The concept of Self Creation

15, defending faith, 09-11-09

The concept of Self Creation

Why is there something rather than nothing?

We have been looking to some of the possible alternatives to account for reality as we encounter it. There are four and last time we dealt with the possibility of ‘Illusion.” We eliminated this by the Cartesian manner of reasoning, that is, by a skeptical view of how everything is. How doubting, in the end, made us give way to the existence of ‘Self.’ “If I doubt, therefore I am.”

The second one our short list is, ‘Self Existence’. It is not the only one of the alternative that atheists offer against full bodied theism. But this one is the most frequently given explanation proffered by opponents of theism. It is rare, however, that someone will just come out and say that the Universe is ‘self created.’ Sproul is using this phrase as a generic principle under which there are several types. So even when people say they are not referring to this, they do ultimately mean their concept must be defined by this idea of ‘self creation.’

Self creation is a concept in philosophy which we say is ‘analytically false.’ That is it is false by definition. Sproul reminds us that we looked earlier at those basic principle of knowledge and principles of epistemology, that are crucial for understanding truth of any sort. And we should never negotiate these 4 away as theists or agnostics of any rational variety, because to reject theism, one will reject, along the way one of these 4 principles of knowledge.

When we look at the idea of ‘self creation’ it is manifestly absurd.

Because, for something to create itself, to be an effect which is it’s own cause, it would have to exist - Before - it existed.

Or to put it another way, it would have to Be - before - it Was.

Or something would have to Be and not Be at the same time and in the same relationship.

For something to create itself it would have to antedate itself.

Clearly, this violates the Law of no contradiction, our first law of the four, and puts this idea into the level of pure irrationality and absurdity.

The idea of ‘Self Creation’ is by logical analysis a false premise.

Before we continue, let us contrast between number 2 and number 3. Between self creation and the concept of self existence. To say that something is ‘self existent’ is to say that it is ‘Eternal.’ It has the Power of Being within Itself. That is, it is Uncreated. So we must right now speak of the rational and within this process, the logical framework of rational methodology. There is nothing of absurd or irrational contained in the idea of ‘self existence’ or ‘eternal existence.’ That is, #3 is at least a rational possibility. Because it violates no law of reason or logic (The why we will get to next time.) But the concept of ‘self creation’ does violate rational and logical standards because of the law of non contradiction. Sproul is suggesting that nothing can be ‘self created.’

Did God make Himself?

The example being the story of two kids talking and the one says ‘Who mad the trees? God made the trees. Well then, who mad you? God made me. Well then, says the girl, who made God? Well the boy declares, God made himself! Now that might be a cute story but it is not sound. This is a thing God cannot do….He cannot make Himself. Because that would mean that He would have to Be before he Was. Same as we said a little earlier about the 4 statements about what is absurd and contradictory. Hamlet understood in his question, ’to Be or not to Be.’ You cannot have it both ways at the same time in the same relationship.

How do different theories on Self Creation pan out?

There are several theories that have been articulated in the past. One of the most widespread attempts to use ‘Self Creation’ as a substitute for notion of the Creation of the Universe by a Self Existent Eternal Being took place during the Enlightenment. Although the period was not monolithic in it’s teaching and debate on theism and other forms of premises. The French Encyclopaedic Movement had names like Diderot and others who vociferously argued against the existence of God. And for these the chief outcome or principle of ‘enlightenment’ that swept through Europe was the idea that now, with modern science, the God Hypothesis was no longer deemed necessary in order to explain, or to account for, or to provide a sufficient cause for the universe. They argued that in place of the God Hypothesis, which former generations believe was a rational necessity, a logical necessity to account for reality as we encounter it, but now, that can be released with impunity. Because the French said, ‘now we know that material things in the universe come into being from ‘Spontaneous generation.’

They thought that this was an explanation for things ‘beginning’ on their own. Suddenly and without any developmental period. Things just come into being. They would take as their explanation a mud puddle in the street and they would look down and see tiny little fish eggs and later they would be tadpoles and would conclude that life just ‘appeared.’ came spontaneously out of a puddle of water. They didn’t analyze all the phenomena that the water was adjacent to and the ecosystem it was apart of; as we would call it today. For them the causes were not visible to the naked eye. There was a period of time in history people believed that there was physical ex-nihilo, things came on their own. But the fundamental law of science was ignored with the axiom, ‘ex-nihilo nihil fit.’ Out of nothing, nothing comes. And science states that out of nothing - nothing can come. It doesn’t come because it cannot come. Nothing doesn’t produce something; because nothing cannot produce something.

This full throated logical impossibility lasted from he middle 1700’s to even into the early 20th century. Science was now certain that reality cannot give birth to itself. But they then made the concept more sophisticated and refined. They called it ‘gradual spontaneous generation.’ So, amazingly, even the learned men of our day can believe nonsense statements. Because this means that you can’t get reality to produce something out of nothing quickly, but it takes time to create it. An evolutionary process of time can do it. If you have enough patience it will yield a result. Sooner or later reality will create reality.

Gradual generation: universes exploding out of nothing

This is where science and philosophy butt heads. For at this point the scientist has left the scientific method back in the laboratory. He took the empirical half, the inductive half with him, but left the deductive side hidden in his trunk. The scientist has to take both of these methods and look at these statements which butcher rationality. It brings to mind the axiom that ‘a rose by any other name is still a rose.’ If you analyze these concepts of either gradual or spontaneous generation you will find a sophisticated attempt to articulate the idea of ‘self creation.’

When the Hubble spacecraft was launched as strategic scientific enterprise in America, that very same day a famous astro-physicist was on a radio broadcast and was quoted as saying this is an important day for science. It will expand our understanding by virtue of this new technology. He went on to explain that the beginnings of the universe were some 13-18 billion years ago when the universe exploded into Being. Here is where a scientist used language heavily conditioned by philosophy and said there is a beginning point and it then had Beingness. That is curious and what does he mean? What was it before it exploded? Was it the antithesis of being? Which in philosophic categories is called ‘non-being’ or in the form of a synonym is called ’nothing.’ So from our discussions a few minutes ago it is said that it takes great amounts of time for ‘something to come out of nothing.’ That ladies and gentlemen, is philosophical nonsense! Sheer irrationality of this physicists thinking and if Sproul had a chance to interview him he hopes he would say he misspoke and would apologize. That there was a previous state of being and it changed at the time of this great explosion -there must have been something before this. [pay attention to the verbiage and manner of what people say]

So we see what spontaneous generation is and what gradual generation is. Now we come to what we come into contact most in modern culture; which is…

Creation by chance

The universe comes into being by some power attributed to ‘chance.’

The formula is: space + time + chance; will = something. Our third type of self-creation.

Because this method is used so often today Sproul is going to spend the next lecture presentation on it. He has written a whole book on it titled “Not A Chance.” We will see how this relates to quantum mechanics, physics and astronomy. Theories that try to teach us that at the sub-atomic level we have things that are coming into being out of nothing. Based on the Heisenberg indeterminacy principle and other theories set forth by Niels Bohr.

To summarize: there are 4 possibilities to explain the presence of anything. Remember, the oldest question in either science or philosophy is why is there something rather that nothing? I’ve tried to labor the point with you , that if ever there was time when there was nothing; absolute nothingness, -- no God -- no matter -- no anything; what could there possibly be now?

If there ever was a time when there was nothing, well then, the only explanation is, the presence of something is through self-creation.

Something coming out of nothing by itself. Sproul wouldn’t assign this task of conquering Being from non-being to: an amino acid, neutrons, dark matter, mathematical constants or any of the pantheons of Gods.

Natural Theology and Aquinas versus Immanuel Kant

11th, defending faith

Natural Theology and Aquinas versus Immanuel Kant

Last time we attempted to understand how Thomas Aquinas, in his ideas of Natural Theology, counteracted the ideas of the Muslims philosophers of his day. They were saying that there is ‘double truth’ and that Integral Aristotelianism was a part of a constructive, though contradictory, view of how God works.

Aquinas was a titan in the middle ages and is known for constructing what is know in the history of theoretical thought the ‘Classical Synthesis.’ This is a philosophy which shows, as well as the theology behind this, and manifests the truth of the existence of God. So strong was this synthesis that it was rare that any opposing view would challenge and debate the existence of God.

Historically the principle arguments for the existence of God are the following:

1. The Ontological
2. The Cosmological
3. The Teleological
4. Moral and historical

The Ontological argument had been formulated by Augustine and later by Anselm of Canterbury. The argument was from ‘being’ …more later.
The Cosmological argument was reasoning from the ‘world’ or cosmos back to the origins of all things. Based on the law of causality that at the beginning there has to be a transcendent cause.
The Teleological approach was by the definition, in the Greek, of ‘telos’ as the end or purpose or goal. This was the argument of intricate design in the universe and as such, would therefore suggest a designer. All around nature we observe things operating in a logical way. Things work with enormous symmetry and this suggests an intelligent creator or designer. So, from the appearance of purpose and order and harmony in the universe - these observations were used to argue for the existence of God.

These constructions had been the means through the centuries for Christians to use in representing their world view. They were formidable arguments and made it possible for Christianity to dominate in Europe. Where in the universities of this age maintained that theology was seen as the ‘Queen’ of the sciences and philosophy as her handmaiden. That philosophy acted as a servant for the aims and goals of theology. For it was seen then that their was a unity in the logical affirmations of this thinking and the evidence that came from it. Also, we must remember from last time and see that Aquinas was not trying to separate ‘nature’ from ‘grace’ but was trying to maintain their unity. Which is why he put together ‘Classical Synthesis’ which reigned for so many centuries.

This was dominant thinking until the massive work of Immanuel Kant took a place of center stage in the late 1700’s. A watershed movement and to some degree revolutionary in scope. Almost the same time as the American Revolution. One of the most significant things to take place in modern history. Sproul notes that in keeping with this revolution the revolution in intellectual thought by Kant’s critic of pure reason was even more far reaching in terms of it’s impact on thinking.

Kant and his critic for the traditional arguments for God

In his famous Critic of Pure Reason, Kant, who had been awaken by the skepticism of the British Empiricists, namely David Hume, was awakened from his slumber. Kant was afraid that Hume’s critic of causality (which we looked at awhile ago in this series) would sow the seeds of destruction for all of science, which then, included religion and faith. The motivation of Kant was to rescue science from skepticism. So as he proceeded in this motivation he put his weigh and effort to Aquinas’ ’Classical Synthesis.’ Giving a comprehensive critic of the traditional arguments for the existence of God. We must understand the Kant wasn’t an atheist or trying to destructive of Christianity but rather he was trying to attack reason in order to make room for faith. He saw Christianity as degenerating into an overarching dependence on human reason and not enough on faith.

He was giving a critic for the ‘arguments’ for the existence of God. But not for the existence of God itself. You may have faith in the existence of God but you may not know the existence of God from natural reason. Kant’s attack was against natural theology. Kant’s position is that there are 2 realms: the Noumenal Realm or (world) and the Phenomenal realm.
The Noumenal Realm had 3 concepts:

1. The idea of God
2. The idea of self
3. The idea of the dianzee or the ‘thing in itself’ or ‘essences’

The third one is about the metaphysical range or level of reality that is above our senses to perceive. We never perceive essence only outward appearances. Never ‘treeness’ or ‘humanness’ but just particular humans or trees. We don’t know the soul of a person by observation. I can’t get an analysis by a specialist and find out how my essence is. Beyond the physical ability of one to get to it directly. The same for the idea of ‘self’. Can we get to it and what it is - to know it. Also God in that same way. Kant questioned how finding these things was possible. Kant was looking for an epistemological answer. Can we know that these three exist or what their reality is through scientific inquiry. His answer was ‘NO’.

All our knowledge is restricted to the Phenomenal realm only. That which can be perceived in phenomena or nature. The world here, of the senses and appearances of nature, can be studied and analyzed and examined scientifically. We cannot get from one realm to the other and make any conclusions. Between these two realms is an unbridgeable gap. The world that is seen as opposed to that which is not seen in its essence and can’t be known. He said the ‘Law of Causality’ works in the Phenomena realm we can’t know if it can be applied to the Nuomenal or metaphysical realm. So we cannot use the reasoning of cause and effect to get into this realm. Can’t get from the ‘cosmos’ to the cause of the ‘cosmos’ or from the natural to the supernatural.

Kant was skeptical that anyone could have the ability to know anything about God in a real sense. But he made a distinction, for practical purposes, that we must live as if there is a God. We must for civilization to be possible. The ‘God hypothesis’ is necessary for meaningful ethics. Because if you don’t have ethics that are enduring then you can’t have civilization. Morality and law must be based on objective virtue. So as not to degenerate from virtuous ethic to a might makes make right. As Dostoevsky said, “If there is no God then all things are permissible, as law becomes reduced to a set of preferences.” there is no such thing as what ‘ought’ to be done.

Faith or credulity?

This critic put Christianity into a crisis. Many subsequently turned away from the Classical Synthesis model and away from natural theology to what was termed ‘Fideism.’ The idea of God is to be taken on faith, a sort of blind faith, or a leap of faith that is way beyond cognition and logic, for God cannot be known or proved in any way. There is no prove for God Kant said. You can assume, presuppose or grant the existence of God but you can’t with rational logic prove anything about God. Again, many capitulated to this policy that Kant put forward. Of course, some did not lie down and play dead, but tried to reconstruct the claims of natural theology.

Can God be known in Kant‘s view?

R. C. Sproul himself, in his teaching career has been very concerned about this conflict and battle. He wants to be true to Scripture and finds a simple conflict in what Kant taught and what is presented in scripture. We have already, in this series, looked at Romans 1 where it says that the invisible God can be known through the things that are made. So, as opposed to what Kant described as not being attainable, Paul states that it can be captured from one realm to the other. There is a general revelation which declares that not only can He be known but is known through the created order. That this information is so manifest and clear that it leaves all who are of human origin without excuse.

Kant’s critic made mankind able to have an excuse. He gave them the criteria of not being able to go to the realm of Noumena and have knowledge of God in this world. The means of being ignorant of what God’s intention is. What we have here is an irreconcilable difference between Paul and Kant. If Paul is right then Kant is wrong. If Kant is right then Paul is wrong.

To conclude, Kant said that his argument boiled down to some form of the Ontological argument. For if we are going to be rational then reason demands that God exists. But, just because reason demands that God exists does not mean that God exists. All it means is that reason demands that it exists. Maybe, in the final analysis is not rational.

This important for it is why from this point in history on people started, from the consequences of Kant’s critic, to develop different philosophic forms of irrationality. Such as existentialism, logical positivism, humanism and relativism. All of which pervade our culture today.

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.

The four possibilities for reality

13th, defending faith

4 Possibilities for Reality

We have been looking at different ways that Christian theologians and apologists have sought to defend the truth claims of Christianity. We looked at the crisis that ensued from the critique of Emmanuel Kant. How, after this upheaval, some went to a ‘historical-evidential’ way of having to prove the existence of God. Others have tried as their basis for establishing God by ‘fideism or the-leap-of-faith‘ approach. Today we will go over how the Classicist approach will differentiate and prove their case for God.

The way R.C. Sproul likes to proceed for arguing for the existence of God is by following a certain type of method, which in its rudimentary form, was first established by Aurelius Augustine many many centuries ago. Sproul has tweaked it a bit with various insights from other philosophers throughout history. The basic approach Augustine used was to establish a ‘sufficient reason’ to explain reality the way we encounter it. What we mean by a ‘sufficient reason’ is that it meats the task for giving a rational explanation for this reality. Augustine also looked at it via a process of elimination. He looked for possible theoretical options and then tested them to see if fit inside of full rationality or, possibly, have failed the test.

We start with 4 possibilities to explain reality as we encounter it.

1. The experience of reality is itself and illusion
2. Reality is self created
3. Or reality is self existent
4. Reality is created ultimately by something that is self-existent

I know that there have been nuanced approaches to proving the existence of God that do not fall immediately into these exact terms or categories. But these are generic categories that will subsume all other forms of argument variations. All other forms for argument, for and against, and all other accounting for the universe, as we know it, can be put into these 4. He has done this explanation many times with professors and scientists and the like in the audience, and so far, Sproul has never mete anyone who would take issue that all variations couldn’t be put into on of these 4 categories. So, these four categories give us an exhaustive list, generically, of the possible explanations for existence or reality as it is.

The most popular one for today

Let’s step back for just a moment. Sproul has always said that the simplest way to argue for the God is this: that if anything exists; God exists. There are many steps to this abbreviated declaration that were leapt over here. But if something does exists then it must exist, necessarily, by having the ‘power of being in itself.’ If something exists then reason demands that, in the final analysis, that something must be self-existent. So, of the four options - two deal with self-existence. We must say something first. We will deal with number 1 shortly, but number 2, far and away, is the most popular and widely held alternative to divine creation. If you remember at the beginning of this course, Sproul said he spent time teaching a course in atheism where students read primary sources of the most profound minds in these theories who attack the idea of a self-existent God. They then analyzed the arguments that they brought forth against God that they substituted to account for the universe as the way we know it. They all conclude that their in no number 4 but want to prove that there is just a number 2 on our list as the sufficient reason. Where today about 95% think that there was a beginning but that it was created by itself. Some 5% think that all matter is eternal and therefore wasn’t created, this being #3. We will explore all of this in more detail. But most think there is a self-existent something which numbers 3 and 4 deal with. What has to be determined, within those two choices, is it a self-existent eternal something; or is it a Spiritual-Eternal-Immaterial Being called God or if it is ‘all of Matter’ that is - itself - the self.

Well, wait a minute here, I thought you were going to prove that there is a God. Now your talking about a self-existent somethings, what gives? What I’m trying to prove is that reason demands the assertion that there is a self-existent eternal being that is able to account for the existence of anything in this universe. You cannot be consistently rational by denying the necessity of a self-existent eternal Being. This is what Sproul is trying to show here that both reason and science bear out this accounting.

The character of this self-existent eternal Being, whether personal or impersonal, wise or foolish, good or evil remains for further discussion. But for right now, the central point we are going to be concerned with is essence or existence. Also, remember that the Evidentialist tries to give probabilities by reasons based on material-physical evidence. What we would call empirical evidence that is available to the 5 senses. Which we can agree that built therein, are useful but limiting in the proof-value because it just factors only what the human senses. It never delivers what in Philosophy we call ‘formal proof’ or absolute rational proof. Where we can find this in mathematics which is purely formal. The Classicist tries to give compelling proves beyond just the level of probabilities. Which distinguishes the two. There is a difference between giving good evidence, even great evidence and absolute proof.

Evidence or Proof

In order for that to be the case, it means I can’t start with my example of chalk that refers to physical reality, because if I do, I am assuming sense perception. Which puts me into the arena of the empirical and the sensational and that can never get me to absolute and philosophical proof. We gather only evidence. We have to find a starting point that is purely of a rational nature. A rational proof that is so compelling to a rational person one will acquiesce to the proof. This starting point that Sproul will seek to find is the point of ones own consciousness. Which will be explored in a separate session.

Proof or Persuasion

One other distinction that must be made, before we go on. One that has been made for many centuries. The difference between proof and persuasion. Proof is something objective. Persuasion is something subjective. Someone could give a proof that was logically conclusive and compelling, rationally certain that a person could not refuse to accept. Now:

I could prove that ‘all men are mortal; Socrates is a man and therefore without a doubt - to conclude the syllogism - Socrates is mortal.’ That is a logically compelling conclusion - given the premises. The steps being: If all men are mortal and If Socrates is a man; then there is no ‘ifness’ about the conclusion - Socrates would, of logical necessity, by mortal. This would be termed a ‘resistless logic’.

I still won’t agree that it is resistless logic

But what if someone says ‘I still don’t believe it. Because reason is no proof of anything to me!’ You may remember the story of Charlie which Sproul illustrated earlier in another session. Charlie says to his wife he can’t get out of bed because he says, ‘I’m dead.’ But don’t be silly Charlie, your talking to me right now, your breathing, you look fine to me. Get to work she says! Charlie says I can’t because I‘m dead and dead men can‘t work. He insisted and insisted, so the wife got a doctor. The doctor said your good to go. Charlie refused to believe the results of the doctors tests. So they get a psychiatrist. He takes Charlie to a morgue. Shows Charlie that dead people don’t bleed. See here with this dead body. Charlie says, yeh, I see this. So the Doc pokes Charlie with a needle and shows Charlie that he bleeds and therefore isn’t dead. But Charlie says, ‘gee, that’s amazing, dead people bleed after all.’

We’ve all met people like this. In spite of all reason and evidence they refuse to acquiesce. Whether for emotional reasons, bias or other maladies. This is referred to by John Calvin in his ‘Institutes’ where he says the text of scripture gives objective evidence to stop the most obstreperous from denying it’s claim that it is the very word of God. The indications and evidence for its super natural origin is plain. But Calvin says, because humankind is so indisposed to this and has such a profound bias toward self cunning, that he-she will never be sufficiently persuaded. Until a Truthful Being comes to change this very disposition that we possess. This is not an intellectual problem so much that it is a moral will one.

This the same concept, exactly, when it comes to the arguments for the existence of God. The questions of existence is an issue that is not played out on a neutral playing field. As we saw earlier on in this course, there is an enormous amount at stake here. Because if we can prove that God exists, the Eternal God of the universe, without a shred of doubt, that means and as everyone understands, Myself and you are going to be held accountable for how we act and live. The central reason that humankind is so keen to get rid of the ‘God hypothesis’ is we will be free from the guilt of this accounting. So unbelief maintains a reservoir of wishes and desires for the argument not to be true and compelling. As we know now, God makes plain his existence by that which he made, visible and beyond the senses. But we also know that humankind is not so readily willing to agree to it.

It is not Sproul’s task to persuade anybody that God exists. We are not called to persuade but to give reasons for the hope that we have been given within us. To be faithful to that responsibility is what we should do. We will deal with more in our next session.

Descartes and Cogito Ergo Sum

14th, defending faith

Descartes and Cogito Ergo Sum

We are exploring four generic possibilities to explain reality as we encounter it. Sproul is borrowing from some of the ancient scholars and philosophical thinkers. Sproul's example from last time was the 'chalk' he held in his hand. It has four possible explanations for how it came to be.

1. Illusion
2. Self created
3. Self Existent
4. Created (Self-Existent)

Is this a big Herculean waste of time to spend even a moment attempting to prove or eliminate this first principle? How many, today and through history, see and know reality as an illusion?

Well, there have been serious philosophers that have precisely tried to make this point. Everything is the dream of an entity and doesn't exist at all. So to start, Sproul is going to call his first witness, Renee Descartes. The father of modern 'rationalism' in the 17th Century who was a renown thinker and mathematician. Who was very much concerned in his day about a new form of skepticism which came from the Protestant Reformation a century before. At the wake of the Protestant Reformation there was a growing crisis in authority. Previous to the Reformation the monolithic Church of Rome was such that disputes were given to those in authority that would settle them. The Church gave the verdict and that settled the matter. So the challenge was the Church, via the Reformation, had to struggle on how, in a different way, to settle disputes. So not only was there a breakdown of Church authority there was a secondary feature of the breakdown of scientific authority. For in the 1500's there was also the Copernican revolution in astronomy. For traditions were being questioned as new avenues of information were being acquired. So all this carried over to his time in the 17th century.

So Descartes seeing this recent history, was trying to reestablish various forms of authority. Some foundation for 'certainty' with respect to truth. he was looking for, what he called, 'Clear and Distinct Ideas.' Ideas that were indubitable and could not be rejected without rejecting reason all together. With this he could put 'Ideas' into a foundation for the reconstruction of knowledge. Both in the scientific sphere and the theological sphere. The process that Descartes followed in order to achieve certainty was to follow a plan of uncertainty or of skepticism. What he did was embark on a rigorous pursuit of skepticism in which he sought to bring doubt upon everything he could conceivably doubt. He wanted to give a second glance to anything that was assumed as true and people held it in that way. He asked the epistemological question, over and over again, "how do we really know that this is true?

Ask yourself, how do I know that the things I 'think are true - really are true?'

Like this above, RC Sproul likes to go back to 'first principles' also. His whole bent in philosophic inquiry is to 'foundational principles' and fundamental truths.' Sproul will often go back and ask himself, "what are 10 things that I know for sure.' He writes them down and will subject them to the most rigorous criticism he can make. To be sure he is not just believing them because of the reason that somebody I liked taught them to me. Or because of my traditions and sub-culture I live within. Again, ask yourself, how do I know that the things I 'think are true - really are true?'

This is one of the most important principles for 'breakthroughs' in any kind of 'knowledge.' One of the great principles for new discovery. The principle of discovering assumptions. This is how philosophers breakthrough - how musicians discover - scientists gain new information - entrepreneurs build new models. One challenges the assumptions and theories of past generations that have been on past on. Things that have been passed on uncritically. An example is the Ptolemaic system of thinking on astronomy and planetary motion. People accepted the theory without it ever have been proven by testing.

We need to do this ourselves and subject our own thinking to a rigorous cross examination. We have seen what takes place in a courtroom trial where for a time you hear just one side of how things took place. You say yes I get this. Until you hear the 'cross examination' comes and people begin to raise questions about the testimony that you already heard and since listening to both sides you are not quite sure who is telling the truth. So this is a valuable thing to do but not to surrender to skepticism as if there is no answer at all.

So Descartes was going to doubt everything he encountered. He was going to doubt what he could touch and hear. Because he knew that his senses could be deceived. We have discussed this earlier when we talked of the example of the 'bent oar in the water' from Augustine's writings. Descartes said that this world may be controlled by the 'Great Deceiver." A satanic controller that is always giving me false views of reality. And he may be the master of 'Illusion.'

"Cogito Ergo Sum" or "I think therefore I am."

How can we know if reality is as I perceive it? Remember back when we were laying down our 4 foundations principles of epistemology where one of them was the 'basic reliability of sense perception.' If we cannot trust our senses in the basic elementary forms then we have no way of getting outside of the interior of our minds and making contact with an external world. This is what is called the Subject-Object problem. How do we know that the objective world, out there, is as we perceive it from our own subjective perspective? Descartes was acutely conscious of this. so he came up with some preposterous possibilities for the way reality works. So he said it is unlikely that a great deceiver is out there creating an illusion of what we see, but he said, it was possible. And if it is possible then I can't know for sure that reality is the way I perceive it to be.

He goes on this long doubting process and comes to his famous motto or slogan in which he is so well know. Which is "Cogito Ergo Sum" or "I think therefore I am."

No matter how skeptical I become the one thing I cannot doubt is, whenever I am doubting what it is that I am doubting, it is a surety, that I am doubting. Because if I doubt that I am doubting - then - it is necessary for me to doubt that I am doubting. And therefore the doubt that I am doubting has to be doubted that I am doubting what I am doubting. Ad infinitum. There is no way to escape the reality of doubt.

If you say, "I doubt it" then you have proven the very point in dispute.

The one thing there is about which there is no doubt is - that I am doubting. For if you doubt that ,then, you have proven the premise. So he came to the conclusion that there is "no doubt that I am doubting." And then he raised another question: what is required for there to be doubt? His answer was, if there is doubt, doubt requires cognition. This process requires thought and conscious action. Because doubt is an action of thinking. without thinking there can be no doubting. For when I am doubting I am, therefore, thinking.

Now at least, when I doubt, I think that I am thinking. there is no way to escape the reality that I am thinking.

Premise 1: To doubt is to think.
Premise 2: Just as doubt requires a doubter; just as thought requires a thinker, so if I'm doubting I must conclude rationally that I am thinking and if I am thinking and...

if this is so, then: I must be. I must exist. Because that which does not exist cannot think. That which cannot think cannot doubt and since there is No doubt that I am doubting it means also that I am thinking and if I am thinking then I am also existing. The conclusion being "Cogito ergo Sum."

Now people not students of philosophy look at elaborate process that Descartes goes through and say that philosophy is very foolish. that somebody would spend all this time and all this effort to learn what they think people already knows who is alive and awake and conscious. Remember that Descartes was a mathematician and he was looking for certainty at the philosophical realm. That this would equal in force and power and rational compulsion the certainty that can be arrived at in mathematics. He is going through this to get a primary principle so, then, I can go out to his garden and use the art of deduction - where I am not dependent on my senses - and come to an understanding of truth.

Two sessions ago when we talked about pre-suppositional and classical apologetics. The starting point in the Classical camp is not God-consciousness because we say only God can start there but the epistemological starting point for Classical Christian apologetics has to be 'Self consciousness.' You start in your own mind which is the only mind you have at your disposal. All thought begins with an awareness of one's thinking and/or one's existence. So whatever Descartes is getting at in his discovery the fact that I am a Self-conscious existent person is not in doubt. I do not have to look at my feet and body to know that I exist. Descartes and Sproul say that I am not dependent on any external perception. I am now learning this from the interior processes of my thought in the mind. I am not dependent on external data. So Descartes says that we all can now stay within the process of rational deduction for this conclusion.

Now the reason this is important

This is important because Descartes is disposing of the first option that reality is an 'Illusion.' There may indeed be illusions in reality, but if we say all things in reality are an illusion that would mean that nothing exists, including myself and yourself, without proving the reality of myself and yourself. He is getting at the point that this 1st of the four alternatives as a position to account for the universe has to be discarded. Because his argument proves that something exists. And this something that exists, if nothing else, is his own consciousness. To say a little differently we could hold up a piece of chalk and say, that this 3" white cylinder of chalk is an illusion - and it maybe - but if this piece of chalk actually does exist; then it would prove that God exists. Since it might be an illusion Sproul is going to have to take a different tact and say, "that if anything exists then God must exist." This makes us to not have to be tied to the fact of proving if this particular piece of reality, that is, this piece of chalk must exist. For all he is saying is the chalk, theoretically, could be not existent. What I have to establish for the Classical apologetic system to work is that something exists.

And we can thank Renee Descartes for solving that problem for us. By proving the existence of himself.

What are the things the Descartes is assuming in this process of arriving at this conclusion? For their are philosophers who don't agree with this premise 'Cogito Ergo Sum.' Who insist their is no basis in reality for his coming to that conclusion. These critics point out correctly, at least to this extent, that there are certain assumptions that Descartes is making along the way to get to this conclusion. And yes, there are 2 major assumptions he's making in order to come to the point - that if he is doubting - he's thinking - and if he is thinking then he must be existing.

The first is, clearly, the epistemological principle of the 'law of non-contradiction.' He is assuming logic. He is assuming rationality. To doubt doubt and conclude real thinking is a form of logical deduction based on the law of non-contradiction. Where the 'existential irrationalist' may say, so what, it maybe in the end still irrational and silly. all that Descartes has said is he is doubting about doubting and thinking and existing, but it is still in an all encompassing illusion. {But remember: all the 'Classical system' is trying to show is that Reason requires the existence of a 'Self Existent Eternal Being.'} If somebody is an atheist and says I don't believe in the existence of this God because I don't believe in rationality. Well, if they admit to this give them the microphone and let them state that what they stand upon and believe as an alternative to theism is, then, absurd and irrational. For if they say this which they think it will save us the time of having to demonstrate it. Please, sir just acknowledge it. For if they do this they have taken themselves out of any intelligent discussion as soon as they admit that there premise is one of irrationality and lawlessness.

What Descartes is trying to say is just as mathematics is rational - just as sound science is rational - just as sound philosophy must also be rational; and if you are going to be rational and if you are going to be logical then you cannot deny, that if you doubt...you must doubt.

The second major assumption is the law of causality. For doubting requires a 'doubter.' Descartes is saying to doubt is an effect that requires an antecedent cause. The critic will say to Descartes or anyone else holding this position that we don't accept causality or noncontradiction. OK, that's fine, don't accept them. But remember, that the law of causality is a 'formal truth' and is as certain as 2+2=4. It is true by definition. Remember, do not ever negotiate the law of non-contradiction away or the law of causality. Because if you do you will end up in absurdity. But if we use these principle that are necessary for all intelligible discourse, in all science and all philosophy and all theology you cannot escape, Sproul thinks, the prove Descartes gives, that we can through a resistless logic, through Formal reason alone, come to the conclusion of our own existence. This, then satisfies that first premise about illusion that cannot be and it is now certain that we can eliminate it as one of possible alternatives for a sufficient reason for the existence of the cosmos.