by Joseph E. Torres
Introduction
This conversation is excerpted and adapted from a message board discussion regarding theistic arguments. After I presented the transcendental argument for the existence of God [TAG], another participant [we’ll call him Tom] took issue with my argument.
Dialogue
Joe: The transcendental argument for the existence of God [TAG] is more than an argument for the existence of the triune God of Bible. It is actually an argument for the truth of the entire Christian worldview. As opposed to the traditional arguments, which tend to focus on God being the first cause, the grand designer, or the most perfect being, TAG argues that it is God who makes cause, purpose, design, morality, science, and logic even intelligible in the first place. Without this particular God, nothing is intelligible, meaningful, or valuable.
Tom: I read a small amount of each link you posted before I realized that it was all taken out of the Bible and put into some semi-scientific language, and presented as a model for the history of the universe and the physical world. You are under the impression that without God, there can be no basis for science or morals. Science is observation based on thorough mathematic deduction, which does not appear to require God. Moreover, arguing that morals cannot exist without God sounds like arguing that children who do not learn right from wrong from their parents can never learn right from wrong from anyone. But if one were to live by the law of reciprocity, one would lead a truly moral life without the need for deity. Likewise, the Ten Commandments were not the origin of moral reasoning; they just took common beliefs and put them in the form of a command from God so that they would receive more respect.
To be honest, the only book about Christianity I’ve dabbled in is the Bible, which is marginally factual at best. To believe in Jesus as the Son of God, the Lord and Savior, takes more than blind faith; it takes a blind eye to the process of logical deduction, the scientific process. There is no logical way, through direct or indirect observation, using sound scientific method, to deduce that Jesus Christ was in any way divine. It's just another part of another one of earth’s countless belief systems. It has no basis in fact, it is a belief.
Joe: Thanks, Tom, for your comments. But you seem to miss the transcendental thrust of my arguments. I’m not saying that people cannot live morally, cannot do science, and cannot think rationally if they’re not Christian. What I’m saying is that their worldview cannot account for it. It cannot explain why it is that we can do science. It cannot explain the laws of logic, or human dignity, or the authority of morality. Non-Christians do know, in their heart of hearts, that God exists. I am simply saying that they borrow Christian principles in order to argue against Christianity.
Your reasons for rejecting Christianity are not concrete. In fact, they make tons of assumptions that you are unable to justify. For example, you assume repeatedly that evolutionary theory has discredited the scientific respectability of Christianity. But, as I’ve mentioned earlier, science depends upon the inductive principle; that the future will be like the past. Science needs the uniformity of nature in order for it to proceed with repeatable observation. But science cannot prove induction (because it’s not observable); induction must be established on other grounds. So, on what grounds do you justify induction? According to Darwinism, the universe has no structure that governs exactly how things occur. In a reality of chance, why expect the future to be like the past? After all, anything is possible! Remember, that’s how Darwinists say the world came into being.
I have a question for you. Are you a materialist? Do you think that all that is real is physical? If so, how do you explain the existence of laws of logic? You’ve said many times that Christian belief is sub-rational. But, how do you explain laws of logic? Are they just rules agreed upon by a bunch of people? If they are, why ought we to follow them? If they’re not absolute, what’s the big deal if we think out of accord with them? On the other hand, if they are universal, and binding upon all minds, how do you explain them? Are they physical objects? Do they exist in space somewhere? Do they exist in a world of Platonic forms?
My challenge to you is to account for the uniformity of nature, the authoritative nature of moral absolutes, and laws of rational thinking on a materialistic account. Unless you can justify these things, then it is you, not I, that operates on blind faith.
From:
Reformed Perspectives Magazine, Volume 8, Number 12, March 19 to March 25, 2006
No comments:
Post a Comment