Let’s start with the assumption that I am right. This assumption really simplifies our conversations because in any circumstance in which you disagree with me, we know who is wrong. It is you. This seems like such a reasonable assumption to me that I am sure no one will disagree with it.
Yeah, I know that some of you will think, “That arrogant Morton guy is at it again”. But, such is the assumption made by an apologetical system called Reformed Presuppositional Apologetics. Here is what Alejandro Morrison says:
“It is not the case that the Christian is sure that Christianity is true, in the sense that he is the subject bringing about such certainty as a result of his action (i. e. his having faith or believing). Rather, the Christian is enlightened and assured of that truth by God. Certainty is not something that the autonomous fallen creature can bring about. This often leads nonbelievers into the path of skepticism - which is the most proper and sound conclusion for man when he foolishly attempts to be autonomous.” Alejandro Moreno Morrison, “The Role and Use of Evidence in Reformed Presupppositional Apologetics,” IIIM Magazine Online, Vol. 2, No. 37, Sept. 11 to Sept 17, 2000, part 1 http://www.thirdmill.org/files/english/html/pt/PT.h.Moreno.Evidence.1.html
My bolding. OK, so we can’t bring about certainty on our own. In some sense this is true, but if we can’t bring about certainty by believing something, then presuppositional logic itself if flawed. Logic brings certainty.
“The regenerated believer does not only know that Christianity is true (and in a qualitatively superior way than that in which even non-Christians know it), but he is also assured of it. The Christian’s assurance flows from the testimony of the Holy Spirit. It is not only that such testimony comes from such a reliable, utterly trustworthy source that we ought to trust it and that we cannot reasonably dismiss it. It is also that such assurance is the personal activity of an almighty God, who in giving his testimony is also dynamically involved in transforming the individual, reversing the noetic effects of sin in this fundamental area of our fallen beings so that his testimony is efficacious and irresistible.” Alejandro Moreno Morrison, “The Role and Use of Evidence in Reformed Presupppositional Apologetics,” IIIM Magazine Online, Vol. 2, No. 37, Sept. 11 to Sept 17, 2000, part 1 http://www.thirdmill.org/files/english/html/pt/PT.h.Moreno.Evidence.1.html
In other words, we start with the assumption that we are right and it is unreasonable to consider otherwise. Thus, this methodology would rule out comparison with other religions. We assume ourselves into success.
This view then brings about some really silly logical deductions:
“Reformed presuppositional apologetics is characterized by its contention that a Christian’s assured belief in the core of the Christian faith does not depend on evidence.” Alejandro Moreno Morrison, “The Role and Use of Evidence in Reformed Presupppositional Apologetics,” IIIM Magazine Online, Vol. 2, No. 37, Sept. 11 to Sept 17, 2000, part 1 http://www.thirdmill.org/files/english/html/pt/PT.h.Moreno.Evidence.1.html
OK, so the Christian assurance of the truth of Christianity does not depend upon the evidence seen in the empty tomb by the initial disciples? What an apologetical scheme! And of course, this statement would mean that our faith doesn’t depend in anyway upon the evidences of historical events contained in the Bible. This scheme is the ultimate in tautological thinking. This apologetical system starts with the assumption that we are right and we can’t be wrong.
Of course, this ignores the fact that other religions, like Tibetan Buddhists think they are right and we are wrong. So do Moslems.
Morrison further defines what a Christian does in this theory of apologetics:
“In contrast, the Christian has given up the arrogant pretension of being the supreme judge, the ultimate standard of what is rational and true, and has received humbly the certainty or assurance which God grants and of which man is incapable on his own.” Alejandro Moreno Morrison, “The Role and Use of Evidence in Reformed Presupppositional Apologetics,” IIIM Magazine Online, Vol. 2, No. 37, Sept. 11 to Sept 17, 2000, part 1 http://www.thirdmill.org/files/english/html/pt/PT.h.Moreno.Evidence.1.html
So much for science. So much for forensics. So much for criminal trials. So much for logic.
Morrison further says that because of this type of apologetics we don’t need to deal in evidence. Morrison is clearly a YEC based upon his anti-evolutionism and flood views expressed in this article. But his treatment of observation is amazingly like that of many OEC. One doesn’t need observational data to be true for the Bible to be true:
“This contribution has liberated the Christian believer from the tyrannical burden of the proof that evidentialism used to put on him. Yet the issue remains as to what is the role and use, if any, of evidence.” Alejandro Moreno Morrison, “The Role and Use of Evidence in Reformed Presupppositional Apologetics,” IIIM Magazine Online, Vol. 2, No. 37, Sept. 11 to Sept 17, 2000, part 1 http://www.thirdmill.org/files/english/html/pt/PT.h.Moreno.Evidence.1.html
Yeah, evidential proof is such a burden and Christians should not care if the evidence matches what he believes. He can just believe it anyway.
The more I have watched apologetics, the less respect I have for it. Both major apologetical approaches, YEC and accommodation play games where the apologist flees from evidence because he knows the evidence is devastating to his belief system. PRA shows how utterly similar are the YEC approaches and the OEC approaches. Both believe that one simply must believe the Bible.
"Ultimately, the reason Biblical creationists believe in a
young earth is because of Scripture--not evidences outside of
Scripture." Ken Ham, "Demolishing 'Straw men'," Creation Ex
Nihilo 19:4, (Sept-Nov. 1997), p. 14
This is PRA in action. But it isn’t different than what some on this list have said.. Consider this from Michael Roberts:
“The Comforter the Holy Spirit leads us into all truth we need about God and
the gospel, not about science.” http://www.asa3.org/archive/asa/200303/0227.html
Compare this with the second quote of Alejandro Morrison above. We don’t need no evidence to know that the Bible is true. How on earth does one determine self-delusion from the H. S.?
Tipler’s quote is one I love and have used it often:
"Of course, the real reason modern theologians want to keep
science divorced from religion is to retain some intellectual
territory forever protected from the advance of science. This
can only be done if the possibility of scientific investigation
of the subject matter is ruled out a priori. Theologians were
badly burned in the Copernican and Darwinian revolutions. Such a
strategy seriously underestimates the power of science, which is
continually solving problems philosophers and theologians have
decreed forever beyond the ability of science to solve."~Frank J.
Tipler, The Physics of Immortality, (New York: Doubleday, 1994),
But here is another quote I love from Tipler.
"Provine remarks, 'My observation is that the great majority
of modern evolutionary biologists are atheists or something very
close to that. Yet prominent atheistic or agnostic scientists
publically deny that there is any conflict between science and
religion. Rather than simple intellectual dishonesty, this
position is pragmatic. In the
Congress al proclaim to be religious; many scientists believe
that funding for science might suffer if the atheistic
implications of modern science were widely understood.'
Provine's opinion is confirmed by Steven Weinberg's 1987
congressional testimony asking for money to build the SSC, a $10
billion device to be constructed in
been cut off.) A congressman asked Weinberg if the SSC would
enable us to find God, and Weinberg declined to answer. But
eventually the atheistic implications of modern science will be
understood by the general public, who will themselves become
atheists. The majority of Western Europeans and a large minority
of Americans have already become effective atheists: they rarely
if ever go to any church, and a belief in God plays no role in
their daily lives. The evidence is clear and unequivocal: if
scientists have no need of the God hypothesis, neither will
anyone else. Were theologians to succeed in their attempt to
strictly separate science and religion, they would kill religion.
Theology simply must become a branch of physics if it is to
survive. That even theologians are slowly becoming effective
atheists has been documented by the American philosopher Thomas
Sheehan."~Frank J. Tipler, The Physics of Immortality, (
Doubleday, 1994), p. 9-10
Having had many wonderful email exchanges with Wil, who I would call a friend, I think he is more honest than many on this list about the vital need for religion to be real. And so is Tipler. If all religion teaches is warm fuzzy subjective feelings, then it will have little meaning to many people. The reason YEC is winning (temporarily) is that the laity do not want to accept that that is all religion teaches. Thus they flee out of the churches which teach that the Bible really doesn’t tell us anything about reality and go to the only people telling them the Bible is real—the YECs.
And now we have PRA tell us that we don’t need no stinkin evidence anyway, not even for Christianity to be true. How do we achieve this amazing result? By assuming that we are right in the first place which is an amazing begging of the question.
Indeed it really tells us we need no apologetics:
“If, as noted above, the Word of God is self-attested, it does not call for further “strengthening,” “support” or positive proof.” Alejandro Moreno Morrison, “The Role and Use of Evidence in Reformed Presupppositional Apologetics,” IIIM Magazine Online, Vol. 2, No. 37, Sept. 11 to Sept 17, 2000, part 1 http://www.thirdmill.org/files/english/html/pt/PT.h.Moreno.Evidence.1.html
I am utterly amazed that people fall for such stupid logic. Sorry to be harsh, but this is really stupid logic! (wanna know what I really thing?) I simply can not and will not engage in such illogical/irrational behavior in the service of apologetics. If we have to assume our way to certainty, that is no certainty at all. If our assumption is wrong, then we have no real certainty.
And such an apologetical basis simply makes Christianity look utterly stupid (I love the way the Brits say it –steupid) No wonder
I would ask this distinguished board if they really think this is a good approach when one is faced with other religions and other religionists who are quite dedicated to their belief system?
So, to you Michael Roberts, why can’t a Mormon assume that he is right, as you do and thus then proclaim that his religion is true in spite of the utter nonsense it teaches about North American archaeology?. Why can’t a great green sluggist do the same. Why can’t a Tibetan do the same or a Moslem, a Parsee or any other religion? Why do they not have the right to engage in the same steupid self-delusional game? That is at base what the question I have been asking you anyway. To proclaim something true, which is clearly false, is to assume one is right and look utterly steupid to boot!
I think you merely assume your way to success and are unwilling to acknowledge it.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Jun 02 2006 - 22:42:37 EDT