Dr. Greg Bahnsen presents six philosophical problems with atheistic materialism: induction, universals, determinism, logic, moral absolutes, and internal contradictions in non-Christian worldviews. He argues the Christian worldview resolves these tensions through divine law.
Chapters
This recording has been released into the public domain by the Bonson Institute, where we aim to bring into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ.
The unbeliever has no basis for induction. Secondly, the problem of universes. In order for there to be language or thought at all, we think in terms of classes or categories. This is the duckness problem to make it easy to remember. The duckness problem. Why do we call those three things out on the pond ducks? We don't have a concept, a universal duckness. Well, what are universals? If you're a materialist, there can't be universals. We have the problem of brains. Brain problem. What is the human brain? If it's just a physical organism subject to the laws of biology, chemistry, physics, then what you come up with with your brain, there's no reason to think that it's right or wrong. It's just the way you have to think. And so unbelievers who are materialistic don't have any basis for reasoning about anything. Yeah. Actually, when I'm not in classes like this one, that's what I call it, biochemical predestination. Right. Yeah. No, I'm just pulling your legs. Sure. That is the difficulty that if you believe that everything's chemistry, biology, then everything you do is predestined by the laws of physics or biology, what have you. There's no freedom of thought. So the problem of. The problem of brains, problem of laws of logic, which we've already brought tonight. Fifthly, the problem of moral absolutes. I know we're going a little overtime, but quickly, how did I use the problem of moral absolutes toward the end of the debate when I.
Okay, Jerry, where you said, what if I blew your head off? And.
Well, I didn't say I'd blow his head off. I said, what if I took out a gun and threatened to do so? That's right. That's right. Okay.
He had a choice of saying, no, don't do that. Why not? Because it's wrong. He couldn't justify saying it's wrong on his worldview.
Yeah, I put him on the horns of a dilemma. I said, okay, now I've got a gun here. What if we say we win debates by violence? Okay, I've got a gun. I'm going to win the debate because I'm going to blow your head off. That makes me the winner. By the way, you can use a little miniature version of that when you're talking to the unbelievers. Say, why do you think we have to debate These things. Why shouldn't we just do it? The why don't we just say, whoever can beat up the other guy is right? No, no, no. We believe there's a realm of truth and factuality and reason. You say, on your worldview, there's room for that kind of thing. So I was using the problem of moral absolutes and applying it to the debate when I said, okay, now argue me out of this. Now, if he argues that there's moral absolutes, he's going to have to use the Christian worldview, in which case they win the debate. If he doesn't argue that there are moral absolutes, I blow his head off and I win the debate. So I win the debate either way. As I say, make my day. Go ahead, argue with me now. But in the less cutesy way. You know the problem of moral absence? You're going to talk to your neighbor and say, why do you condemn those rioters in la? What's so wrong with that on your worldview? Well, it's just not right. You shouldn't, you know, hurt other people. Why not? And then when he gives an answer, say, why not? You can all do that. You don't have to take technical courses and ethics to push this guy to say, in the end, you're assuming that we're answerable to God. You're trying to talk as though we're answerable for what we do. And yet on your worldview, there's nobody to answer to. Go ahead.
I'd like to remember when asking a question about Hitler and he came up with that silly answer. Yeah, about consensus Western culture. But that really shows how he just had no basis for anything.
Yeah.
Help the class and those who are listening by tape. When I press him about a moral absolute, you know, how do you deal with Hitler and so forth? And he says, the consensus of Western morality. What's the answer to that? What did I go on to say?
Where do you get Western morality?
Well, I went on to say, and why are we bound to the consensus of Western morality? Right. I mean, that just begs the question, doesn't it?
That's another assumption.
Basically.
Cannibalism is morally.
That's right. And you can't argue with him. The consensus of morality makes you wrong. If you're an atheist, you're stuck with cultural relativism. Okay, one more problem, then we're done. And that's the last one that I talked about before we got to the summary. And that is the problem of. I'm just going to call it the dialectical problem. The dialectical problem has to do with the internal tension within the non Christian worldview. The. The internal tension between. There are different ways of speaking of the tension. But look for these characteristics. Every worldview has got to have both of these characteristics. And then the problem is, well, how can you have both of them? They seem to be contrary. There is some kind of order or unity characteristic in a worldview. There's also going to be a randomness, diversity characteristic in the worldview, other randomness together. Or if you will, determinism and freedom, or continuity and change, or standards and individuality. Quick illustration. Person says nature is uniform and predictable because it's deterministic. Yes. Well then how do you deal with the novelty that we find in the world? Personal dignity and freedom? Well, one way to deal with it. Some worldviews say, well, there is no freedom. If there's no freedom, then why are we arguing with each other? It's ridiculous. We ought to just be stimulating each other or pumping each other with drugs or threatening each other with guns or something. Determinism and freedom. You all have thought that was a problem for Calvinists. That's the big joke to me. Calvinists are supposed to struggle with determinism and freedom. The unbeliever struggles with determinism and freedom. Secondly, there's got to be something abstract and universal, law like. And on the other hand, there have to be particulars that change. So how do you bring law like and abstract characteristics together with particular changing characteristics? Every worldview has both of these things, but worldviews don't know how to account for, how to balance or bring them together, integrate them. Last illustration, political science. Every political theory needs to account for communal stability, law and order, if you will. And yet, if everything's law and order, that is communal stability to the extreme. You have tyranny, don't you? The state tells you what shirt you can wear today and what you can eat for lunch and what thoughts you can have and TV programs you've watched. So law and order taken to the extreme means no individual freedom. So then in political theory you need a place for freedom. Free men who are not subject to the desires and whims and dictates of others. But if you push the freedom pole in political theory, you end up with anarchy, don't you? Everyone choosing good for himself. And you have total relativism, the breakdown of society. How do you bring these two together? Christians have an answer. Although I'll just share as an inside line here, I don't think all Christians do a very good job of giving that answer. But I do think you find in the law of God the balance of both law and order and individual freedom. You have a political theory that can integrate to but unbelievers can't. They're always pushed this way and then they go too far and they run this way. Then they push too far and they run this way. Well, that's true in metaphysics, that's true in epistemology, that's true in ethics, it's true in political theory. And that's what I mean by the problem of dialecticism. So these are the six things. When you write your final exam in dealing with atheistic materialism, the sorts of problems you can discuss you'll have to explain often to people, but you can discuss induction, universals, brains, the mind, laws of logic, moral absolutes and the problem of dialecticism.
Is political science problem?
Yeah. The dialectical problem was how do you bring together continuity and change, control and freedom and abstract yet tangible in politics, law and order as well as individual freedom. Okay, we'll call it a night and next month be our last time together. I'm sorry to say we'll try to clean up the rest of the worldviews.
This recording has been released into the public domain by the Bonson Institute. Duplication, sharing and distribution is encouraged. For more information about the life and Ministry of Dr. Greg L. Bonson, visit our bonsoninstitute.com where we aim to bring into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ.
