Introduction
1) Through our studies we have attempted to show that everyone has a world view
and it is through their world view that they interpret evidence.
2) It is the aim in this study to try and answer the following questions.
A) Is it really necessary to have an ultimate standard?
B) Can we interpret the evidence in an objective and neutral way?
C) If we use the Bible in our defense of the Bible, does this constitute
circular reasoning?
D) How would people have defended the Biblical world view before the
Bible was written?
E) Is their a place for faith in apologetics, or is it all about reason?
3) Throughout our studies, we have tried to show that it is only the consistent
Christian world view that makes sense of reality.
A) It is the only world view that can account for the preconditions of
Intelligibility.
B) It is the only world view that is non arbitrary
C) It is the only world view that is consistent.
4) With these thoughts in mind we now turn to our ultimate standard. We will
attempt to show that it is the correct ultimate standard by which the evidence
must be interpreted through.
I) The Necessity of an Ultimate Standard
1) There is a story about a little old lady who challenged a scientist on the nature of
the earth. The scientist had just given a lecture on astronomy, talking about the
roundness of the earth and how it orbits the sun and so on. The lady challenged
the scientist after his presentation. She told the scientist that his lecture was
incorrect. She stated that the earth was flat and that it was supported on the
back of a giant tortoise.
2) The scientist replied “What is the tortoise standing on?” Obviously, it would have
to rest upon something, another tortoise perhaps? And that would have to rest
upon another. He had her.
3) She was not swayed in the lest bit. Her reply was, “You’re a very clever young
man, but it’s no use. It’s turtle all the way down!”
4) Beliefs are much like the turtles in the lady’s view of the earth.
A) Our beliefs are supported by other beliefs, which are supported by other
beliefs, which are supported by still other beliefs.
B) Is there an ultimate standard, or is it just turtles all the way down.
C) Is there a belief that is foundational for all other beliefs?
5) Many suppose that an ultimate standard is just for the religiously minded.
A) This is a correct view
B) Almost all religions have what they consider an ultimate standard
C) A belief that is foundational to all others
D) It is a faith commitment
6) Many people feel that they themselves do not have an ultimate standard, or
a faith commitment of any kind.
A) They believe that their perceptions of the world are objective, neutral,
and not dependent on any ultimate standard.
B) Of course, this idea is itself a belief about the world through which
all other observations are interpreted.
C) So the belief that there is no ultimate standard turns out to be an
ultimate standard itself.
D) We studied about the pretend neutrality fallacy in our second study of
this series and that it is impossible for someone to have a neutral
world view. I suggest that you reread that study to help understand
this concept.
7) The chain of reasoning
A) To help us better understand that everyone has a faith commitment of
some kind, we must understand the chain of reasoning that we all use when
our beliefs are challenged.
B) For any belief that a person has (p), we can always ask, “How do you
know that to be true?”
C) The person will then supply an argument that supports that belief. In
their argument, the person will appeal to another proposition (q) that
they feel supports their conclusion (p).
D) But since they have appealed to another proposition (q), we now ask
the question, “How do you know that q is true?”
E) In their defense of q, they will appeal to yet another proposition (r),
in which we can again ask them, “How do you know that r is true?”
leading them to suggest another proposition (s), and so on.
F) Here is the important part to understand, ULTIMATELY, any such
chain of reasoning must come to an end. It MUST terminate in an
ultimate standard, let’s call it (t).
8) Why must the chain end?
A) If it does not end then it goes on forever.
B) If it goes on forever, then the argument could never be completed.
C) But an incomplete argument does not prove anything.
D) We cannot know an infinite number of things anyway
E) All chains of reasoning must be finite.
F) Since this is the case, everyone must have an ultimate standard: a
proposition (upon which all others depend) that cannot be proved
from a more foundational proposition.
G) This is the case with all people, whether they realize it or not.
9) The “Killer Question”
A) Now we must ask, “How do you know that your ultimate standard (t)
is true?”
B) There are 3 bad answers to this question and one good one.
C) The first bad answer is this, “I know t is true because it follows logically
from u.” They are appealing to a higher standard.
1) If this is the case, then t really is not the ultimate standard.
2) It is not the most foundational proposition.
3) It can not be if it follows from something else.
4) Anyone responding in such a way has not understood the nature
of an ultimate standard.
D) A person may try to appeal to a lesser standard
1) “I know t is true because it implies s (where s is claimed to be true
because it follows from t).
2) This type of reasoning commits the fallacy of begging the question.
3) Since s is only necessarily true if t is, the person is essentially
arguing that t is true because t is true.
4) When restated, this argument commits the fallacy of affirming the
consequent (1. If t then s. 2. S. 3. Therefore t).
5) One cannot prove an ultimate standard in this way, so this response
also fails.
E) Being arbitrary
1) “I guess I can’t actually prove my ultimate standard. I accept it
as a presupposition.”
2) Granted, by their very nature, presuppositions must be accepted
before they can be proved,
3) But if they cannot (eventually) be proven, then they are arbitrary
and thus irrational.
4) In fact, if a person’s ultimate standard cannot pe proven, then that
person does not actually know anything. Here’s why.
F) Reductio ad absurdum
1) We can argue that we know p is true because if follows from q, which
follows from r, and so on, all the way back to our ultimate standard (t)
2) So, all these propositions (p,q,r, and s) depend upon the truth of t.
3) Therefore, if t is not known to be true, then neither can we know that p, q, r, and s are true.
4) Remember, that in order to know something, we must have a reason
for it. But if there is no good reason to believe t, then there is no good
reason to believe p, q, r, or s since these all depend upon t.
5) Since all beliefs are dependent through a chain of reasoning upon a
person’s ultimate standard, if the ultimate standard is not known to be
true (i.e. provable), then one cannot actually know anything whatsoever
6) Of course, some of the person’s beliefs may be true, but they cannot be
known to be true.
G) So we have established the following
1) Everyone must have an ultimate standard
2) An ultimate standard cannot be proven from another standard.
3) An ultimate standard cannot be merely assumed.
4) This leaves us with only one possible answer to the question of
how an ultimate standard is to be proved.
5) It must prove itself.
a) It must be self attesting
b) It must provide criteria for what is to be considered true.
c) It must provide criteria by which all claims are judged,
including the ultimate standard itself.
H) Are we arguing in a circle?
1) If an ultimate standard must prove itself, then we are of necessity
engaging in circular reasoning.
2) This will be a crucial objection when first encountered
3) When we discuss logical fallacies, we will look more in depth
at this, but for now, I will just say that all circular reasoning is
not fallacious in nature.
4) We cannot just merely assume what we are trying to prove.
5) We cannot merely say that “t is true because t is true.”
6) Yet we are forced into the seemingly strange yet inevitable conclusion
that we must somehow use our ultimate standard to prove our ultimate
standard.
II) Circular Reasoning
1) There are two things that we need to remember about circular reasoning when it
comes to an ultimate standard
A) It is absolutely unavoidable
B) It is not necessarily fallacious
2) Absolutely unavoidable
A) Some degree of circular reasoning is unavoidable when proving an ultimate
standard
B) This follows from what we have already established: an ultimate standard
cannot be proven from anything else, otherwise it would not be ultimate.
C) Therefore, if it is to be proven, it must use itself as the criterion.
D) God Himself uses circular reasoning when He makes an oath
1) We as humans must appeal to a greater authority as confirmation
of an oath (Heb. 6:16)
2) But since God is ultimate, He can only use Himself as the authority
(Heb. 6:13).
E) Clearly some degree of circular reasoning is inevitable when it comes to
proving an ultimate authority.
3) Not necessarily fallacious
A) Circular reasoning is not actually invalid
1) The construction of the argument can be such that it is perfectly
valid.
2) It is normally considered to be fallacious be cause it is arbitrary
B) But what if it were not arbitrary?
C) What if the argument went beyond a mere circle, and used other information
to support the conclusion?
D) What if we found after making an assumption that we had good reasons for
it?
E) This would be perfectly legitimate
4) All presuppositions must use itself
A) All presuppositions must use itself as part of its own proof.
B) Some degree of circular reasoning is involved
C) But we need to remember that it must not be a vicious circle.
D) Consider this proof for the laws of logic
1) If there were no laws of logic, we could not make an argument
2) We can make an argument
3) Therefore, there must be laws of logic
E) This argument is perfectly valid
1) It is the modus tollens syllogism or denying the consequent
2) The premises are true, so it is a good argument
3) Yet we can see that it is subtly circular in nature
4) We have assumed that there are laws of logic
5) The modus tollens is a law of logic and we have used it as part
of the proof that there are laws of logic
6) In this case we have no choice in the matter
a) We must presuppose that laws of logic exist in this
argument.
b) If we did not then the argument would not even get started.
F) However, this argument does not merely assume what it is trying to prove
1) Notice that it imports additional information to support its
conclusion
2) The additional information is the addition of “we could not make
an argument.”
G) What really makes this a good argument is that in order to refute it the
person would have to use the laws of logic in their rebuttal.
H) This is a great way to show that a particular presupposition must be true
because one would have to assume that the presupposition is true even to
argue against it.
I) An argument that proves a precondition of intelligibility in this way is called
a Transcendental Argument.
5) The Christians ultimate standard
A) Our ultimate standard is much the same way.
B) Any attempt to refute the Bible must first assume that the Bible is true
in order to get started since it is only the Bible that gives use a reason
to assume that there are laws of logic.
C) The Bible not only provides criteria for itself, as we have studied
D) It also does so for all other facts of reality
1) It gives us a foundation for rational reasoning, God
2) It gives us a foundation for science
3) It gives us a foundation for morality
4) It gives us a foundation for the reliability of our senses and memory
5) It gives us a foundation for why we should not be arbitrary
( because God is not and we should imitate Him, Eph. 5:1)
E) The Bible passes its own criteria for truth
1) It is consistent
2) It is non-contradictory
3) It is non-arbitrary
F) It alone provides criteria for all of reality
G) The Christian circle is not a vicious circle, but one that can account for all
human experience and reasoning.
H) As with the argument for the laws of logic, any attempted rebuttal would
be self-refuting since it would have to use things like laws of logic, the charge
to be consistent, and so on that presuppose the Christian world view.
6) Proverbs 1:7
A) “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise
wisdom and instruction.”
B) We can either start with God and His presuppositions (as revealed in His
word), or we can reject them and be reduced to being fools.
C) The Christian claim is not a vicious circle.
1) We are not simply saying “The Bible must be the Word of God
because it says it is.”
2) Rather, we are saying “The Bible must be true the Word of God because
it says it is AND if you reject this claim you are reduced to foolishness”
3) This moves beyond a simple circle of reasoning.
4) Just like laws of logic, the Bible must be true because if it were not so
we could not prove anything.
III) Impossibility of the Contrary
1) An ultimate standard must do more than simply prove itself. It must provide a basis
for proving absolutely everything that is knowable.
2)The Christian world view is the ONLY world view that can accomplish this
3) No other world view can. They brake down into one or more of the following
A) They are self-refuting
B) They are inconsistent
C) Cannot provide a basis for the preconditions of intelligibility
D) They have tensions within there metaphysical, epistemological, and ethical
beliefs
4) Examples of
A) Empiricism
1) Is empiricism self- attesting?
2) No, if all knowledge is gained by observation then we could never
know that empiricism is true since we cannot see knowledge
3) If empiricism would be shown to be true, then it would be false
4) It is self-refuting in nature, there by it does not pass the test.
B) Materialism
1) This is the belief that all that exists is matter in motion
2) Is materialism self-attesting?
3) No, we could never prove that materialism is true by its own
standard, since we would have to use laws of logic, which are
needed to prove anything, which are not material in nature and
thus cannot exist in a materialistic universe.
4) It does not pass the test
C) Relativism
1) Moral relativism
a) We have looked at this in a previous study
b) The problem is in the fact that no one can live by its
dictates.
2) Truth relativism
a) This is the belief that there is no absolute truth
b) The claim is made that “There is no absolute truth”
c) This basic claim is self-refuting in the fact that it is an
absolute truth claim.
D) Atheism
1) The belief that there is no God or gods
2) Since they do not believe in anything supernatural, they must of
necessity believe in naturalism or materialism.
3) But these beliefs are not self-attesting and do not account for the
preconditions of intelligibility.
4) Atheism leads to the absurd conclusion that we cannot know anything
about reality
E) Deism
1) This is the belief in a god and that this god created the universe and
all the laws of nature and then left the universe to do as it may
2) Again this view cannot account for the uniformity of nature, the laws
of logic, the reliability of our senses, etc...
3) They can try and invoke that their god made these things and that is
why they exist, yet this is just merely an opinion.
4) They cannot provide an explanation besides “this is what I believe”
5) There are many more examples that we could cover, I believe that these are the major
ones that we will encounter.
6) Any “ism” that a person holds to can be shown to be incorrect. It is only the Christian
world view that has the ability to answer the questions about reality without any type
of inconsistency, self-refutation, or arbitrariness.
7) The real question that must be asked is this “Which world view uses some degree of
circular reasoning and is able to do so successfully?
A) It is only the Christian world view
B) It is able to authorize itself
C) It also provides criteria for everything else
D) It also provides us with the explanation as to why all people expect everyone
else to be consistent
1) A clever unbeliever should respond “No, no. I’m not going to be
consistent. That is a Biblical standard”
2) Or “No, no. I’m not going to have reasons for what I believe. That’s
a Biblical concept.”
3) Yet, no one thinks to argue in such a manner, and the Christian
world view is able to answer this question.
4) Everyone, whether they believe or not is made in the image of God
a) They know God within their hearts
b) God has built into everyone the knowledge that we should
be consistent, non-arbitrary, rational, moral persons.
c) Try as they might, no one can escape this principle.
d) We must live in God’s universe and therefore must accept God’s
presuppositions in order to function.
e) People can deny God’s existence, but they cannot escape it.
IV) Defending the Bible Before the Bible was Written
1) What about those who lived before the Bible was written?
2) Would they have been able to have a rational world view?
3) How could they defend the Biblical world view before the Bible was written?
4) These are a few questions that the critic may ask us so it will help to look at them
5) We must always remember the nature of the argument that we are presenting
A) It is not that people must profess the Bible or even to read it to be rational
B) The argument is that the Bible must be true in order for rationality to be
possible.
C) It is only the Biblical world view that can make sense of rationality, morality,
and science.
D) The Biblical world view has always been true, even before the Bible that
articulates this view was inscribed.
6) We must also remember that even though we have not always had the Bible, people
have always had special revelation from God.
A) God talked to Adam directly (Gen 2:16&17)
1) Adam passed on what he learned directly about God to his children
and grandchildren (Gen 4).
2) Adam lived for many years and would have passed his knowledge
about God to his decedents.
3) Also it seems that books were being written at this time (Gen. 5:1)
B) So people have had knowledge of the Biblical God and Biblical creation
from the very beginning.
C) Through out time God has continued to reveal Himself to mankind through
the prophets (II Peter 1:21)
7) People have always had access to God’s special revelation, even long before the Bible
was completed. Therefore, people have always had a foundation for rationality,
science, and morality.
8) At any point in history, people could have used the argument that we have been
discussing, of course they would have used different illustrations that were suitable
to their culture.
9) Yet, now we have God’s completed revelation. Therefore it is much easier for us to
defend the faith.
V) The Place of Faith
1) What is the place of faith in apologetics?
2) Since we have a proof of the Christian world view, do we really need faith?
3) What is the relationship between faith and reason?
4) In this part of our study, we will deal with these questions and find out that faith is
absolutely necessary to our apologetic. It is a prerequisite for logical reasoning, and
to come to a knowledge of truth and reality.
5) The Critics
A) Many who would be critical of the Christian faith have a misconception of
what faith really is. They think that the Christian lives in two worlds.
1) The world of faith which we use to make moral decisions of when we
talk about religious things.
2) The world of reason when it comes to practical matters.
B) They also consider faith to be contrary to reason and therefore erroneously
consider those of faith to be irrational and that we believe in absurd things.
6) This conception is not Biblical or reasonable to conclude
A) According to Heb. 11:1, faith involves a confidence in things that are not
seen.
B) Therefore, when anyone believes in something that they have not perceived
with their senses, they are acting on a type of faith.
1) Laws of logic cannot be perceived by the senses, so faith is involved
whenever someone trusts in the laws of logic.
2) Therefore, all logical reasoning presupposes some type of faith.
C) But not all faiths are equal in nature
1) Only faith in the Bible, God’s Word, as our ultimate standard will
result in a coherent world view that can make sense of human
experience and reasoning.
2) As we have shown throughout this series of studies, any other
world view cannot do this.
7) Faith not antagonistic to reason
A) Biblical faith is required to reasoning.
B) On must believe in order to understand
1) Proverbs 1:7, “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge:
but fools despise wisdom and instruction.”
2) Faith must come first, we need certain presuppositions in order to
even begin to reason.
3) We must first believe that there are laws of logic before we can
argue for them logically.
4) We must first have faith that our senses are reliable before we can
even begin to read the Bible.
5) But, when we do read the Bible, we find that we have a good reason
to believe that our senses are reliable and our faith is JUSTIFIED.
6) Also, God is an infinite being while we are finite.
a) We can only obtain a limited understanding of reality and
truth. We can never have an infinite knowledge of anything.
b) God has infinite knowledge of all things.
c) John 8:31&32 tells us that we can know the truth.
d) Therefore, we have a good reason to know that our faith is
correct because the one with infinite knowledge has revealed
this to us in His word.
C) Without faith in the Bible, we have no justification for the presuppositions
that we all make.
Conclusion
1) Since everyone has an ultimate standard in which they interpret the evidence, the
question that must be answered is simple, which is the correct world view.
2) It is only the Christian world view that can make sense of reality.
3) The Christian world view is the only on that is self-attesting, non-contradictory,
and provides justification for the presuppositions that we all make.
4) Therefore the Christian world view is the correct world view.
No comments:
Post a Comment