Beginning the Case for God

12th, defending faith

Beginning the Case for God

In our last edition we explored the watershed moment in theoretical thought when Immanuel Kant penned his critic of “Pure Reason.” Giving his critique of the traditional arguments for the existence of God. Which lead to the disintegration of the ‘Classical Synthesis’ where the Church faced the question of how do we face apologetics within these new frameworks? How can we make a case for God without falling into the trap of problems that Kant posed.

They had several but the main one was:

1. Fideism which was the tact that we should just leap over the ditch of unknowable and improvable logic and just have faith. We can’t determine convincingly anything about the existence of God, you just have to have a ‘faith.’ And since Kant, many theologians and the individual Christian has gone along with this premise. For when people raise personal objections to personal faith, or why do you believe what you believe, the answer was, “well, you just have to take it by faith.” Or, “a leap of faith into the dark unknown where you hope someone will catch you.”

So to recap, there is an honored place in biblical Christianity for faith. There is also a difference between faith and credulity, the former which leads to foolishness. But the pressure here, at that time, was to just have faith with no acceptance of reason.

2. Another method to reconstruct theism was to the appeal of history. Many took this route. History can never give absolute proof but only a high degree of probability. Looking at this evidence gives what could be called ‘moral certainty.’ The idea being that you bring out the historical place of Jesus and then back to the existence of God. The arguments from biblical history may not give you ‘formal’ proof, as is found in logical deduction, but is evidential to such a degree that it will leave a person without any moral escape hatch. We say in the courtroom that the prosecution has to bear the burden of proof and they must prove that the person is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. So, those who are called ‘evidentialists’ who argue from history try to show that it so communicates and proves the existence of God. Which, is said, that the conclusion is beyond any reasonable doubt and is astronomically in favor of this probability, and that only a fool would deny what it clearly manifests.

Which method is the best?

The problem that R. C. Sproul has with this method is he thinks there is a better way. For even a high probability historical process gives the wayward person a small loophole or escape hatch from which to say they are not convinced beyond any shadow of doubt. Maybe it’s not reasonable for me to doubt but your case isn’t fully conclusive.

There are three types or schools of apologists. Presuppositionalists, Evidentialists, and Classicists. Sproul is a Classicist. Where the Evidentialist takes his evidence from history and other places to get to a high degree of probability for the existence of God. A Classicist says, that his proofs are wholly conclusive and compelling. It is actual proof and leaves one without excuse. That is a very burdensome claim to take on. But he thinks it the case that should be taken. There is also the Presuppositional school which has some varieties within it. Where some find it to be a version of fideism others think it fit’s a rational framework. Where it argues, in order to arrive at the conclusion, that God exists and to prove it, you must start with your first premise - there is a God. You must start as already presupposing that there is a God or you will never get to the conclusion that there is indeed a God. The criticism of this starting place is it involves a classic fallacy of logic called circular reasoning or petitio principii. And this occurs when the conclusion appears already in one of your starting premises. The defense of this charge is, from Van Til’s view, that all reasoning moves in this way. The starting point, the middle ground, and the conclusion are all involved with each other. If you start rationally and go through all your positions rationally you will finish in a rational manner. So Van Til justifies this form of reasoning by saying that all reason has a form of circularity. But those who don’t subscribe to this find another fallacy looming here. The fallacy of equivocation which says that a term changes it’s meaning in the middle of the argument. Sproul finds that this isn’t suitable. Reasoning isn’t circular it is linear. The only presupposition in a rational argument is the presupposition of reason. Which quickly lead to the presupposition of the law of no contradiction. The presupposition of causality and the others such as the reliability of sense perception and the analogic use of language. Our 4 original necessities for agreement.

The Classical defense

The biggest error Sproul finds, besides these logical errors, is that nobody starts with God in the first place, except God himself which certainly only He can. You, as a person, don’t start with a ‘god conscience’ and then move to the existence of God. We must, by necessity, start where we are and with our brain and self consciousness. But others say that this is unbiblical. They say that Sproul is assuming ‘the autonomy of the self’ rather than the sovereignty of God. Which is exactly what the first 2 human creatures did in the ‘garden’ when they took over and disobeyed. It is said that it must not be made from a fallen state and beginning with the ‘self’ rather than God is a no-no. Where Sproul would be guilty of embracing paganism and the deification of the self and the rejection of God if he indeed thought this way. But Sproul is not starting with the ‘autonomy of self’ but with the ‘consciousness of the self‘. Where, as Augustine also said, you always come, with self consciousness, immediately to an awareness of finitude. Where when you are aware of yourself as a ‘self’ you then know that you are not God. This is what many, including Calvin, have brought to their case for God. The idea of ‘autonomy’ where you are a law unto yourself is not contained in the idea of self consciousness. If it were then it would be sinful to start at that point. What Sproul is saying is that the self is a given to created ‘creaturelyness.’ The only place any self can start in thinking. You cannot start in any other mind, not in your fathers or you neighbors mind or anyone else’s. You don’t start with God you start with your own self-consciousness. From there you move onward. And you will soon come to know that you are not autonomous at all.

This dialogue goes on and on. But most agree on much in Christian doctrine of the reformers but this, we have been working over, is strategic in how we formulate our case for God. We all agree that we must establish early on in our apologetic the existence of God. He is First in the order of being. But not first in the order of knowing.

Next is how Classical apologetics constructs its case for this important step for our starting point to the compelling case for God.