Dr Greg Bahnsen - Introduction to Apologetics: Methods VI (Part 16)

Our Scripture text for the last couple weeks and for today is found in 2 Timothy chapter 2, where I'd like to begin reading at the 23rd verse. But foolish and ignorant questions refuse, knowing that they gender strifes. And the Lord's servant must not strive, but be gentle towards all apt to teach forbearing in meekness, correcting them that oppose themselves, if peradventure God may give them repentance unto the knowledge of the truth, and they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, having been taken captive by him unto his will. I have focused in the last couple lessons on this expression opposing themselves. We've learned that the Lord's servant needs to answer questions that are critical of the Christian faith in a way that does not give in to the foolishness of the unbeliever. We are told here not to accept, but rather refuse ignorant questions. And yet we're also told that we're to give an answer to someone, a meek answer, an answer that shows teachableness and that can deliver people to a knowledge of the truth. And therefore we're not going to answer in a way that admits to the presuppositions of the unbeliever. However, we do want to show the unbeliever that his presuppositions are foolish. That in fact, if the unbeliever presupposes what he says he does, he opposes himself. He runs into any number of intellectual quandaries which are of his own making because of his arrogance, because his refusal to accept the word of God and the outlook of God's revelation. After all, God made this world. He's the owner. He's the manufacturer, if you will. And if you refuse to follow the manufacturer's directions, if you don't see this product of the manufacturer in the way the manufacturer wants you to, you're very likely going to create difficulties for yourself. That would be true in the case of a computer that you bought, or a car that you bought, or just about anything. How much more is it true in terms of God's world? If we don't see God's world the way God sees His world and don't follow his revelation, then we're going to run into problems trying to think about and work and live in God's world. Now, many of you, however, feel that you have to go to college and get an education in order to defend the faith in the way that we're talking about. Or worse, and this is worse, you think you have to be a philosophy major in college or Much, much worse that you'd have to have a PhD in Philosophy in order to do this kind of thing. And I've been telling you all along, as someone who has a college education, a philosophy major, and a PhD in philosophy, it just ain't so. You don't need that sort of thing. Because the issues that philosophers deal with are dealt with by everybody. It's just they may not be dealt with with the same kind of precision or sophistication. The vocabulary may be different, but the issues, the concepts are still there. And two that we've looked at thus far I want to remind you of. And then take two more on today if we have time. The first issue was whether the future will be like the past. I'm trying to use lay language. That may not be the way a scientist or a philosopher would speak of that particular question. In philosophy, it's often called the problem of induction. In scientific circles, there used to be the problem of the uniformity of nature, that sort of thing. But for you, very simply, it's just, can we count on things happening in the future the way they have in the past? Is this world just a chaotic, random world, or is there regularity in this world now? The unbeliever does not hold to a sovereign God who controls all things in this world, does not have any reason to believe the future will be like the past. And yet the unbeliever cannot reason and cannot live in this world without that assumption. By rejecting the God of scripture, the unbeliever opposes himself. That is, he says one thing about the world and then lives in the world in a completely different way. Because everyone lives in this world expecting regularity, expecting that, the sorts of things. I mean, remember, you got to start the car. The there's gas in the car. You turn over the ignition, the car starts. And if it doesn't, you don't say, oh, well, we live in a chaotic universe. That's just one of the things that happens to cars. Maybe tomorrow it will. So you let it sit in the driveway and tomorrow you go out and try it. No, it's just because you expect regularity that you say, if it doesn't start with gas in the tank and the ignition turning over, there must be something else. There must be another factor that I understand according to regularity of sequence, or if I don't understand it, I take it to an auto mechanic and the only reason he knows what to do to the car is because the way he's fixed cars in the past is the way they're going to run in the future if he does the same thing. So we all live that way. But unbelievers don't have any right to. They don't have any right to live that way. Because what they say about the world does not support the uniformity of nature. The future will be like the past. Then last week we talked about whether there are likenesses in this world. And I realize you didn't like that lesson as much as the one before. This is a little more abstract, but it is a very important point that if unbelievers hold it, there's nothing in this world except material things that we have a particular experience of one by one by one by one. Everything has to be evaluated on ones. There can be no twos. There can be no likenesses. No two things put in the same category, no three things, four things, five things put in the same. Everything is an individual experience all by itself. So when someone talks about human nature or when someone talks about warts on the hand, they're talking about categories of things. Human beings or warts or hands. But unbelievers have no right to talk about general categories. Unbelievers can only talk about individual experiences one by one by one. There are no likenesses in this world. Now, why not? Remember I told you? Because on the unbelievers approach to this world, all that exist are material things. Material things are particular, likenesses are general, and likenesses are not material. You can eat three apples, but you cannot eat appleness. You cannot eat the concept of an apple, nor can you touch it, smell it, trip over it. You can't encounter it in our physical experience in the world. And yet unbelievers cannot even talk without referring to such general categories of things. But on their understanding of the universe, there should be no general categories. Now, some of you, I think because we were rushed last week, may have been inclined at the end to say, oh, well, unbelievers couldn't even talk then, Dr. Bonson. Well, thank you. That's true. If unbelievers were absolutely consistent with what they said about the world, they couldn't even talk. Not because they wouldn't have vocal cords. What I mean is, they wouldn't have the ability to formulate symbols and systems that are based on concepts. When they talked about these things, they wouldn't be talking about general experience. They could only talk about a particular experience, one by one by one. And if they're all one by one by one, there's no such thing as encountering an apple. There's just here. Now, red, round, solid, whatever. And then once again. But there's no again in the unbelieving universe. Again, refers to something in the same category, so there can't be any again. It's just red round here, red round here, red round here. But you see, there isn't any red either in the unbelieving universe because red refers to a general idea or concept. And so you can't even label the thing. And since I can't label it, I can't tell you what the experience is. So I'm just going to have this experience. There's no way to discuss it because if I did, I'd be using general terms and there are no general terms available to the unbeliever. Okay, today we are going to take up a little bit easier issue. Is there more to us than brains? Okay, you may want to put that in your notes. Is there more to us than brains? You know, at first blush you might say, well, it would be good enough if we had some brains, right? But now I'm using brain here in more or less technical sense of the tissue that is found inside the cranium up here. And if you took a saw and opened up a person's head, that stuff that's inside this. Yeah, I know it's gross, but that's life. We want to actually do an experiment today. But that stuff, I'm sorry, that stuff that is up there, we call brain tissue, okay? Now, brain tissue in the nature of the case is something material. It's a physical object, kind of a yucky, gooey physical object, but it's physical, it's material. What controls what physical things do? Well, the scientists will tell you, not very scientifically, but we'll say the laws of nature, okay, the laws of physics, the laws of biology control what happened to physical things, okay? So if all of my thought processes are controlled simply by brain tissue up here, which itself operates according to the laws of physics and biology, then there is in fact no freedom of thought, is there? What I think is controlled by the laws of physics and biology. And that's all there is to it. You know, there's a certain kind of stimulus that comes into the system, and that stimulus, according to the laws of biology and physics, controls what happens in my brain. And my brain then gives me the thoughts that I have. Everyone goes, yeah, so what? Well, you see, the unbelievers just undercut any possibility for intellectual exchange by saying that. Let's think about the implications of having brains only that are controlled by the laws of biology and physics, that is to say, not under any voluntary control, either in terms of what we choose to think about or how we think about it, or even choosing between options. If I don't have that kind of mental freedom to think through through an issue, weigh the evidence and choose an option. Because after all, what I think is controlled by the laws of biology and physics. I only am brain tissue upstairs, after all. If that's true, then the unbeliever has no reason one to be proud of anything he thinks of. Let's just start there. What the unbeliever is thinking, he can't help but think this is on his worldview. Now remember, I'm trying to show that he is. If I step within his worldview, he reduces himself to absurdity. When he says naturalism is true, that is there is no supernatural. The only thing that is real is the material world operating by the laws of physics and biology. When he says naturalism is true, I have no reason to respect his opinion. And you see why. Because on his worldview that's just the laws of biology and physics leading him to say that sort of thing. He couldn't help that. It's not like he could consider all the different options, weigh the evidence in favor of them and make an intelligent choice. There's no choice of it at all. He's just saying that because he has to say that. Now the problem you're going to have in listening to this little reduct you out absurdum is that you know right away he's not going to accept it. He's going to say no, no, no, I thought through supernaturalism and I looked at this option and that option and I've concluded the naturalism is the best option. But what you want to say is no, no, no, it couldn't have happened that way. On your view of the world, on your view of the world, certain stimulus came into your ears and eyes and so forth. And your brain tissue did certain sorts of things. There are certain electrical stimuli that ran through the nervous system and you had an idea and you just uttered this idea. The vocal cords responded to the stimulus and you said naturalism is true. That doesn't mean. I mean that is no more intelligent a process than the growth of weeds. Weeds grow according to the laws of biology and physics too. And your thoughts and weeds are on the same level given your worldview. Now, I don't think they are. In fact, I think you're saying naturalism is true. Something that has such eternal significance that you will go to hell for it. So I honor the freedom of thought that is there. And I think you're wrong in what you have said. But all I want to get at now, I mean, just put that aside. That may just be my Christian prejudice right now. All I want to tell you right now is that on your worldview, you can't encourage me to believe anything because I don't have the choice to believe anything any more than you do. My brain operates according to the laws of physics and biology. We're beginning to get the refrain. If it only operates according to the laws of science, then there's no choice about the matter. I think the things that I think because I have to think them. I can't make an intelligent choice. So the unbeliever, if naturalism is true, he has no reason to think naturalism is true because he doesn't have a brain that operates with freedom of intellect. He has a brain that only works according to natural laws. Am I going too fast? You all follow what I'm getting at? The unbeliever is undercutting himself. He's advancing a point of view as true, but in terms of his worldview, there's no truth about it, there's just inevitability. I must say the things that I'm saying and you must say the things you're saying now. If he has no freedom of thought and I have no freedom of thought, then why should we carry on this debate? A few years ago when I debated atheist at UCI, I suggested to him that if his worldview were true, there's no reason for him to show up for the debate. Now there I was referring to something else, the laws of logic. But the same refrain can be used over and over again. Why are we having this conversation if your world is view is true? The ironic thing is it's only the Christian worldview that makes sense out of us arguing over all these things. I can account for why you believe the wrong things. The Bible tells me something about you that maybe you don't even know yourself about your rebellion against God and so forth. But more importantly, more broadly, I can account for why we even debate. I can account for why we have this discussion and argument and why we try to persuade each other of our respective points of. But if your point of view were true, there wouldn't be any need to debate because none of us make any choices intellectually anyway. Our brains, operating according to the laws of nature, the laws of biology and physics just do what they do. Like weeds, grow the way they grow. You can't help that. You know, anybody go out there, try to persuade the weeds not to grow, say, please don't do the sorts of things weeds do make any sense. And it doesn't make any sense to appeal to the gray tissue up here in my cranium to not do the things gray tissue does. Some people have gray tissue that leads them to say sentences which don't make any sense on the non Christian worldview. But naturalism is true. Some people have gray tissue that leads them to say supernaturalism is true and that's the end of the story. So are we more than brains? Well, Christian answer is yes, we are. We're made in the image of God. We have minds, soul, spirit, whatever you want to use to refer to the invisible personality of man. Which personality, by the way, enables me to decide what I will think about. If I wanted to right now, this is not a threat, but if I wanted to, I could stop thinking about this Sunday school lesson. I could imagine I was on the beach somewhere getting a nice tan, maybe getting just a little bit sweaty because it's warm out. I mean, I can imagine that. I can control what I think about. Now back to the Sunday school lesson. I can control what I think about that. I might even think, oh, it would be very bad to be at the beach right now because all good Christians should be in church worshiping God, not at the beach on Sunday. Okay? Now you may agree or disagree with that. I hope most of you agree with it. But the thing is, I can control what I think about and what I think of it. And I can weigh different options. If someone says, well, shall we have barbecued ribs for lunch or shall we have fried chicken for lunch? I can think about those two options and I can weigh the evidence in favor of them, one or the other, and make a decision. But that's because on my outlook on life, I believe God's made me in his image. And I'm like God in that, that I have freedom of thought. And I'm unlike God in that I often use my thoughts in a way which is not obedient to him. And that's where I get myself into trouble. And that's why life doesn't go well for me. But the point is that freedom of thought is the presupposition that makes debate necessary, argument necessary. I said I wanted to do two issues today, and I'm not sure I'm going to have time to get to the second one next week. I want to talk about a final one. I've just Been trying to give you a couple of handles that you can use so that you know, you can talk to somebody on a very low level in terms of the vocabulary, but a very fundamental level in terms of the philosophical issues involved. Will the future be like the past? Are there likenesses or categories of things? Is there anything more to us than just brains? And then next week I'm going to talk about, are there laws of morality? Because if there aren't laws of morality, you think about this. There aren't laws of morality, then it would be all right for me to lie to you to win this argument, wouldn't it? It'd be all right if I tried to deceive you and win this argument. Because if there aren't any laws of morality, as your universe, as your view of the universe says, then any way of getting somebody to agree with my point of view is just as good as any other way. Which does what? Vitiates the whole reason why we're having a discussion. Because we're supposed to be exchanging evidence of the truth. But there's no need to worry about the truth in a non Christian universe, is there? Getting my way is all that counts. We'll have more on that next week. Do you have questions on today's lesson? And then in just a minute I'm going to see if you have questions about today's sermon. Okay, Kent.

An interesting thought is coming in my mind about the people who are, like, highly intelligent and a scale going down to somebody who's like M3 hard, or maybe down to the seal, somebody who has no ears, nose, eyes, and then finally down to somebody who's completely dead that has absolutely no brain activity going on. And what is going on in my mind is somebody who's retarded or in the mind of somebody who's dead? When I die, am I going to just, like, be, like, not thinking of anything? Or how is. What am I going to use once my brain is gone?

These are interesting questions, Kent. Would you like to show how it applies to the lesson so I can get a handle on it for you?

What I think and what my brain does.

Okay, that's a very. That in itself is a very complicated philosophical question. The relationship between the gray matter that we have upstairs and the mind. Mind or soul itself. And I've written a very complicated paper on that. There are different theories of that sort of thing and I don't know that anybody really knows. In the end, I'll tell you the truth because we are made in the image of God. I Think that's going to turn out to be something of a mystery. In the same way that how we have freedom to use our bodies and yet our bodies are subject to the laws of physics. I mean, the freedom of will that I have and the freedom of, of mind that I have is not going to change the fact that if I put my finger in a meat cleaver, it's going to get cut up. Okay? There are laws of physics and I can't avoid that. And among those laws of physics and biology and so forth, you give me certain kinds of drugs and I'm going to get real cloudy headed. I may get real woozy, I may even go to sleep, I may have really bizarre dreams that I would not have had ordinarily because there is, there is an effect of the body upon the mind. There's also an effect of the mind upon the body. Thinking about things that make you unhappy or scared can give you what we call butterflies in the stomach. People can get so upset about going to the doctor, their palms begin to sweat. An example of how the mind has an effect upon the physical body. So it works both ways. And now when you ask how does it do that? I don't know the mechanics of it either as a philosopher or as a theologian. And then when you talk about someone who is mentally retarded, I really don't know. I mean, I think I know more than the average guy, but I wouldn't dare say anything publicly about that because I don't have a technical proficiency about mental retardation and so forth. When you are dead, taking that end of the spectrum, the Bible says in some mysterious way that your personality will live on, your mind will live on even though you don't have the brain tissue through which it is expressing itself and working. And beyond that, I don't think I'm going to help too much. Mark.

Most people as well.

Have heard.

Something is mind, body, thought. And I think a lot of it also appeals to mystery.

Well, not all appeals to mystery are on the same footing. Of course it's one thing for me to make conceptually clear what I am saying and say the way in which God brings that about is a mystery to me because I am not God. It's another thing to not be able to make conceptual clarity out of your point of view at all. And where I'm attacking him is not that he can't explain the mechanics of mind body interaction, is it as on his worldview there is no mind body interaction. So why does he keep talking about it? As though it were. Do you see what I'm getting at? The mystery for him is the mystery of making sense of what he's saying. I can make sense of what I'm saying, but I just can't tell you. As much as we'd all like to know, I can make sense of the virgin birth too. I can present that in a conceptually clear, non contradictory way. But then if you ask me how did God do it, I'm going to say, I don't know. But did that make sense to you? The difference. Okay, the other one is that on.

The likeness problem, some people are not materialists yet they're unbelievers.

Right? Non materialists who then can appeal to things like likenesses that are not material are in a category that we're going to deal with probably after next week's lesson. What I'm going to do is start dealing with people who are not out and out atheists, naturalists, materialists and so forth. And if this is any help to those of you who are kind of following the conceptual development here, I have been stressing in the case of the atheist materialist, you know, your blatant unbeliever, the contradictions in his system, he opposes himself. When I get over to the other others that are closer to Christianity in the sense that they hold to immaterial things or something like that, I'm going to start stressing the arbitrariness of what they believe and the two cardinal sins for any philosopher, whether you're told this at college or not, the two cardinal sins for any philosopher are contradiction and arbitrariness. If we're allowed to contradict ourselves, our disbelief, anything we want that we don't need to think things through philosophically. But if you're going to be regimented not to contradict yourself and not to be arbitrary in your opinions, then I can hang you. And what I'm going to do when you start getting people say, oh, well, I believe in categories. I'm a Platonist. I'm going to say, great. I'm going to start. I'm not going to say this outright necessarily, but I'm going to start pressing the arbitrariness of this person, say, well, how did you learn about this? That you know, And I'm, I'm going to, I've got a reason for believing in immaterial things. God's revealed himself. Now what's your reason? We're going to start comparing worldviews on that level. So, but more to come on that I won't I won't shrug off the more difficult cases. Just remember this. The further people get away from Christianity, the harder it is for them to make sense out of anything. And the closer they come to Christianity, the easier it is to start attacking them for not taking the whole picture. Why are they only taking parts of the Christian story? And that's where the arbitrariness comes in. Okay, Any questions on I've gone over time and I we today we're going to not do that and I apologize. But I do need to give you a chance to ask Tony anything.