In part 5 (see parts 1, 2, 3 and 4), Dr. Bahnsen continues his presentation to high school seniors on why Christians cannot be “neutral” when they go off to college.
The philosophies of the world rob the treasure of truth which is found only in Christ.
Colossians 2:8 (ESV) “See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.”
Main Point 3: Disagreements between believers and unbelievers are systemic, world view disagreements, not isolated disagreements on a few points.
The Christian philosophy of life is all encompassing; Christians are to bring every thought captive to Christ. Therefore, an antithesis always exists between believing and unbelieving philosophies. Furthermore, the world and its way of thinking finds the Christian philosophy to be not only wrong, but foolishness:
1 Corinthians 1:22-23 (ESV) For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles”
The disagreement is systemic, meaning that at all points Christianity’s philosophy is set against worldly wisdom: both world views have radically different starting points, methodologies, standards of evaluation, conclusions, etc.
- For example, Agrippa’s difficulty in accepting the possibility of resurrection was not with the facts, but with his philosophy of life which precluded the possibility of resurrection.
- Furthermore, Paul warns Timothy that not everything that comes to you as “truth” is true knowledge.
Everyone has a world view (basic philosophy of life), and this world view sets the limits upon that which one accepts as real, true, etc. In college you will encounter many of the secular world views.
Summary
In this lecture, Dr. Bahnsen argues three main points:
- Unbelievers are not neutral.
- Christians ought not be neutral.
- Disagreements between believing and unbelieving philosophies are systemic, involving the antithesis between entire world views rather than mere disagreements on one or two points.
Subscribe by e-mail
Hi there, I could never fathom neutrality involved with world-views. Corporately speaking, each religious sect had a corporate world-view separate from the others. This is well seen in Christianity itself as it has over 80,000 Denominations, each one with a different interpretation of the Bible and it’s own worldview.
Worldviews may be similar to others, but if each is different how can there be neutrality in the first place?
Also, I believe each human being has their own personal world-view, which would be separate from everyone else including other members of their congregation.
The real question is, what would a completely neutral world-view look like and how could it be proven to be neutral? Since world-views themselves are subjective to a person with their limited 5 senses and their educatrion/ upbrining, how could they have a neutral one in the first place?
Greetings,
Thanks for visiting my site and for sharing your comments.
I don’t know if you had a chance to watch the five video clips, but the main point of Dr. Bahnsen’s presentation is not that Christians are neutral and non-Christians are not neutral; rather, his main point is that there is no such thing as “neutrality” both for Christians and non-Christians.
The Christian view of reality is a complete package which precludes the possibility of autonomy (the epistemic foundation of neutrality). On Christian terms it is impossible for a Christian to be “neutral” (i.e. a truly autonomous subject) because God is the ultimate epistemic starting point, not man. God both created all things and sustains all things, including human life.
Thus, on the Christians view if God did indeed create and does indeed sustain all things, then man cannot be an autonomous interpreter of reality, but rather man is dependent upon God’s self-revelation both in Scripture and nature in order to make sense of the world, man’s place in the world, God and his plan of redemption, etc.
After taking a quick peek at some of your posts (especially this one), I have a suspicion that the question you are really looking to answer won’t be helped by philosophical-sounding comments like the one I just wrote above.
If you would oblige I would like to explain what I mean and to hear more about your story. Do you skype? If so, can we do a chat or a call? My skype name is lotrumpet.
Hello,
Thanks for your reply, and no I don’t skype :) Also, thanks for taking a peak at my blog!
So you’re saying that per Christian perspective (well, Dr Bahnsens exclusively) that a person cannot interpret their reality on their own without God doing it for them? That would make God exclusively responsible for every person who fails to interpret his enigmatic “Word” wouldn’t it? IF that’s what you mean by autonomous, it’s rather a fresh word for me so I had to look up it’s definition. Seems to be slanting on predestination and theology that of John Calvin. I would definitely say that it can’t be every Christians perspective, that’s for sure!!!
No, no, that’s not what I’m trying to say. Rather, I’m trying to state simply the reason why Christianity cannot be neutral. And the reason is that God is ultimate, not man, and God’s ultimacy has epistemic implications on man’s knowledge of himself and of the world.
In other words, if God created all things, then He is the ultimate authority on truth, the one who gives meaning to all things. Therefore, on Christian terms it would be foolish for man to attempt to interpret himself and his world apart from God (i.e. autonomy). Rather, man interprets himself and the world most clearly when he does so in light of the lamp of God’s self-revelation.
I’m glad you mentioned Calvin. He better communicates what I am trying to explain in book first of his Institutes:
Well, if that is true, then you have to know what God’s revelation IS. Not only that, you should probably prove it because knowing such a thing has life-changing results (worldivew shifting) – Given the evidence at hand, as I see it, I haven’t seen God’s revelation, but a bunch of people claiming they surely have. None of which, can agree with each other entirely, further proving there is no such a thing as neutrality with world-views. I believe that Neutrality can be found however, but on more explicit details.
It is great that people can find truth from past revelations such as the bible and theologians. However, I have not.,
A few quick caveats before I continue:
First, discussions like these are difficult in the abstract. I don’t even know your name, your background, etc., and you don’t know much about me. If you want to keep talking in comments, that’s fine with me, but you need to know that I don’t care much for abstract philosophical one-upsmanship. I would much rather talk in person (are you near Florida?) or skype or whatever, but only if you really want to know me and want me to know you through genuine dialog.
Second, in a few of your blog posts you mention various types of religious BS, arising both from your own existential struggles and from religious friends who try to convert you, judge you, etc. On the former, you need to know that I am probably more existentially screwed up than you; my only hope is that I have been found by a genuine, life-giving hope that is true, bigger than me, and offers real help out of the pit of skeptical despair and genuine solutions to psychological guilt. On the latter, I hate religious BS probably more than you do, and I’ve been in the thick of it probably more than you too. Look, I won’t try to convert you. I couldn’t even if I wanted to (I’m not powerful enough, persuasive enough, knowledgeable enough, holy enough, among many other shortcomings).
I will, if you allow, as a friend challenge your assumptions and be challenged by yours. But again, I’m not up for wasting my time shoveling religious BS.
Third, Your generalities are difficult for me to follow what you are referring to. Can you be more specific? For example, in the previous comment when you speak of knowing what God’s “revelation IS,” I’m a little confused as to both (a) what you mean by “revelation”–are you referring to the Bible?–and (b) what “evidence” you have in mind that compels you to say that you haven’t seen God’s revelation. In my reply I’ve tried to guess at what you have in mind; feel free to ignore what follows if I’m way off:
On Christian terms, people can’t help but see God’s revelation everywhere. Thus the point of Calvin’s first sentence quoted above–because God is the creator of all things, everywhere we look (whether at ourselves and our world or at God) we see His revelation. The cosmos is the theater of God’s handiwork, so to speak, and man is the crowning glory of God’s creation. So, the answer to your question of where to find God’s revelation is everywhere.
Christianity distinguishes two main types of God’s self-revelation: general revelation (God’s works of creation and providence, as described in Psalm 19 and Romans 1:20, for example) and special revelation (God’s redemptive works as explained in the Holy Scriptures and seen most brilliantly in the life, death, resurrection, and glorification of Jesus, as in the four Gospels, John 1, Hebrews 1:1-4, etc.). So, speaking very broadly here, the Christian view of revelation says, in one sense, you find God’s self-revelation in the entire cosmos; but, in another sense, you find God’s plan of redemption only in the Holy Scriptures. So, a fuller answer to your question, from the Christian perspective, is that a person finds God’s revelation in creation and in the Holy Scriptures.
On the bit about Christians disagree with each other, forming denominations, etc., one of the main reasons Christians can’t agree with each other on every fine point of doctrine or every point of practice is that Christians are still screwed up by the curse of sin. Even Paul says that now (i.e. before the new heavens and new earth) Christians only see in a mirror dimly. Our vision of God’s revelation (both general and special) is still clouded by sin. So, on Christian terms, disagreement is even to be expected this side of heaven. (i.e. Much of the New Testament deals with disagreements, false teachings, etc., in the churches of the first century.)
However, there is a difference between cloudy vision and blindness: disagreements on interpretations of passages, formulations of doctrines, etc., on the one hand, and total disregard for foundational truths on the other are of entirely different orders. Christians can disagree on the interpretation of Scripture in the same way philosophers debate interpretations of Plato; but Christians cannot disagree on whether Jesus is the only mediator between God and man because in giving up this basic tenet one ceases to be a Christian.
The fact that Christians disagree is also caused by another important consideration: Christianity is objective and historical before it is subjective and personal. In other words, the brilliant light of God’s objective revelation of Himself in Jesus Christ is not dimmed by Christians’ subjective misinterpretations of that light. (Nor is it dimmed by non-Christian’s subjective suppression and rejection of that light.) What keeps Christians from the dark ocean of pure subjectivity and utter disagreement on all points of doctrine is that God Himself promises to open the eyes of His people to see His own light through Holy Spirit’s work of applying the benefits of Christ’s victory, of which knowledge of and fellowship with God is a chief benefit (Jer. 24:7, John 7:37-39, John 17, Acts 1-2, 1 John, for example). The objective revelation of God is applied subjectively to believers by the objective Spirit of God. Therefore, man’s hope for knowing God is not rooted in himself, but in God.
Again, this “eye-opening” does not yield 20/20 vision until the consummation. But, nonetheless it is an important aspect of the Christian view of revelation to note the objective nature of God’s revelation and its subjective application by the Holy Spirit. Without this bit Christianity is just another subjective pipe dream.
Before stating whether you agree or disagree, am I communicating clearly in the sense that you know what I’m trying to say?
Perhaps an interesting question related to revelation to put your way is as follows. Recently you said the following:
The question is this: By what standard of truth are you testing the ultimate truth claims of both atheism and theism?
Hi LO, I’m sorry for the late reply. Your post is taking a bit for me to digest, and I thank you for your respectful answer. I’m not completely sure on what you’re trying to say, let me paraphrase what you have said and go from there:
1. Being a Christian does not make you all knowing and in the Bible it says we see through a glass darkly. – Astute findings Saint Paul!
2. What connects Christianity together and unites it is the belief in Jesus Christ as redeemer (death and resurrection)
3. From a Christian perspective, God’s Revelation is seen EVERYWHERE through the creation and through Holy Scriptures. Here’s the clinger, the revelation is only there if you decide to believe it is a revelation.
Ok, let me answer your question: The standard of truth I use is confirmation. Non-biased confirmation. Like, how do I know my tap water is any good? Well, I can take a sample of it and put it in a tray, and let it sit for 24 hours in a dark warm environment, if there is tons of bacteria in it then I’ve got a problem. If there is no bacteria then I know it is germ free. I guess the only form of confirmation that has benefited the human race (invention of Cars, planes, space ships, medical breakthroughs) is the scientific method. What other methods of confirmation prove something to be true?
Dear Confucius,
(Since I don’t know your name, I made a temporary one so that I don’t feel like I’m talking to my plastic computer monitor. Feel free to relieve me of my juvenile folly anytime :-)
My turn for apologies on tardiness. Over the holiday break my wife and I went to see my new nephew in Texas (which was a blast!), but then I took sick. Anyhow, sorry for the late reply. You’ve probably already moved on to other thoughts, but in case you’d like to keep going, here’s my brief reply:
On points 1-3: (1) Close enough. (2) Sort of, but there’s much more that “connects” Christianity as a fully comprehensive worldview. I’ll leave this topic for now, unless you ask me to expound this point. (3) Yes, except for the “clinger” bit. Who is man, a creature, to “decide” what God, the Creator, has or has not revealed? By what empirical, metaphysical, or existential standard would man need in order to adjudicate such a matter? The Christian view is not that man decides what is or is not revelation, but that God Himself gives man eyes to see and ears to hear (John 10:27; Rev. 3:18).
On empirical proof of Christianity: (1) A question and (2) an article.
(1) To listen to our favorite apostle of the moment yet again, when he says sweeping ultimate statements like this one in in Romans 11:36 (ESV)–”For from him [God] and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen.”–what epistemic “neutral ground” is left upon which man could measure meaning? Is empirical knowledge excluded from the “all things” here spoken of by Paul?
I ask this question not to inquire whether you accept or reject such Scriptural claims, but to see first of all if you will at least acknowledge the full breadth and strength of such Scriptural claims regarding God’s epistemic claims to be the ultimate fountain of all truth. (Compare other Scriptural claims, such as Genesis 1-2; John 1; Eph. 3:9; Col. 1:16; Heb. 1:2; Rev. 4:11, etc.) Because when you say things like, “Here’s the clinger, the revelation is only there if you decide to believe it is a revelation,” then you are not thinking in Christian terms but in terms of autonomy, as if you are some supposedly neutral island of truth who is capable of judging what is true and false (in ultimate terms) about God, yourself, the world, and other men’s truth claims, etc. That’s a pretty tall order for yourself, even with the help of the scientific method!
(2) I don’t know whether you find yourself among Christians who downplay empirical truth (or try to politicize it in terms of “intelligent design”), but if you find things related to the scientific method (and hence empirical truth claims) intriguing, might I suggest a fairly brief article by a 20th century theologian, J. G. Machen, entitled History and Faith. Machen is one example of a theologian who is not willing to give up Christianity’s historical/empirical truth claims (as are, sadly, many modern theologians), but who is also not willing to make blind empirical claims, such as unthinking, non-scientific religious fundamentalists. I’m hoping this article both perks your interest toward digging deeper into Christian epistemology and prods you to consider your own presuppositions a little closer (i.e. is the scientific method really neutral?).
Hey LO, thanks for replyin’ no worries, I was surprised to see a reply but when I saw one I just had to read it ;)
The Christian view is that it’s God’s revelation hence you can rule out “Having to believe it’s God’s revelation to be God’s Revelation” because the Christian believes it was “God’s revelation” and will use scriptures to back it.. yay scriptures lol – Yes I think we both can agree Paul thought Highly of Jesus and his dad. King David did too. both really liked God, didnt they?
I’m weary of scriptures LO, the were written by men you know. The Bible? canonized by men. men, men, men, men! men and stuff! lol
is the scientific method really neutral? wow that’s a good one. I think it is for the most part. Except if youre a fundamentalist Christian, then science is EVIL and from the debbol.
Is science full-proof, without error? Hell no, but to claim ANYTHING is without error is the tall order you speak of.
Who is man, a creature, to “decide” what God, the Creator, has or has not revealed? By what empirical, metaphysical, or existential standard would man need in order to adjudicate such a matter? The Christian view is not that man decides what is or is not revelation, but that God Himself gives man eyes to see and ears to hear (John 10:27; Rev. 3:18).
yay more scriptures :D
Yeah how dare any man tell us who God is or what he does, no wait, that’s exactly what the Bible does. LOL
Because when you say things like, “Here’s the clinger, the revelation is only there if you decide to believe it is a revelation,” then you are not thinking in Christian terms but in terms of autonomy, as if you are some supposedly neutral island of truth who is capable of judging what is true and false (in ultimate terms) about God, yourself, the world, and other men’s truth claims, etc. That’s a pretty tall order for yourself, even with the help of the scientific method!
Forget the scientific method! Really even if the scientific method sucks (which it doesnt) that doesnt magically make Christianity true. So if I’m not readin’ the Bible and Believing it (nisert a scripture here that says we gotta believe in God or something) then I’m on a neutral island capable of judging reality! :O You mean it’s like I’m God or something??
Honestly I think its more like, I dont know what to believe so I dont just want to believe in something “JUST BECAUSE” – I certainly am not sayin’ what’s true and what’s false. I am saying that nobody can really know the ultimate truth’s and we can all write long blogs about how we think we know but honestly we don’t. That’s my story and I’m sticken’ to it. ;)
Good. Neither do I.
I’m guessing you would agree with me that neither one of us wants to believe in anything just because any ol’ quack says so, but we want our beliefs to be based on solid ground, a true authority that is satisfying empirically, rationally, and existentially.
…um not to point out the obvious, but is your statement here true or false?
When discussing truth, the question of authority does seem to rear its head at every point, doesn’t it? You are free to write your own story, so to speak, however you want. You can believe whatever you want, live by whatever ethic you want, etc. etc., but you still have to face the question: Are my beliefs true? And perhaps the more pressing question for you is: How can I know if anything is true?
Sticking to your own story, as you’ve put it, is nothing else than you writing your own Bible. You’ve chosen to be your own epistemic authority. If this is really how you want it, then why should I believe anything you have to say? Or why would you even care about anything that I have to say, or what anyone else says?
If neither of us want to believe because somebody says so, I would suggest we are both our own epistemic authorities. I think actually every human is, the evidence is that no human agrees fully on all topics.
Religion of course is a hot topic, along with politics and what not, so yeah.
The authority of truth is an interesting topic LO, and I’m wondering why people let religion be their authority in epistemology.
You ask “How can I know if anything is true?” – I think that is a great question and it’s worth asking. All to often people don’t even care about that question and just choose to believe something is true without testing it. As far as I’m concerned, and I haven’t just dropped to this conclusion brashly, is that not one human being can really “know” with absolute certainty that anything is true.
As far as a Bible is concerned, I’m not writing one and have no interest in writing a book or canonizing stuff and what not.
As far as being my own epistemic authority, I believe that is what we all are. That is unless someone is mind-controlling us of course lol.
I actually find myself in a better philosophical position then a religious person because the religious person has to subvert their own rational thought-process and instead of think for themselves they must let someone else think for them. This creates cognitive dissonance for some humans, but not all.
I do have much respect for tolerant Christians who put in their best effort to think for themselves, but the Christians who just quote scriptures and do not think for themselves at all are in a dangerous position.
There is a cliche amongst Christian circles that say “Don’t put God in a Box” and I think that’s exactly what the Bible does. To say that all the answers of truth and our existence are in one book seems to be narrow-minded and arrogant.
I would be more probable that if God exists, and as you put it “you become God when you describe what he is or who he is, and that’s a tall order” the Christians hypocritically do the same when they turn the Bible into an infallible text-book that explains the universe and even God. I think that is “boxing God”, “closing the mind”, and is a “tall order”
This is an area I am interested in discussing further together. If you’re game, perhaps we can move our discussion to some other venue, like e-mail. (I don’t know about you, but I’m getting tired of typing into this dinky comments box….)
Hi Confusedchristian,
“is the scientific method really neutral? wow that’s a good one. I think it is for the most part.”
The scientific method is not neutral. The scientific method includes observation (experimentation) and interpretation. Yes, observations can be neutral. But that is where the neutrality ends. Interpretation of observations are not neutral. New observations are interpreted in light of established knowledge. Yet, the established knowledge is based on interpretations of earlier canons of knowledge. When you follow this string of contingency back far enough, you will see that the scientific method is based on the unscientific assumption that the 5 human senses are sufficient to interpret reality.
Naturalistic empiricism assumes that the 5 human senses are sufficient to interpret reality. Yet, empiricism is theoretically insufficient. The 5 human senses, according to the theory of evolution, developed as reactions to our immediate physical environment. But IF earth was such a place where light was scarce (and somehow organisms still managed to survive), the human eyes would not have developed. Some organisms today do not have eyes because they live in dark places. Without need for eyes, eyes would not have evolved. In such a scenario, humanity would have had 4 senses to conduct empiricism. In this scenario, these smug “empiricists” would think that they could know everything there is to know using their 4 senses. Likewise, we humans with 5 senses believe that our empiricism of 5 senses is sufficient to discern reality. Yet we are severely limited. We do not know what we are missing because we only have the 5 senses which we so happened to evolve due to the physical environment. The most humble and logic conclusion is that empiricism allows us to know only that which we can know through empiricism. Confirmation by empiricism is thus a tautology, since empiricism only confirms empiricism. Empiricism does not allow us to know all of reality.
“To say that all the answers of truth and our existence are in one book seems to be narrow-minded and arrogant.”
May I ask the question: in how many books should the answers to our existence be included so that your criteria for open-mindedness is satisfied? 10? 100? 1000? or is there no way to know truth? The person who says 10 is narrow minded for thinking that (for he believes that the person who thinks 1 or 1000 is wrong). The person who says 1000 is narrow minded for thinking that. The person who says there is no way to know truth is narrow-minded for thinking that. No matter what your belief is, you set your belief against all others. We all have conclusions (some have more tentative conclusions, but have conclusions nonetheless). We are all “narrow” in our conclusion since there is no middle ground between propositions. Even the most seemingly “open-minded” person who thinks that truth can only be found in an infinite number of sources is “narrow” regarding that belief. He can only stick to that belief and no other at one moment. The modernist ideal of open-mindedness is dead. We are all subjective. And we all choose one choice over the other when we decide. We are all “narrow” concerning that which we adhere to.