RSS

Category Archives: Apologetics

A self-supporting island floating on a shoreless sea

But what does it mean to show us what the metaphysical traits of “being” really are, when, admittedly, nothing can be said about these traits? And are we not supposed to be done with metaphysical traits and with a “being” of which no one can say anything? It were better if Wittgenstein had included science as well as metaphysics when he said, “Wovon man nicht kann sprechen, daruber soll man schweigen.” Modern science has imposed silence upon God but in doing so, it was compelled to impose silence on itself. Modern science boldly asks for a criterion of meaning when one speaks to him of Christ. He assumes that he himself has a criterion, a principle of verification and of falsification, by which he can establish for himself a self-supporting island floating on a shoreless sea. But when he is asked to show his criterion as it functions in experience, every fact is indeterminate, lost in darkness; no one can identify a single fact, and all logic is like a sun that is always behind the clouds.

Cornelius Van Til, Christian Theistic Evidences

Advertisements
 
Comments Off on A self-supporting island floating on a shoreless sea

Posted by on April 28, 2011 in Apologetics, From my reading

 

Craig vs. Harris

If you’re at all interested in the question of God’s existence, I commend to you the listening of this debate. Craig does great work here, especially given the limits of the debate topic.

Particularly interesting, from my perspective, is Harris’s attempt to deny a distinction between facts and values. His intent is to contend that science can speak to values, because no scientific endeavor is free of value judgments. I’m inclined to think that he’s right, but with with consequences that he doesn’t wish to acknowledge. Rather than giving science autonomy in the realm of morals, I think the abolishment of a fact-value distinction shows that science is itself a value-laden enterprise, and that such values are, given scientism, epistemically unjustified. Science, given a scientific worldview, is without foundation.

Anyway, go listen to the debate.

 
Comments Off on Craig vs. Harris

Posted by on April 13, 2011 in Apologetics

 

Logic and Existence

Seeking a bit of input here. Consider the following scale of possible claims:

    1. God does not exist.
    2. It is irrational to believe that God exists.
    3. You are within your rational rights to believe in God.
    4. Rationality demands belief in God.
    5. God exists.

Which of those claims do you think we can prove? And, my bigger question: is there any gap between claims 4 and 5 (or between 1 and 2, for that matter)? In other words, if you prove 4, have you proved 5? If you haven’t, why not?

 
4 Comments

Posted by on October 18, 2010 in Apologetics

 

Transcendental argumentation

For those interested: I’m currently involved in a discussion on the validity of the transcendental argument for God’s existence over here.

 
Comments Off on Transcendental argumentation

Posted by on May 1, 2010 in Apologetics, Random links

 

Some thoughts on Collision

A couple of days ago, I received my copy of the new movie Collision from Amazon. I’ve had a chance now to watch it through twice, and thought I’d offer a few observations.

I must acknowledge at the outset that I know almost nothing about the art of film making; my thoughts about the form of the film, then, are simply my opinion. And, in my opinion, some parts of the production are simply laughable. One reviewer on Amazon said it well:

The real problem of this documentary is not the subject matter or the debaters themselves, but rather the directing and editing. I was fantastically annoyed by the insane cuts, extreme camera angles, and amateur effects added to this film. Everything from grayscale to film grain effects are added as if to jazz it all up. As if the filmmaker thought that people just weren’t going to be entertained enough by the debates.

Picture a professional and respectful debate filmed like a motocross race.

The most preposterous moment in the whole film was near the end, where Hitchens and Wilson depart a plane, and the scene is filmed like one of the thousands of rap music videos circulating out there. Slow motion. Black and white. Hip hop music playing in the background. Modern editing. It was absolutely absurd. It was as if the creators had no real respect for the subject matter. The director and editor should never be allowed near a studio ever again. Never. Ever.

I suppose the hip hop and the rough edits and such are intended to highlight the “collision” of worldviews taking place in the debates; of the few words that I could pick out of the rap song accompanying one montage, most were about .38s and bazookas and such. Whatever.

Other editorial choices are equally pointless: during the Westminster debate, one of Wilson’s replies is set over some sort of twangy folk/country music, which tends to trivialize his point (if not his person). There’s also a sequence in which the monks begin chanting (actually, I listen to a lot of music like that); the effect (what with the accompanying out-of-focus flashbacks) is a sort of dream sequence. I don’t get it.

The overuse of subtitles is also an irritant; I guess it makes sense on some occasions when Wilson and Hitchens are in a bar and the ambient noise makes understanding them difficult. But on the whole, it seems that far too much of Hitchens’s dialog is transcribed for us; I understand that he’s British and all, but if I were Hitchens, I would likely be insulted by the suggestion that my speech is incomprehensible.

But maybe I’m being nitpicky now.

One last comment before getting to the substance of the debate itself: for those believers who are interested in watching this for edification, you will encounter a handful of profanities, one uttered each by Wilson and by Hitchens (and both of the stronger variety), as well as a few more in the lyrics of the rap. Wilson gives an explanation for his employment of the expletive here; I get what he’s done and why he did it, and I think his comment is a very fair summary of a consistently unbelieving worldview. I still wouldn’t have said it, but that is an issue for another series of posts (or just go read Phil Johnson).

In my estimation, the nature of a consistently unbelieving worldview is the heart of the whole movie. While some other issues arise throughout the debates, the central question that Wilson asks Hitchens is this: given an atheistic universe, what is the basis for any moral judgments whatsoever? In my understanding of the apologetics, something like this question is the apologetic point; an unbelieving worldview does not provide justification for any ought (and there are epistemic, moral, and aesthetic oughts).

However, it seems to me that, at least in the movie, Hitchens and Wilson never really have this conversation in such a way that I was convinced that they are talking about the same issue. Wilson does his best to assure Hitchens that the atheist is completely capable of two things: seeing a difference between good and evil, and doing good things. In fact, Wilson (rightly) concedes that in some cases, the atheist trumps the Christian in both categories. What Wilson wants Hitchens to do, however, is to explain how such moral standards actually obtain the force of being standards, moral obligations, in an atheistic universe.

Unfortunately, for the vast majority of the movie (including the climax in the bar in Washington, D.C.), it doesn’t seem that Hitchens gets Wilson’s point. Hitchens continues to assert that the atheist is perfectly able to determine, for instance, that kicking a pregnant women is repugnant, and that he can do so without recourse to religion. (Wilson is dead right, at this point, to turn the discussion to abortion.) But Hitchens’s protest is an exercise in missing the point; the atheist can assert that such an action is wrong, and can feel deeply troubled about it, but if the universe ultimately doesn’t care, neither that action nor any other action have any meaning or significance whatsoever.

When Hitchens is on topic, his only answer is that “human solidarity” provides the basis for ethics. He would draw parallels to other advanced species, who have adapted to living in some form of communities; such species also develop “rules” for living together, for the good of the herd. Even granting Hitchens the evolutionary premise of his argument here, I find his answer ultimately futile; the animal that attacks and kills one of his own clan, is he rightly considered evil? If not, it doesn’t seem that the evolutionary model of morality shows much promise.

For Christians, I think the movie is instructive and useful; it is more attention-grabbing (but less useful pedagogically) than the justly-famed Bahnsen/Stein debate. For those interested in apologetics, it is worth a few viewings, if for no other reason than to increase one’s copiousness (a great concept from Wilson).

 
Comments Off on Some thoughts on Collision

Posted by on November 6, 2009 in Apologetics, Theology