1. If God does not exist, there are no objective, culture-transcending moral duties.

2. There are objective, culture-transcending moral duties.

3. Therefore, God exists.

Anderson then notes:

The argument doesn’t appear to be circular in that question-begging way. After all, there are many atheists who accept that there are objective moral duties (and plenty more who argue as though there are). Furthermore, a number of atheist philosophers have agreed with the first premise of the argument.

This raises a further question and invites a further refinement of our criteria for proofs. If atheists have granted both premises of the argument, and they recognize that the argument is logically valid, why don’t they accept the conclusion that God exists? The short answer is that few atheists would affirm both premises. Those who affirm premise one will typically deny premise two, and vice versa. The explanation for this, of course, is that anyone who accepts both premises is logically committed to the conclusion—and most atheists simply don’t want to accept the conclusion.

This particular point, I believe, is well-worth expanding on and repeating.

There are atheists who agree with either of the first two premises. This puts the argument in a very interesting place, and I think it makes it a very powerful argument. In a way, it is like arguing:

i) A = C
ii) B = C
iii) Therefore A = C.

Suppose that there were a group of people that disagreed with iii). These people would have to deny either i) or ii). Yet some of this group affirms i) and others of this group affirm ii). The only thing this group agrees on is that iii) is wrong.

That is essentially where the atheists are in the above example Anderson gives us. If we have atheists agreeing on each premise (though, obviously, not both at the same time), then that means that each premise by itself is not problematic even on atheistic grounds. They only become problematic for the atheist when both are affirmed. Yet there is enough evidence to convince some atheists that premise 1 is valid, and other atheists that premise 2 is valid.

Overall, therefore, it appears that there is sufficient evidence for the theist to conclude the question of the existence of God in the affirmative. We can use the evidence Atheist A uses for premise 1 and add it to the evidence that Atheist B uses for premise 2, agree with both, and affirm the conclusion. This presents the theist no problems at all. In fact, it would serve to put even more pressure on the atheist to demonstrate why he does not accept evidence for the premise he disagrees with, given that others who deny the existence of God affirm what they reject.

Seen in this light, the argument Anderson put forth truly is a remarkable apologetic affirming the existence of God.

Mormons often appeal to the emotional aspect of religion. In order to persuade Christians to become Mormons, they sometimes ask for the potential convert to try the test that Joseph Smith penned at the end of The Book of Mormon. In Moroni (the last book of the Book of Mormon), we read the following:

And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost. And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things (Moroni 10:4-5).

A Mormon will, therefore, implore you to pray and ask God to reveal if these things are indeed true.

What is the problem with this? Doesn’t it seem like a reasonable thing to do, given that Christians are supposed to pray?

This technique has several problems, however. First, God has already given us revelation concerning who He is, and what He desires. The Bible is a sufficient and full guide for us. The Book of Mormon has made claims that directly contradict the Scriptures we already have, and then asks us to pray that God will reveal which is correct and which is not. But God already has revealed which is correct and which is not; namely, anything that contradicts Scripture is already not of God! There is, therefore, no need to pray that God will give you a special feeling so as to determine whether or not the Book of Mormon is valid. God already has given us Truth, and the Book of Mormon contradicts that.

You see, the Book of Mormon asserts that God will grant you knowledge that the Book of Mormon is true; but there is nothing outside of the Book of Mormon that says this is true. The moment that you pray the prayer, you have already assumed the Book of Mormon to be correct, and therefore assumed the Bible to be wrong. There is no actual testing involved, because it is already assumed that God will respond to such a prayer even though God Himself has never stated that He would answer that prayer. There is no reason, other than what is given in the Book of Mormon, to assume that God would answer such a prayer in the first place. Praying the prayer, in other words, is not a valid test of the Book of Mormon because one must already believe the Book of Mormon in order to do this test.

But there is another secondary issue that is hardly ever brought up. If you do pray this prayer and find that God has not revealed the Book of Mormon to be true, then the Mormon will simply say that you did not pray in faith. He would say that you did not approach with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ. But this is begging the question. You see, the way the Mormon has posed this test presupposes that the Book of Mormon is already true. In other words, the claim is that if you pray and God gives you a feeling of warm, fuzzy satisfaction, then Mormonism is right; but if God gives you a feeling that the Book of Mormon is wrong, then you do not have faith and therefore are unable to understand these things anyway.

Indeed, we read in previously in Moroni,

For behold, God hath said a man being evil cannot do that which is good; for if he offereth a gift, or prayeth unto God, except he shall do it with real intent it profiteth him nothing. For behold, it is not counted unto him for righteousness. For behold, if a man being evil giveth a gift, he doeth it grudgingly; wherefore it is counted unto him the same as if he had retrained the gift; wherefore he is counted evil before God. …Wherefore, a man being evil cannot do that which is good; neither will he give a good gift (Moroni 7:7-8, 10).

The challenge the Mormon gives is not a valid one to begin with. Regardless of what happens, the Mormon will say that he is proven right. Something that proves too much really proves nothing, and such is the case here.

To be sure, some Mormons have prayed that God show them whether or not the Book of Mormon is true and have indeed gotten a feeling that it is. However, the simple truth of the matter is that such a feeling doesn’t have to have come from God. Satan can produce a warm feeling in a person. He can make a person feel happy and pleased with something. Satan will do as much as he can to deceive people into thinking they are safe when they are not. He can appear as an angel of light, and he can appear in a vision pointing to another demon saying, “This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!” (Although, of course, I believe the evidence is strong that Joseph Smith was a conman who didn’t believe his own “revelation” anyway). Satan can even produce some false miracles. He can make you feel warm and fuzzy on the inside, if God allows him to do so. And why wouldn’t God allow him to if you already doubt God’s given revelation?

But the final straw for the Mormon position comes from the simple fact that they themselves do not actually believe anything because of a feeling that God has given them. We all know that feelings do not prove anything at all. It is simple to prove, even to a Mormon. Suppose a scantily clad woman walked up to a Mormon male and said, “God told me I was supposed to sleep with you. He said for you to pray and He would tell you if it was wrong.”

Let us suppose that the Mormon did pause and pray that God would give him a sign if he was supposed to have an affair with this woman. Suppose that he got a warm, fuzzy feeling on the inside and decided that God did want him to sleep with the woman. Would that make the affair moral for the Mormon?

Adultery is wrong, and Mormons and Christians agree on this principal. There is never an instance where God says, “I command you to commit adultery.” No Mormon bishop would allow people under his care to be persuaded by the argument that the woman was presenting.

What is the difference, therefore, between a woman coming up and offering her body and asking you to pray whether or not you should accept her offer and a man coming up, offering false doctrine, and asking you to pray whether or not you should accept? In both cases, God has already spoken as to what the moral response is. Any prayer that you give need not be answered, because it is an unnecessary prayer. Indeed, it is a sinful prayer based on denial of what God has already said (which, you may recall, is precisely the same temptation the serpent lured Adam and Eve with in the Garden).

The Mormon does not believe in the effectiveness of prayer giving you a feeling of what truth is any more than the Christian should. The ultimate proof of this is found in the canonization of Mormon Scripture. What need would there be for Scripture to be canonized for the Mormon if he could simply pray in every instance for God to give him a warm, fuzzy feeling about what to do? The very fact that the Book of Mormon exists disproves its final argument for its authority.

First off, the people. Over the course of the year, my blog referenced 150 unique individuals. As I was inputting the tags, I went through the stretch where my blog was in the midst of a blog war with the Debunking Atheism Christianity site, and I figured John Loftus would be the top individual mentioned. Instead, it turns out that Daniel Morgan got 29 posts mentioning him to Loftus’s 27 posts.

The other key aspect is Scripture. I had 266 unique Scripture tags. The most commonly referenced Scripture in that first year was Hebrews 6:18.

Very definitely, presuppositional apologetics took the center stage during that first year. I even had my seven-part critique of Witmer’s critique of presuppositionalism. However, being “ancient history” in blog terms, I discovered much of what was linked has vanished.

I also discovered that the old comments were wiped out during one of the updates I did. Actually, I seem to remember this happening at the time as it didn’t exactly surprise me. I’ll still like to see if I can find the comments, maybe on an archive, and restore them.

In any case, I’ll have more thoughts when I finish the entire project and get caught up to this year’s posts. Only 5 years and change to go! :-D

Objectivism, as a philosophy, has its champion in the writer Ayn Rand. A summary of Objectivism can be found by going to the Ayn Rand Institute website, specifically at http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_essentials.

Due to the fact that Christianity also asserts that there is such a thing as objective truth, one would expect there to be a great compatibility between Objectivism and Christianity. While that is basically true, it is only due to inconsistencies within Objectivism itself.

In order to properly examine Objectivism, we must first look at what it is. This article will be a critique of Objectivism and will use the above linked article as the source for Objectivism. There will, naturally, be other writers who could go in-depth on the issue, but given the fact that Rand was the founder of this philosophy, it is only right to use the Ayn Rand Institute’s definitions as the “official” standards of Objectivism.

We begin with a look at the metaphysics of Objectivism. The Ayn Rand Institutes states:

Metaphysics

“Reality, the external world, exists independent of man’s consciousness, independent of any observer’s knowledge, beliefs, feelings, desires or fears. This means that A is A, that facts are facts, that things are what they are; and that the task of man’s consciousness is to perceive reality, not to create or invent it.” Thus Objectivism rejects any belief in the supernatural; and any claim that individuals or groups create their own reality.

Christianity actually agrees with everything in the above claim up to the “Thus Objectivism rejects any belief in the supernatural” clause. Indeed, Christianity even agrees with the rest of the sentence in rejecting “any claim that individuals or groups create their own reality.” The point of contention lies in the statement that Objectivism rejects any belief in the supernatural.

It is certainly true that A is A, and that what exists does so independent of man’s consciousness, knowledge, beliefs, feelings, desires, or fears. However this is to say nothing about what it is that does exist. To say that A is A does not define what A is. As such, it is incorrect to conclude that the supernatural cannot exist if A is A, because if the supernatural does in fact exist as our A, the supernatural must exist because A is A.

In fact, the statement that the supernatural does not exist does not rest within the metaphysics of Objectivism at all, but rather in the Epistemology. We can see that if we further quote the Ayn Rand Institute:

Epistemology

“Man’s reason is fully competent to know the facts of reality. Reason, the conceptual faculty, is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses. Reason is man’s only means of acquiring knowledge.” Thus Objectivism rejects mysticism (any acceptance of faith or feeling as a means of knowledge), and it rejects skepticism (the claim that certainty or knowledge is impossible).

Here we see explicitly stated the naturalism of Objectivist philosophy, and it is that naturalism that excludes supernaturalism, not the metaphysics of A is A. The statement that “Reason is man’s only means of acquiring knowledge” (emphasis added) is a statement of naturalistic philosophy. Simply put, naturalism views all of existence as physical existence within the ability of man to sense. As such, man’s reason (defined as “the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses”) is based on empirical experiences of the universe interpreted by the brain.

I have engaged in debate with several Objectivist philosophers who insist that their beliefs begin with the axiom, “existence exists.” Yet clearly Objectivists begin not with the metaphysical axioms but with epistemological axioms. The assertion that existence exists does not in any way imply that man is fully capable of understanding and knowing all that exists (or even part of what exists).

Objectivists start with the notion that they perceive data in the form of sensory input. Reason then interprets this data giving the brain information about reality. As a result, it is necessary that existence and consciousness both exist, because without either of these two things the perception and the reasoning of what that perception is cannot occur.

The assumption made here is that what is perceived by the senses is accurate and true. However, we know that our senses do not always give us accurate information. For example, in 2001 I underwent some abdominal surgery. As I recovered, I was given morphine to help with the pain. Morphine is a hallucinogenic drug. I distinctly remember a conversation that I had with my brother wherein I asked him to video tape a TV show for me so I could watch it later. It turned out that I never actually had this conversation with him, because I had imagined the entire event. Since my brother had assumed I’d want to watch the show and recorded it for me anyway, if I had not talked to him, I would have just assumed that he had heard my conversation and recorded the show because I asked him to do so. I would have had no way to differentiate between the false data that I had perceived and the reality that was.

As a result, it is not certain that what we see is valid. Our senses are not 100% accurate, so we cannot rely upon them to give us certain truth. However, there is a certain truth that must be true regardless, and that is: perception exists. Because I perceived something, even though it turned out to be illusion, that perception demands that I have a consciousness in order to perceive it, and my consciousness demands existence (because a non-existent being would not exist to have a conscious thought). As a result, perception presupposes both existence and consciousness.

As you see, perception alone demonstrates that existence and consciousness are undeniably true. This is in total agreement with the Objectivist philosophy, but with one extremely important difference. It does not follow that man’s reason is fully competent to know all there is to know about reality because, as I have shown, false data would be indistinguishable from real data unless there was something to contradict the notion.

This demonstrates a fundamental contradiction in the Objectivist position. On the one hand, the Objectivist states that A is A apart from any observer’s knowledge; but on the other hand, the Objectivist states that the observer’s knowledge is accurate to know what A is, with the erroneous conclusion that if one cannot observe something then it does not exist. This is why the Objectivist rejects the supernatural, such as a spiritual existence and the existence of God. Immaterial objects cannot be perceived with physical senses and so the Objectivist states that they cannot exist, when the fact of the matter is that A is A even if A is immaterial and unable to be known by man.

The rejection of the supernatural and the assertion that all of reality can be known by man’s senses are alien concepts to the idea of objective truth. Indeed, by accepting naturalism the Objectivist undermines all attempts at stating an objective truth because there are no longer transcendental truths. By asserting that man’s reason alone is capable of determining what reality is, the Objectivist makes reality conform to man’s senses; thereby destroying the metaphysical axiom that “A is A apart from any knowledge, desires, etc. of man.” The naturalistic Objectivist, in other words, is not objective at all, but purely subjective. He is just as much an irrational relativist as the person who claims there is no truth. Truth can only be objectively known if it is universal and transcendent.

My original article dealt with a troubling trend I see in many presuppositionalists. Mostly it’s the Clarkian Scripturalists, but VanTillians fall into it too. Namely, many presuppositionalists treat presuppositionalism as an immunization to debate such that the Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God (TAG) substitutes for actually thinking about things. The result is a knee-jerk reaction that “if it ain’t TAG, it’s of the devil.” My point in the previous article was to demonstrate that it was not sinful to use evidential arguments at all, and in fact it was much more useful to use those types of arguments when dealing with the average man-on-the-street than the philosophically intense TAG is.

One particularly important quote (as it relates to my current post) was:

I would point out, however, that the Bible does use evidential arguments from time to time too. For instance, when Scripture says in Psalm 19:1 that the heavens declare the glory of God, David is referring to how God’s glory is manifested in nature. It is evidenced by nature itself. And Paul echoes that in Romans 1 as well, saying that God’s attributes are seen in what has been made.

TUAD quoted from my article in a discussion thread he was on, and then posted the response he received from Ronald Di Giacomo, which began:

How do you know that the Heavens declare the glory of God apart from Scripture?

This is precisely the attitude that the cage-stage presuppositionalists fall into that I was critiquing in my original post. Consider for a moment what the question entails. If it is impossible to know that the heavens declare the glory of God apart from Scripture, then in what way can you say the heavens declare anything? How is it a “declaration” if one needs Scripture in order to know something’s being declared? Or is the assumption that the heavens didn’t declare the glory of God until the Psalmist penned his words? Such a concept seems absurd.

Furthermore, when looked at how Paul uses the concept in Romans 1 we’d see that this question would turn Paul’s argument on its head. Paul argues in verse 18 that the wrath of God is revealed against unbelievers, and gives the reason in verse 19-20: “For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.” If nature was insufficient to demonstrate “what can be known about God” including his invisible attributes like his eternal power and divine nature, then unbelievers would have an excuse not to believe. We do not need Romans 1 or Psalm 19 to be convicted for not believing in God, for creation itself testifies to the existence of God. So how do we know the heavens declare the glory of God apart from Scripture? Because the heavens actually DO declare the glory of God.

Di Giacomo continued:

Accordingly, to defend that premise with any absolute authority other than Scripture is sin. To do anything less is to make something other than God’s word your ultimate authority, which is again sin.

First of all, I don’t understand what “authority” has to do with anything here. We’re talking about objective truth, and the only authority objective truth needs is its own truth-value. But this falls prey to a logical problem even if we accept the authority issue. Di Giacomo believes Scripture is authoritative, and Scripture itself declares that creation even apart from Scripture manifests the nature and attributes of God such that men who suppress the truth of God are without excuse. That means that if Di Giacomo is to respect the authority of Scripture, he ought to acknowledge that nature does what Scripture claims nature does. To do otherwise is to deny what Scripture says, which hardly makes God’s word “your ultimate authority” and which, following his logic above, makes it sin.

Di Giacomo then has a couple of statements which do not seem to apply to what I wrote. I could not tell whether he was questioning TUAD or something else entirely. But let me address them anyway. He said:

Philosophically, you have yet to show how it is possible to justify the truth of the premises used in an evidentialist or Thomistic approach.

Of course, I was not defending Thomism in my original article (this is partly why I assume this question is not directed toward me), and as I pointed out even evidential arguments must, if one meets a philosophically savvy opponent, reach the presuppositional level. But Scripture itself allows us to justify evidentalist arguments regarding the invisible attributes of God listed in Romans 1, since Scripture maintains both that these are objective truths and that these truths are knowable even independent of Scripture. This can even be expanded by including the aspects of the law that are written even on the hearts of Gentiles that Paul mentions in Romans 2:15.

Di Giacomo continued:

Moreover, how does one get from an assertion that is not justified from Scripture (such as that the Heavens declare God’s glory) to the conclusion of the Ontological Trinity of Scripture?

I assume that he meant that the statement “the Heavens declare God’s glory” is justified from Scripture, since it is Psalm 19:1. But this argument about the Ontological Trinity does not help Di Giacomo either. To use an example I got from Paul Manata (see here), suppose that I held to every Christian presupposition except that I believe God is four persons instead of three. Is TAG sufficient to refute that view? No, because it is hard to see how there would be a logical inconsistency within the worldview that stipulated there was an unstated (by Scripture) fourth person in the Trinity. At best, one could conclude that it’s unfounded to assert there’s a fourth person, but since neither Father, Son, nor Spirit are denied, a “quadune” God is just as logically consistent under TAG as a triune God is.

The reality is that Di Giacomo does not believe in the Trinity because of his presuppositional arguments; rather, he believes Scripture and Scripture says the Trinity exists. Yet the evidentialist also believes in the Trinity because he believes Scripture and Scripture says the Trinity exists! Di Giacomo may argue that he has a better justification to believe the validity of Scripture due to his presuppositional arguments, but even if the evidentialist has erroneous reasons to trust in the validity of Scripture, once he does trust the validity of Scripture he comes to the same beliefs about the Trinity that the presuppositionalist does. So to argue the logical chain used to get to the Trinity is a red herring. One need only be able to argue to the validity of Scripture, something that evidentialists are actually quite good at accomplishing despite handicapping themselves by allowing atheists to dictate the terms of the debate.

Either way, it seems to me that he does not reach Paul’s attitude:

Some indeed preach Christ from envy and rivalry, but others from good will. The latter do it out of love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. The former proclaim Christ out of rivalry, not sincerely but thinking to afflict me in my imprisonment. What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed, and in that I rejoice. (Philippians 1:15-18)

Di Giacomo concluded his comment thus:

What you’re not grasping is that although men know God by nature, any appeal to that truth is not an apologetic nor justifiable apart from Scripture. That premise must be justified somehow, mustn’t it?

I have to admit that I’m hard-pressed to understand how an appeal to truth is not an apologetic, especially when it’s a truth the apostle Paul used in his own defense of the Gospel. Furthermore, I would like to see Di Giacomo demonstrate from Scripture his claim that all premises must be justified from Scripture.

While anyone can claim to be anything they want to be, I am not interested in those who claim to be something just because it is a winning label. So this post will examine the foundation of Conservative thought. It should be noted that it is certainly possible for someone to inconsistently hold to the major tenets of Conservative philosophy without agreeing to the foundational presuppositions that support it (e.g. many Libertarians on fiscal issues).

What is that foundation then? At first glance, we might be tempted to say it is human rights. That is, Conservativism is born out of a desire to be consistent with our Founding Father’s concepts of the rights of man. Why do Conservatives believe that lower taxes are better? It is not a pragmatic reason, such as how beneficial it is to our economy—even though it is indeed true that lower taxes are beneficial to the economy! It is because Conservatives believe that all human beings have the right to their own property. What I own is fully under my control to do with as I see fit, and no one—no government, no other individual—has the right to force me to do something with my property that I do not wish to do.

Furthermore, we can look at the Second Amendment. Why is it that Conservatives argue that the right to bear arms is something that cannot be taken away by the government? It is not simply because that’s what the Constitution says (although that is indeed what the Constitution says). It is because we have the right to life and liberty, and that means we have the right to protect our life and liberty.

But human rights need to be justified too. We cannot simply assert that they exist; we must argue for why they exist. And that means that, at its root, Conservativism is based not in human rights but upon theistic principals. And lest someone quibble, this is the actual reason given by the Fathers themselves. Before the Constitution was formed, the Colonists had to provide justification for why they threw off the yolk of England. If their rebellion was illegitimate, their Constitution was illegitimate too. That’s why they took such care to write the Declaration of Independence, to provide their reasoned argument as to why they were justified in breaking from England. The Declaration begins:

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to separation.

The Declaration begins, in other words, by asserting that there are “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” that entitle us to certain rights. Without Natural Law given by Nature’s God, there are no rights. And what are those rights?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. – That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. – That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new Government, laying its foundation on such principals and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

So we see that our rights come, not from the whim of any man, but because we are endowed with them by our Creator. Furthermore, we see that Government is established “to secure these rights.” That is its primary purpose.

It should be noted that thus far we are not concerning ourselves with what aspect of theism fits. After all, while most of the Founding Fathers were Christians and the culture was definitely shaped by Christianity, there were also many Fathers who were only deists, and there were even some atheists who signed on. It is beyond the scope of this post for me to go into the reasons why Christianity provides the strongest rationale for these rights in comparison to other religions. Instead, I will focus briefly on why atheism cannot give us these same human rights.

If we take away rights endowed by our Creator, how do we establish those rights as actual rights? We cannot do so in any manner that escapes arbitrary decrees. For example, it might be argued that our intellect is what gives us those rights; that because man is the rational animal, he has human rights. But if we say that, then those who are more intelligent must have more human rights than those who are less intelligent. If the foundation of our rights is based on intellect, then this is inescapable: the geniuses have more rights than the imbeciles.

Yet we instinctively know that it is not the case that smarter people have more rights. We know that intellect is not a philosophically meaningful distinction when determining rights. We cannot keep someone enslaved, away from education, and claim that we have not violated his rights because we are smarter than he is.

If we instead argue that just as the Fathers said that Government derives its power “from the consent of the governed” our rights come from the consent of humanity as a whole then we still have not escaped the problem. After all, not all humans give the same consent. To cite the overly-used, yet crystal clear analogy: Nazis did not consider Jews to have human rights. We did not consider the Nazis to have the right to act consistently with those principals. Which view is right?

Under the position that the consent of the people determines human rights, neither position is right or wrong. We have two groups of people who disagree; there is no consent as to whether Jews have rights. Therefore, what prevails is nothing but might makes right. Nazis were wrong not because they were philosophically wrong but only because they lost World War II. If the Allies had been weaker, the consent of the world would have been that Jews are not human.

Once again, that concept is alien to us. Philosophically, our rights do not change simply because the whims of a group of individuals have changed. This is not a meaningful reason for our rights to change. Or rather, if it is a meaningful reason then our rights are worthless.

Human rights require a transcendent truth. They require objective truth that all men are, as part of their very being, deserving of specific rights. These rights cannot arise from nature alone. Evolution cannot explain how these rights got there, for man is but one evolutionary branch of billions. There is nothing that distinguishes man amongst the animals other than intellect, and as we’ve seen that would result in the smarter people having more human rights than the unintelligent. The only possible way we can have unalienable rights is if something higher than ourselves has given them to us.

Human rights come about because of the ontology of the human. We recognize them because of our being, not because of anything granted by any government or any group of people. It is precisely because these things do not depend on our size, location, level of development, sex, race, or beliefs that “all men are created equal” is true. That equality is found in our human ontology, and that comes about because man is created in the image of God.

With this in mind, we can sum up the basic Conservative ideology. Man has been endowed with the rights of Life, Liberty, and property (understood as the pursuit of happiness). These rights are God-given rights, not Government-granted rights. As such, any Government that would deprive anyone of those rights without proper justification is an unjust Government. The role of Government is to secure those rights for those who are governed. This means that the Government does have the right to tax its citizens consistent with securing those rights; but any taxes that are not consistent with securing those rights are unjustly depriving citizens of property. This means that Government has the right to defend our country from enemies, both domestic and foreign, by creating a police force and army; but it also means that Government cannot interfere with our own actions to secure our freedoms too (such as our right to bear arms).

Unfortunately, life is never as cut and dried as bare-bones philosophy will make it. To use an easy example, was the War in Iraq based on Conservative principals? It depends to a large extent on whether you believe the War is an attempt to secure our right to Life that terrorists seek to deprive of us. Insofar as we have not had another terrorist attack on America since 9/11, it is quite possibly due to the fact that we are engaging the enemy overseas. This would be consistent with the Government defending us from attack. On the other hand, it is also possible that the terrorists would not have been capable of another attack even had we left Iraq alone. That would make the War in Iraq unnecessary to secure out freedoms in America.

The net result is that it is quite possible for Conservatives to support or not support the War in Iraq and still remain Conservative.

On the other hand, consider abortion on demand (as opposed to abortion to save the life of the mother). Since human rights are based on our humanity, not any concept of “personhood” or the location of the human being or the developmental status, then the Conservative position must always be against abortion on demand. The unborn is a human being; that is the only thing that human beings can create via reproduction. The unborn therefore has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

On the other hand, abortion to save the life of the mother is not against Conservative principals because in that case the objective is not to deprive the life of the unborn, but to save the life of the mother. The unintended consequence is the unborn child also dies. We ought to do whatever we can to minimize the possibility of the death of the unborn, but when it is inevitable it is not against Conservative ideals to support abortion in those cases.

One final word should be noted. It is certainly possible for someone to be Conservative on some issues and not on others. People are, by and large, inconsistent. They tend to have a hodge-podge of beliefs, many of them contradictory, that they subscribe to. So it is possible that someone can be a fiscal Conservative while not being a social Conservative. But the logic of Conservative thought does boil down to our God-given rights, and therefore one is justified in weighing whether any particular issue coheres to those presuppositions. Since people can be (and often are) inconsistent, it should be no surprise at all that there is a wide range of belief amongst those who would call themselves Conservative; but that is no grounds to say that we should accept all those positions as being equally Conservative. Nor is the existence of those contradictory people evidence that Conservativism itself is incoherent or lacks a real presupposition.

I bring that up because I’ve recently been reading over some essays penned by a presuppositionalist who argued that presuppositionalism is the only valid apologetic method. Now, as a presuppositionalist myself, I believe this statement is true in a very limited sense. That is, I believe that those who would use evidentialist approaches to apologetics also rely on presuppositions that they just don’t express. As a result, you cannot escape the fact that at the ultimate level you will need to deal with presuppositions.

However, that is not what this individual meant (note: this is a person I know locally and what I read is not posted anywhere online, so I’m not going to use his name). What he meant was that those who would use an approach different from the presuppositional approach were, in fact, sinning by doing so.

This view saddens me, much like the hypercalvinist view does. In fact, I think that this may be just an example of what James White termed the “cage stage” (only here it applies to someone who just read Bahnsen for the first time rather than a new convert to Calvinism).

This strikes at the heart of apologetics. Apologetics requires us to make a defense for any who should ask. And the fact is that while presuppositionalism is philosophically sound, it probably only works well at converting INTP personalities (a personality type of which I should note only about 2% of Americans are, at least according to the random website I just Googled…). Regardless of the actual percentage, it’s quite apparent that most people couldn’t care less about philosophy.

However, they are drawn toward evidentialist arguments. And while these arguments will never be as “air tight” (as far as the presuppositionalist is concerned) they are often more convincing precisely because they are easier to understand and follow. Jason Engwer does an excellent job at expounding on the evidence for Christianity in such a manner.

But that would just mean that evidentialism is pragmatic, not necessarily that it is not sinful. I would point out, however, that the Bible does use evidential arguments from time to time too. For instance, when Scripture says in Psalm 19:1 that the heavens declare the glory of God, David is referring to how God’s glory is manifested in nature. It is evidenced by nature itself. And Paul echoes that in Romans 1 as well, saying that God’s attributes are seen in what has been made.

Romans 1, by the way, is a beautiful illustration of the wedding of presuppositional thought to evidentialism. That is, we have the fact that the unbelievers refuse to accept what is plainly seen, and what is plainly seen is the evidence found in creation.

That evidence is there. If you offer an evidential claim, you have a reason to do so. Likewise, we know that no amount of evidence is sufficient in and of itself to convince a non-believer of the truth of God. Both must be taken into account.

In my experience, presuppositionalism works best at demonstrating that atheists have no philosophical standing (although see my caveat below). But when dealing with non-atheist, those who accept supernatural concepts and are not limited to materialism, then presuppositionalism is nowhere near as strong as evidentialism. This isn’t to say that presuppositionalism is impotent; just that it is more difficult to employ. To give an example, one could argue philosophically why it is impossible that Tom murdered Fred because of Tom’s nature; but it’s simpler to show the photograph of Tom on vacation in England at the exact same moment that Fred was murdered in Detroit. In the same way, one could argue that the plurality of gods in Mormonism would render the world senseless, but it’s easier to demonstrate historically that Joseph Smith was a conman.

Now for my caveat. When I said that presuppositionalism works best at demonstrating atheists have no philosophical background, it’s not strictly precise. That’s because in reality, presuppositionalism works best when it’s looking at the worldview level. This is most often expressed when dealing with atheists because their worldview is so diametrically opposed to Christianity on all fronts; however, if we got to the level of a worldview (i.e., determining what was appropriate evidence in the first place), then presuppositionalism would flourish against any religious view too. That is, once the unbeliever sees that the evidence is against his position, he will have to retreat to redefine what evidence is or jettison his view. At this point, the presuppositional argument must come into play.

When it comes to apologetics, therefore, I have observed the following (whether it is universal I know not, although it’s certainly widespread here in America). The average person does not care for philosophy, and therefore will be more impacted by an evidentialist apologetic. Those who are most vocal in opposition to Christianity, however, do focus more on philosophy because they’ve moved to the point where the very definition of “evidence” is determined, and those people will be more impacted by a presuppositional argument. In the apologetic setting that T-Blog is usually engaged in (that is, actively engaged with non-believers who are openly hostile to Christianity), presuppositionalism is probably the more effective tool. However, when you’re talking to the average person off the street and evangelizing, evidentialism is probably the more effective tool. (These are generalizations, and not everyone we deal with is a die-hard anti-Christian; T-Blog also provides pastoral posts from time to time.)

One final note. God draws His elect through both methods. There are countless saved by evidential arguments, and there are likewise countless saved by presuppositional arguments (although probably not as many in the latter group). It is not a sin to use an evidential argument. But it is a sin to think that it would be a sin to use an evidential argument. Apologetics must be person-relative. What God uses to convince one sheep to return to the fold is not necessarily what He will use to convince another sheep to return to the fold. God made each of us, and to cite the above (albeit questionable) statistic about the percentage of INTPs in America, God created both INTPs and ESFJs.

This post will not delve deeply into these subjects, nor will it attempt to prove one position over the other. Instead, I want to ask a more basic question: Suppose that we grant the materialist claims as they regard the empirical dimensions that we experience on a daily basis. Is it irrational, under that system, to believe there is a mental aspect that is separate from the empirical brain?

I should point out that I am asking a very narrow question. I am not asking what the likelihood of such a mind would be. I am merely asking whether an immaterial mental realm is actually incompatible with the materialistic worldview. If it is not—if mental existence remains viable even under materialistic concepts—then the materialist’s claim that belief in the separation of mind and brain is irrational is itself irrational, because even granting everything the materialist is forced to concede the possibility of the immaterial mental dimension.

As one might be able to surmise from the use of the term “dimension” I will begin by examining a planiverse. The planiverse is just like our universe, except instead of existing in three dimensions the planiverse exists in only two dimensions (i.e., a plane—hence, the planiverse). Compressing dimensions in this manner helps us to visualize the effects of added dimensions since each of us are able to view two dimensional representations using our three dimensional empirical faculties. If the mental dimension exists, it would be a fourth (or higher) dimension; therefore, if we examine how a three dimensional object would appear to a two dimensional observer, that can yield information as to how an extra-dimensional object would appear to a three dimensional observer such as ourselves.

To think of the planiverse go no further than getting a piece of paper. Let us stipulate that the piece of paper is the entire planiverse. Nothing exists beyond the edge of the paper, just as we believe nothing exists beyond the edge of our universe. Now draw a circle on the paper with a radius of, say, one inch. That is our two-dimensional observer. This circle cannot view depth: it can only view length and width. Therefore, if you had another circle that approached the first circle, it must go around the circle or else through the circle—it cannot go over the circle (i.e. “stacking”) because that requires the third dimension.

Because of that requirement, however, interesting things can occur. Place a coffee cup on your piece of paper. The coffee cup is three dimensional. The circle, however, only sees the portion of the coffee cup that exists in the plane of the piece of paper (for the sake of argument, we will say that the layer of the coffee cup that touches the paper moves into the plane of the circle so that it would become visible to our observer). The circle would view the coffee cup as another circular object rather than as a “cup-shaped” object.

We, however, as three dimensional observers can see that the coffee cup extends beyond what is observable in the two dimensions that the circle can see. Now, if you were to grab the top of the cup and push it from one edge of the planiverse to the other edge (without going through the circle so as to not terrify our observer!), the circle would observe another circular object move through the planiverse. However, the observer would be unable to find what caused the movement. The forces occurred in the third dimension, not in the two dimensions the circle has access to.

With this example in mind, we can extrapolate back to the three dimensions. If a mental dimension exists in, say, the fourth dimension, then immaterial consciousness could be just as much a physical object as a three dimensional coffee cup is physical even if a two dimensional observer cannot see it in its entirety. If the mental object in the higher dimension is really a physical object then it remains a material object. While it exists “above” the three dimensional space so that it cannot be empirically viewed as such, it nevertheless remains just as materialistic as a rock in three dimensions because there is nothing “special” about it. It just happens to exist in a different dimension than what we can observe.

Furthermore, it is easy to imagine that this fourth dimensional physical object is connected to an object that we can view in three dimensional space just as the circle of the coffee cup that broke the plane of the planiverse existed as a full physical object in three dimensions connected to the two dimensional observable existence. A fourth dimensional object therefore can exist fully in three dimensions just as well as it exists in the fourth dimension. But three dimensional observers can only view the portion that occurs in three dimensional space. Nevertheless, the object remains purely materialistic in nature. There is nothing supernatural about it at all. Therefore, no rules of materialism have been violated.

Finally, we can argue that if the portion that exists in the fourth dimension can exert force to cause effects to occur in the three dimensional portion of the object, then we have all that we need to prove the possibility of a materialistic mental realm.

Let us put this in a concrete example then. Take an average human being. Let us stipulate that in addition to the body that we see in three dimensional space there also exists a fourth dimensional aspect to that person which is the mind. This mind is physically attached to the three dimensional body; it cannot be removed from it naturally. Furthermore, this mind is where all the “thoughts” of the individual reside, all the motives and impulses, and dreams.

Because this fourth dimensional object is physically linked this means that the mind can influence the body. It has direct access to it. It cannot be seen in the three dimensional realm (just as hovering an atom’s width above the circle in the planiverse renders you invisible to the circle), yet the connection is there. When you think, therefore, even though this is something that occurs in the fourth dimensional aspect of your being, it manifests itself in your body as well. You brain has certain electrical and chemical changes that result.

Likewise, one can reverse the normal flow. One can stimulate certain portions of the brain and cause changes in the fourth dimensional portion of the being. What the brain “sees” remains locked away in the fourth dimension, yet there is a physical link to the three dimensions that are observable.

This idea would obviously work even under a materialistic universe. It is therefore not accurate to say that an immaterial mental dimension is irrational, even if we grant every single presupposition of the materialist. But there is something else that this theory has to make it even more robust. It explains phenomena that are quite difficult to explain under the usual materialistic theories. Just a few examples would include out of body experiences, near death experiences, astral projection, and the like. While it is obvious that not every claim of such experiences can be substantiated, there is enough evidence of people who have been clinically dead who can describe things that occurred in different areas of the hospital that they had no access to (for example) that not all claims can be easily dismissed as hoaxes, and it stretches credibility to assume voices that no one except the person who was clinically dead could hear bounced through the heating vents!

This is not problematic if the fourth dimensional aspect of a human being (the mind) can survive for even limited amounts of time if “severed” from the three dimensional body (just as severing an arm will not instantly kill the arm, and it can later be reattached).

Given all of this, even if it cannot be proven true (and even if we say it’s not even likely to be true), the materialist cannot claim that the mental dimension is irrational. It could exist even under materialistic premises.

The direct theological implication of this is that we instantly have a possible explanation for the spiritual realm as well. A spiritual realm could exist in the fourth dimension (or any higher dimension) and be rendered invisible to us. But while atheists like to claim that a spiritual entity cannot interact with a physical object, we can see that objects that exist fourth dimensionally can interact with physical objects if the physical objects in the three empirical dimensions also have existence in the fourth dimension (all without violating any rules of materialism). Naturally, I’m not arguing that this actually is how the spiritual realm exists; however, the materialist’s claim that it is irrational to hold to the existence of such a realm is disproven by this possibility alone. It is not irrational at all, even given all the claims of materialism.

Steve and I have offered several posts on prayer since Ted Kennedy was touched by an angel. We’ve actually put forth exegesis of Scripture as well as logical arguments using propositions. The response that BHT has given us is less than underwhelming.

In comments on this post, Randy McRoberts of the BHT said:

The thing is, Peter, that you don’t realize that arguments don’t always matter. It’s character and integrity and love that matter more. You can win arguments all day long against me. So what? You can speak with the tongue of men and angels, too, for all I care.

I don’t care to mount an argument. That’s not what I’m all about. If it works for you, have a ball with it. Don’t expect most people to care a whole lot. You might win the argument, but it’s an empty win.

Think about that for a moment. Randy has admitted that he doesn’t care about thinking, about intellectual consistency, about truth. It’s all about “character and integrity and love” not whether or not you’re actually, you know, correct and all. Mormons probably feel the same way, and I have to say they’re a heck of a lot nicer than the BHT folks are.

Reality has this weird property though. It’s real. It doesn’t change because you’re a nice person. It doesn’t change because you feel warm fuzzies.

So I responded with the following parable:

Once upon a time, there was a little boy named Randy. Randy loved everyone and everything as much as possible. If his cruel, cold-hearted Dad was about to crush a spider, Randy would rescue the spider and lovingly toss it outdoors where it had a chance to live.

One day, an early spring day, Randy was walking down the sidewalk with his evil father when they saw a baby bird lying on the ground. It had obviously fallen from its nest.

“Leave it,” the wicked adult said. “It’s mother will come for it.”

But that was unacceptable for Randy, who loved the poor little bird. So when the demon-in-human-form wasn’t looking, Randy scooped up the baby bird and put it in his pocket.

When they got home, Randy rushed straight to his room. He took out the bird and placed it in an old shoe box. The bird chirped because it was very hungry. So Randy decided to feed the bird.

He asked his less-wicked-but-still-not-quite-loving-because-she-was-a-Presbyterian mother what baby birds ate. She said they ate worms. But Randy knew that couldn’t be the case–worms were icky little creatures (that still deserved to live, mind you–that was why Randy would rescue them before his diabolical father went fishing).

There was a better solution. Randy liked Butterfinger candybars and Dr Pepper to wash them down with. They were his favorite treats. Because he loved the bird so much, Randy shared his favorite things with the bird.

The next morning he awoke to find a very dead bird in the shoe box. Because, you see, poor Randy never grasped the concept that love without knowledge is dangerous. If you love someone or something but you have no clue what they need then you will not be able to satisfy their needs and your love will condemn them to death.

Sadly, this episode did not teach Randy his lesson. Later, he would grow up to believe that it did not matter if a sinner was hell-bound. The important thing was the love them, not to argue with them. The important thing was to make sure the had a sugar buzz before they spent eternity in hell.

And as a result, Randy decided to attack those who were trying to rescue sinners by calling those apologists intellectual elitists in a Big-Brained Blog. And lo, he felt good about himself, and those who were hell-bound enjoyed his taunts. And merrily they continued on the path to destruction.

At least on the day of judgment Randy can say, “I loved everyone I ever put in hell, unlike those bastards at Triablogue who actually convinced a few sinners to change direction by using arguments.”

Naturally, Randy didn’t bother to respond to this here on the T-Blog because he’s a coward and knows he’d get shredded. Instead, he retreated to the BHT (where comments are not allowed because Groupthink must prevail) and whined:

This is a response to a comment I made over there. (Should have known better.) See? I have love, but no knowledge. I’m putting people in hell by loving them. I don’t know what birds eat. I’m attacking those who rescue sinners by arguing with them. I feel good about myself for all this. I’ve learned a lot about myself today.

I don’t think it would take more than about three verses of “Just As I Am” to get me down front. I feel so bad about myself for feeling so good about myself.

Oh, yeah. In another comment I learned that for me to say that there are other ways to converse without putting forth an argument is “in itself an argument”. Now, that’s heavy. I’m not sure I get it, since I’m not intellectual at all.

Well it is obvious that Randy is no intellectual since he cannot grasp a simple parable. Instead, he thinks he needs to read everything literally. Frankly, I would be ashamed to speak in public if I was as dumb as Randy brags about being.

But to clear up the record, when Randy says “I have love, but no knowledge” he is wrong. He has just as much love as he has knowledge: none.

I, for one, have never read a loving remark from Randy about me. No, I just get his hate poured out upon me. (These are the same people who complain about us when we debate Arminians because “we should treat brothers in Christ better than non-believers” yet they have no qualms treating the “TR”, as they call us, as badly as possible. Then again, you shouldn’t expect consistency from those who hate intelligence in the first place.)

Secondly, I wouldn’t say that Randy is attacking apologists by arguing with us because nothing Randy’s ever said could be misconstrued as an argument.

Naturally, the other bored skulls acted shocked by what went on. For instance, JS Bangs said:

Wow. I mean, wow.

To which I respond: “Like totally! I mean, TOTALLY!

Bangs continued:

What exactly gave any of them the impression that we don’t care about the salvation of the lost?

The fact that you’re not trying to convince the lost they’re on the wrong path is a great indication that you don’t care where they’re headed. Then again, I use logic.

The fact that several people admitted they had trouble grokking the concept of Hell?

Well, it is kinda hard to see how someone not going to Hell needs to worry about going to Hell. Then again, I use logic.

Or the fact that we actually pray for the unsaved?

Except I don’t believe you. You claim to pray for the unsaved, yet you do everything in your power to impede those who are seeking the unsaved. What exactly do you pray regarding the unsaved? And frankly a general prayer “Lord save the unsaved” is no substitute for genuine prayer either. Then again, I use logic.

I have zero interest in reading any TR blogs, so I honestly don’t know what they’re trying to say.

And this, of course, is the first sign that you’re dealing with a moron. Ask questions, and then say, “I’m not going to listen to the answer.” This works when you’re three years old, but we expect more from adults. Then again, I use logic.

Not content to leave it at that, Strawfoot said:

Is he actually saying that he and his BBB fellows have actually talked people into becoming Christians?

Yes, I am.

WHAT?! How can this be? Well, Strawfoot, it’s really quite simple if you actually cared about what the wicked TRs believed (which you don’t, cuz God forbid you’d actually have to talk with one!). God uses…are you ready for this now?…MEANS to enact His will.

I know, revolutionary concept. Not found in any Reformed literature except for all of it.

And since I get e-mails sent to me, I know that there do indeed exist people who’ve been convinced of the truth of Christianity by way of some of the arguments that I’ve presented. God’s used me to bring some to Himself, and I am honored to be of use to Him.

The BHT is a great example of what happens when Politically Correct thinking runs amok. They preach tolerance by being intolerant of everyone who disagrees with them. They teach that love is most important by being as unloving as possible toward other Christians. They think that something’s wrong with you if you use the brain God gave you.

Frankly, if their version of Christianity was true, I’d be an atheist. And that’s something that Randy and other BHTers don’t get. They think that everyone is as emotive as they are and that no one cares about thinking correctly. But I do. My mere existence refutes their notion that everyone agrees with them. I do enjoy thinking, I am intellectually oriented, I do study, I do use my brain. And because of that, I can actually interact with the atheists in our world who are likewise intellectually oriented.

That’s something that none of Randy’s self-serving emotive bleating will ever be able to accomplish.

It really is a miracle. Doctors carried out an operation to let Gabriel die – yet he hung on.

Did you catch that? “Doctors carried out an operation to let Gabriel die“…to let him die????

I suppose if I ever kill someone I can stand before the judge and say, “Your honor, I simply pulled the trigger/cut the throat/poisoned the food of the victim to let the victim die. I didn’t actually do anything. It was all passive.”

This statement by Mrs. Jones is nothing but a rationalization of abortion by making it seem passive instead of admitting it is the active killing of the unborn. We see the same exact terminology used in euthenasia cases too. “We’ll pull the feeding tube and let the patient die. It’s what they would have wanted.”

All this begs the point that anyone who deprives another person of food will CAUSE that person die. Anyone who engages in activities that will cause the death of another human being is not “letting” death occur, it is causing death to occur.

Words have meaning. The fact that this woman felt pricked in her conscious enough for her to twist her words from an active killing to a passive allowing of a death demonstrates that she knows in her heart that what the doctors were doing was wrong. If the doctor’s decision is not morally suspect, there is no reason to pretend that what the doctors do is to permit a death instead of causing the death.