety requires. Since for unbelieving men religion seems to stand by opinion alone, they, in order not to believe anything foolishly or lightly, both wish and demand rational proof that Moses and the prophets spoke divinely. But I reply: the testimony of the Spirit is more excellent than all reason. For as God alone is a fit witness of himself in his Word, so also the Word will not find acceptance in men's hearts before it is sealed by the inward testimony of the Spirit. The same Spirit, therefore, who has spoken through the mouths of the prophets must penetrate into our hearts to persuade us that they faithfully proclaimed what had been divinely commanded. Isaiah very aptly expresses this connection in these words: "My Spirit which is in you, and the words that I have put in your mouth, and the mouths of your offspring, shal never fail" [Isa. 59:21p.]. Some good folk are annoyed that a clear proof is not ready at hand when the impious, unpunished, murmur against God's Word. As if the Spirit were not called both "seal" and "guarantee" [II Cor. 1:22] for confirming the faith of the godly; because until he illumines their minds, they ever waver among many doubts! (The Institutes, Book I, Ch. VII, Sec. 4b)

John Calvin on the Ethical Nature of Belief in God

Calvin affirms that all men have a knowledge of God, but that they do not respond properly to this knowledge. The sinful nature, which effects the intellect, is the source of unbelief, not a lack of information. Unbelievers know God exists. This reality also takes the gusto out of the argument of universalists or sycretists who argue their position based upon a vague notion of God found in various religions. Calvin writes:

Nevertheless, it is one thing to feel that God as our Maker supports us by his power, governs us by his providence, nourishes us by his goodness, and attends us with all sorts of blessings-and another thing to embrace the grace of reconciliation offered to us in Christ.

Further, he states,

Moreover, although our mind cannot apprehend God without rendering some honor to him, it will not suffice simply to hold that there is One whom all ought to honor and adore, unless we are also persuaded that he is the fountain of every good, and that we must seeking nothing elsewhere than in him [...] (Institutes Book I. Ch. II.i)

According to Calvin (and Paul in Romans 1), man does not have an intellectual problem, he has a moral problem with God. He knows who God is, as even the demons know God and tremble (James 2:19). We should not be surprised then that we see the knowledge of God in all men, and that often they may give themselves over to their better knowledge as they seek a benefit from doing so (ie to appease conscience, earn blessings, or be "moral"). The problem according to Scripture, as Calvin points out, is that men are "holding back" or suppressing the truth. They will not fully commit themselves to God because they do not trust in the goodness of God. Their unbelief is rooted in an implicit slander against God. It is founded in ungodliness and is strengthened by their unrighteousness. Calvin elaborates:

For until men recognize that they owe everything to God, that they are nourished by his fatherly care, that he is the Author of their every good, that they should seek nothing beyond him-they will never yield him willing service. Nay, unless they establish their complete happiness in him, they will never give themselves truly and sincerely to him. (Ibid)

If you examine the narrative of the fall, in Genesis 3, it is the goodness of God that Satan attacks in tempting Eve to turn from him and try and become god herself. Indeed, this noetic (or mental) effect of sin is implanted in all of us, unless the Holy Spirit regenerates us. That is why we grow in our sanctification as we come to find our joy in the goodness and grace of God. To hear this fleshed out further, check out this sermon on Genesis 3.

A Problem for Atheists and Agnostics

Greg Bahnsen, in discussions of epistemology, would often refer to his well-known "apple sorting machine" analogy. The analogy was between epistemology (how we know what we know) and the construction of a hypothetical machine designed to sort apples. It is very common to hear people claim that they do not have beliefs, or a worldview, but simply use method 'x' to sort out the facts and then come to conclusions. In Bahnsen's analogy, people's "neutral" epistemological methods would be compared to the apple sorting machine. Bahnsen would point out that in order to construct an apple sorting machine, one would first have to know something of what a good and bad apple consisted of, and then they would have to know how to tell them apart. Then the apple sorting machine could be designed. In the same way, in order for anyone to know true facts from false facts, they first have to know some general truths about what constitutes truth and a true fact. One would also need to know how to discern true facts from false facts. Then an epistemological methodology can be constructed to sort them. We have to know something general about what we know, before we can know how we know. We need an ontology (understanding of existence) before we can have an epistemology (an understanding of how/what particulars we can know about existence). The point being, that when people say they just use method "x" to know truth, they are not being honest. A worldview, which was ascertained by some means other than method "x," had to be in place first. This is an insightful analogy and it has many implications for discussions in apologetics. When it comes to method "x" as being the scientific method, Christians have been quick to point out that biblical presuppositions provide the worldview through which science is justified and the universe rendered intelligible. However I think this illustrates a much broader point, namely a problem that atheists and agnostics have in even speaking to the realm of theology. What do I mean?

Well, it isn't uncommon to hear self-identified atheists and agnostics make broad statements about the whole field of theology such as:

"If there was a God he would be *blank* and therefore we couldn't even know for certain"

or,

"If God existed the world would be like *this*, and it isn't, therefore there is no God."

But given their worldview, how can they know this? These are not naturalistic arguments, coming from a naturalistic worldview, they are actually theological arguments (and poor ones at that!). The problem here for the atheist/agnostic is one of epistemology. When they argue against theological knowledge, or the existence of God, they themselves are using theological arguments, or claiming to know about something they say is an impossibility. In other words, keeping in mind that ontology (knowledge of existence) precedes epistemology (how/what we can know); how can atheists/agnostics make knowledge claims, like those given above, about something that doesn't exist? They must either concede that they do have some knowledge of God, or the things of God, or they must admit that they simply can't say anything meaningful about a subject that "doesn't exist."

Some atheists are consistent here and will not make these kind of arguments. They will simply stick to their naturalistic presuppositions and try to argue that there is "no evidence" for a supernatural realm. However, it is not uncommon to hear atheists or agnostics go on the offensive by attacking the character of God, or by using the kind of sound bites listed above. If that is the case, the above criticism is valid.

I think therefore, I think?

In several discussions I've had with atheists, when the issue of epistemology comes up (I try to start with that subject), I have often heard them respond by parroting Descartes' "cogito ergo sum" (I think therefore I am). Supposedly Descartes' formula gives them a basis for knowledge apart from God or divine revelation. When pressed to give an account of what they know, or how they know, the answer is often, "well, I think therefore, I am, that's where I begin." This is convenient for the atheist, and for all unregenerate men, because it supposedly give sufficiency to the autonomous human intellect. Indeed, many have even argued that with Descartes' famous formula, the modern world, or at least modern thought, began. But is it really sufficient, and does it really provide the unbeliever with a basis for knowledge claims?

Well, actually. No.

I used to get stumped by this one, and would try to go the route that "I think therefore I am" is not sufficient to give us a basis for knowledge of the outside world, or the assumption that our cognitive abilities reflect or "image" the world around us accurately. Only the assumption of the image of God could get us there. That is still a valid argument, and useful in certain contexts, but it gives the unbeliever too much. What do I mean? Well, "I think therefore I am" is simply a deductive argument with the assumption that "I" exists, hidden in its premise. Christian philosophers like Soren Kierkegaard, and atheist philosophers like Bertrand Russel, pointed this out long ago. When Descartes said "I think," he already assumed 1) that he exists and 2) that he was the one doing the thinking. So to say "I think, therefore, I am" is similar to saying "all bachelors are unmarried." It tells us nothing new, and it certainly doesn't establish any basis for knowledge or knowledge of what exists through autonomous human reason. It merely assumes "I exist" and then smuggles that assumption into the premise and then the conclusion. If Descartes truly doubted everything he thought he knew in his meditations, he would have ended up simply with, "thoughts are occurring." That gets us nowhere, and it certainly establishes nothing about ontology (existence) or epistemology (knowledge). The title of this post is "I think therefore, I think?," but in reality it is more like, "there are thoughts, and so... yea?" Autonomous human reason fails here.

However, unbelievers know that they exist, they know that the world around them exists, and they know that their cognitive abilities can image the world around them, because ultimately they know God exists. But they know this in spite of their philosophy. In fact, their unbelief and commitment to independence from God distorts their thinking. This is why all lines of pagan thought and culture end in radical skepticism. That is why it is the Christian apologist's job to "push the antithesis," or to demonstrate that based upon their own premises, unbelievers can't know anything and they certainly cannot account for human experience. And actually, the more consistent unbelieving thought becomes, the easier it is to demonstrate the absurdity of it. Radical Skepticism's claims that "we can't know anything" is a direct violation of the law of non-contradiction. Do they know that they can't know anything?

Man was not created to reason autonomously, but analogically. We were created to "think God's thoughts after him." The quest for intellectual autonomy began not with Descartes but with the Serpent when he invited Eve to reason autonomously apart from God and His revelation. As I mentioned above, unbelievers know that God exists because He is actively revealing Himself to them, both in the depths of their own consciousness, as well as in the world around them. Paul says in Romans 1:18-20, "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifestin them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse." As Paul says, their problem is not intellectual but moral. They are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness. And when he says suppress, he means suppress. They are not willing to admit to themselves or to others that they know God, because they are committed to independence from Him and do not want to face up to their cosmic treason. Yet their thinking about the world will continue to exhibit features that demonstrate they know God's existence. You can only hold a beach ball under water for so long. With Descartes it was the sense of "I" or personal existence, that he smuggled in. With the atheists it is often their strong sense of morality or "logic" which contradicts, and certainly doesn't flow from, their self-identified worldview.

Apologetics is done effectively then, when we demonstrate the insufficiency and impossibility of autonomous human thinking, while also pointing out the evidences in the unbeliever's own experience that demonstrates that they know God exists. Furthermore, and most importantly, they have no certainty, which undermines all of their knowledge claims. Only God's spoken Word and Spirit provides certainty about God, the world, and human experience as well as a context through which they are to be understood. We begin with the self-contained Trinity's spoken Word, not man's word spoken to himself, which gets him nowhere.

So the best way to begin with a transcendental argument from epistemology, is to simply ask an unbeliever if they could be wrong about everything they claim to know. If they are honest they will answer yes. If that is true they have no certainty, and thus no knowledge, according to their worldview. Contrast that with the Christian worldview, which says there are certain things that we cannot be wrong about, because God has revealed them, such that we can be certain. To see a practical example of this check out this.