Apologetics Made Simple

26 Pages·2008·0.42 MB·English

by  Jason L. Petersen

Copyright © 2017 by Jason L. Petersen
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or
by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the
prior written permission of the publisher, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical reviews
and certain other non-commercial uses permitted by copyright law.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Dogmatism
2. Systemization
3. Language and Prop. Truth
4. Accuracy
5. Faith
6. Conclusion
Endnotes
Biography
1
DOGMATISM
A. The Myth of Objectivity
The Merriam -Webster Dictionary defines ‘objective’ as being based on facts
rather than feelings or opinions. 1 Given this definition, however, objectivity is
impossible. Take a look at the definition. What is a ‘fact?’ Let us see how the
dictionary defines it. The Merriam -Webster Dictionary defines a ‘fact’ as a true
piece of information.2
How does one determine what a ‘fact’ is? Does one have to determine that a
‘fact’ is true prior to saying it is true or is the ‘fact’ already assumed to be true in
the first place? Clearly, either one has to start with a ‘fact’ or one must arrive at a
‘fact’ by appealing to other ‘facts.’ The former is the correct choice, but the
latter is folly.
B. Everyone is a Dogmatist
In order to build a philosophy that can support the proposition that knowledge
is possible, you must be able to give an account for knowledge. Clearly, if one
must come to a conclusion on the basis of beliefs that are already held by the
person, that person cannot be ‘objective’ if we were to use this dictionary’s
definition of ‘objective.’ After all, if the ‘facts’ that one holds to cannot be
demonstrated, all the beliefs that the person holds are opinions, and one can only
demonstrate a claim if they are able to successfully argue that their claim is true.
This means that if one doesn’t start with a single proposition, one cannot draw
any conclusions. After all, if you have not started, you cannot begin. If anyone
has any beliefs whatsoever, they only can have them by assuming that a
proposition is true. Without a starting belief, it is impossible to draw a
conclusion. This starting belief is known as an ‘axiom.’3 With all of this being
said, everyone who has any belief at all is a dogmatist.4
When Greg Bahnsen was giving a lecture, he pointed out two things about
neutrality. First, unbelievers aren’t neutral. Second, we shouldn’t be neutral
either.5 Some still, however, deny they are dogmatists. Gordon Clark clearly and
forcefully addresses this clam by writing, “Objections to dogmatism are always
dogmatic, and relativisms are always asserted absolutely.”6
C. Christian Dogmatism
Now that it has been shown that everyone is a dogmatist, what does it mean
for us Christians? First, it means that we must start with an axiom. Since axioms
are not demonstrable, one can choose any axiom that they wish. One could even
choose, “I like cake,” although that won’t get them very far in a discussion about
truth. As a Christian, I start with the following axiom: “The Bible alone is the
Word of God written.” Because this book is more concerned about methodology
rather than addressing specific systems of philosophy, the implications of this
axiom is for another book.
However, when we look at the Bible, we can be sure that God’s revelation to
us must be the starting point in our philosophy. 2 Timothy 3:16 reads, “All
scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for
correction, and for training in righteousness.”7 Colossians 2:8 reads, “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 according to
Christ.” When Jesus encountered Satan in Matthew 4:1-11, Jesus shows us an
example of Christian Dogmatism. In verse three, Satan said, “If you are the Son
of God, command these stones to become loaves of bread.” In verse 4, instead of
giving extra-biblical arguments to prove he is the Son of God, Jesus quotes
Deuteronomy 8:3 by saying, “It is written, man shall not live by bread alone, but
by every word that comes from the mouth of God.” From the verses that are
cited, and by the example of Jesus Christ, we are to reject all things that are
contrary to what God has revealed to us in his scriptures. Whatever arguments
you may use when you defend the faith, be sure that the arguments are grounded
in the scriptures!
If you take this approach, you will inevitably run into an unbeliever that
rejects the authority of scripture (surprise, surprise). Dealing with such a person
is quite easy. In order for a dialogue to be worthwhile, both sides must be willing
to grant the opposing position’s axiom for argument sake. The Christian
dogmatist will seek to show that the opposing position has inconsistencies and
then will give a positive presentation of Christianity. If the unbeliever is
unwilling to grant what the scriptures teach for argument’s sake, the Christian
dogmatist should respond by rejecting the unbeliever’s starting point as well. I’ll
show you an example of what such a dialogue might look like:
Christian: According to Genesis 1:1, the universe had a beginning. If you
look at the Borde-Guth-Vilekin Theorem, the data that we have is
consistent with what Genesis 1:1 teaches.
Atheist: The Bible is nothing but a bunch of fairy tales, and even if the
universe had a beginning, it doesn’t mean that your god did it.
Christian: Then how could the universe have gotten here?
Atheist: We don’t know specifically, but it is clear that there is a natural
explanation.
Christian: Can you demonstrate that the creation of the universe can be
explained naturally?
Atheist: Everything else we observe has a natural explanation.
Christian: Can you demonstrate that claim?
Atheist: Look, everyone already knows that there are natural explanations
for what we observe.
Christian: How can you tell that a cause is natural by observing an effect?
Atheist: Because we observe it.
Christian: How do you know the effect you observe has a cause?
Observing the effect is not the same thing as observing the cause.
Atheist: Because we see the effect.
Christian: That doesn’t mean that the effect had a cause. Particularly, it
doesn’t mean that the effect has a natural cause. You are clearly assuming
that all effects are the result of natural causes, but if you are going to reject
my starting point (scripture), I’m going to reject yours. We either must
agree to grant our axioms for the sake of argument or we will not be able to
have a discussion.
In this conversation, the Christian and the atheist were exchanging ideas, but
the atheist challenged the Christian by dismissing the Christian’s starting point
(scripture) as a collection of fairy tales. Because the atheist rejected the
Christian’s starting point, the Christian began to ask the atheist questions in
order to see how the atheist came to his conclusion. At some point, the Christian
backs the atheist into a corner and the atheist repeatedly claims that it is possible
to tell that a cause is natural by observing its effect.8 Because the atheist has
rejected the Christian’s starting point, the Christian explains to the atheist that if
both of their axioms can’t be granted for the sake of argument, he will continue
to reject the atheist’s axiom and the discussion will not be able to proceed
further.
2
SYSTEMIZATION
A. Disjointed Philosophies
In this book, disjointed philosophies are defined as a set of beliefs that are
asserted, but cannot be demonstrated. I consider these philosophies to be
intellectually dull. One can have beliefs, but just because you have a belief
doesn’t mean that the belief is true. One must be able to demonstrate it.1 In a
nutshell, people who have disjointed philosophies may have beliefs, but they are
not able to show that their beliefs are true. Even if their beliefs are true, they
have no way of showing it.
B. Systematized Philosophies
In this book, a ‘systematized philosophy’ is defined as a set of beliefs that can
be demonstrated given the truth of their axiom. When two people disagree, they
are arguing about whether or not a position is true. In order to argue that
something is true, you must be able to demonstrate it. If you cannot demonstrate
it, you have no way of knowing whether or not what you are arguing is true.
When one is claiming that a proposition is true, a simple question must be
answered. That question is, “How do you know that what you believe is true?”
Any philosophy that cannot answer this question collapses into skepticism.2
Perhaps a person may agree that their philosophy results in skepticism, but you
only need to tell them, “If you know that you know nothing, you do know
something.” Therefore, skepticism is self-refuting.
The Christian must begin with an axiom and must be able to derive all of the
propositions that they say they can know from the axiom that they begin with.
There have been many attempts to do this, but Gordon Clark has been the most
successful (I would argue that he was successful).3 If you can demonstrate all of
the propositions that you say you can know given the truth of your axiom, you
will be able to defend your philosophy from any attack. This means that you
need build an epistemology that allows you to account for knowledge of your
claims.4 If you can answer the question, “How do you know what you believe is
true?” You will be able to defend your position in an apologetic encounter.
3
LANGUAGE AND
PROPOSITIONAL TRUTH
A. What is Language?
Language uses symbols to communicate propositions. Propositions are
declarations that can either be true or false. Without language, we would not be
able to communicate with each other.
Clearly, because the Bible has been written, the Bible already attests to the
usefulness of language. Language allows us to function by being able to
communicate propositions and concepts. In Genesis 2, names were given to
nearby rivers. The last sentence in verse 19 is informative. “And whatever the
man called the living creature, that was its name.”
B. The Importance of Common Definitions
Perhaps one of the largest barriers in a discussion between two people is a
disparity in definitions. If you change the definition of a word within a
proposition, you will change the meaning of the proposition. I will give one
hyperbolic example. Francis Bacon one said, “Knowledge is power.” This
statement normally means that the more someone knows, the more they will be
able to control what happens. In order to get such a meaning from that
proposition, the word ‘power’ would have to be used in a metaphorical sense.
What if I were to change the meaning of the word ‘power’ to denote
‘electricity?’ The proposition would look identical, but instead of meaning,
“Knowledge is control” it would mean “Knowledge is electricity.” Obviously,
this would result in two very different meanings for what appears to be the same
proposition. No longer would the proposition concern using knowledge to
achieve your desired results, rather, it would mean that knowledge would be a
potentially dangerous thing!
This highlights something that is important when you are having a discussion
with someone. If it seems that you are not on the same page as the other person
when they invoke a word, ask them for the definition they are using for that
word. This will allow you to better understand what the other person is saying,
and it will also help you make sure they don’t try to weasel their way out of a