Pastor Stephen Feinstein
On Friday evening, December 19, 2014, myself
with a team of evangelists from Sovereign Way Christian Church from Hesperia,
CA went down to the Mission Inn area in Riverside, CA to hand out gospel tracks
to the multitudes who were shopping during the Festival of Lights. It was quite
an eventful night, for we were not the only evangelists there. Believe it or
not, there were evangelists of atheism on the street holding up signs that
declared God to be the adult version of Santa Clause. Their signs dubbed
themselves as free thinkers. So true to form, I finished my cup of coffee and
headed straight towards them to engage in a discussion. I got into a decent
debate with a 31 year old atheist named John.
I felt compelled to comment here and now on my
interaction with this atheist. Although our discussion touched on many of the
typical issues, I want to just focus on one. When we were debating, I sought to
demonstrate that naturalism and materialism cannot account for the immaterial
laws of logic. He attempted to argue that they can, which I found interesting.
Giving you the bottom line up front, his position was tantamount to him saying,
“Logic is because it is.” I told him this, and though he was not happy with
that, there was no escaping it.
His stated position went something like this. As
long as two different things exist, the law of identity must exist by default.
And thus, the existence of material reality by itself would create laws of
relationship or logic. So in other words, because stuff exists, logic too must
exist. Therefore, you do not need the biblical God to account for logic. Now of
course, this is arbitrary. I pointed out to him that he essentially is saying
because the universe exists, logic exists, and thus he is arguing that logic is
because it is.
Materialism can never successfully account for
the existence of immaterial logic. So when we were done addressing this and
everything else we addressed such as moral laws, the uniformity of nature, and
evolutionary theory, my team and I all agreed that every argument he advanced
was launched from groundlessness. So I was satisfied that we soundly defeated
him as far as the intellectual side of this went. I asked him if he would allow
me to share the gospel afterwards with him, but he declined. That was the most
tragic part of this.
The real reason I am writing this post, however,
is because when I was driving home, his argument about logic hit me hard. It
seemed that I was due for a second battle with his argument, but this time it
was isolated to my mind alone. This second battle was much fiercer than my
battle with the atheist himself. It did not help that while this raged in my
mind, my sweet eleven year old daughter was talking my ear off thus
interrupting my thoughts. She had no idea of the battle in my head during that
time, and so I tried to talk with her and with myself at the same time. Well,
fortunately, there came a point where I had about two minutes of silence in the
car, and then the answer came to me. Given that such a battle occurred in my
mind I felt compelled to share the real strength of his argument with you, but
then show you how it utterly fails. This way if you ever encounter this
argument from an atheist, you will see its absurdity.
So let me begin with the strength of it. He is
right about one thing. If two different things do exist, then the law of
identity will exist too. Two or more distinct things exist, therefore the law
of identity exists. So here you have an immaterial conceptual law that exists,
but it seems to exist because many distinct material things exist. And given
that all laws of logic tend to be laws of relationship between classes and categories
of things, it could stand to reason that all the laws of logic do in fact exist
because the universe exists. This threw me for a loop when the force of the
argument clicked in my mind. For the first time in all of my debates with
atheists, one of them finally gave what seemed to be a justification of
immaterial logic from a materialistic worldview. This was a huge feat for this
guy when you consider the fact that I debated Russell Glasser, one of the hosts
of the acclaimed atheist TV show, The
Atheist Experience. After all, Glasser had no good response against my
argument from immaterial logic. I have debated a number of atheists, and it
seemed to me that the best they could do is change the subject by asking how
God accounts for logic, which is an easy thing to answer. But on December 19,
2014, I, for the first time, received an answer from an atheist that almost
worked to defend the existence of logic from a materialistic worldview. But
once I had two minutes of silence, I was able to see the problems with this
argument.
Truly, this forces us to go back to Plato vs.
Aristotle all over again. It is interesting that good arguments over
metaphysics never get outdated. Plato looked around the world and realized it
is made up of stuff that changes, decays, and disappears. He reasoned from this
fact that the ultimate ground of reality must be something that does not
change, decay, or disappear. Thus, he theorized that there exists a world of
immaterial forms that are eternal, and these forms govern and dictate much of
what happens in the material world, which he called the world of particulars.
So you have multiple humans on earth who are the particulars made out of changing,
decaying, and disappearing matter. Yet, the concept of humanity itself does not
change, decay, or disappear, even after millions of individual material humans
do change, decay, and disappear. In fact, without something stable like the
concept of humanity, we would have no way to understand or make predictable
sense of ourselves as particulars since everything changes too much. So Plato took
this concept and applied it to everything, including logic. Logic never
changes. The law of identity is always the same, as are other laws of logic. These
laws govern all things that exist in the material world, and yet are themselves
not material. They last unchanged forever, whereas all things made of matter do
not. So from Plato’s perspective, the immaterial world of forms (where logic
resides) is primary, whereas the material world of particulars is secondary and
cannot exist without the world of forms.
Plato’s greatest student Aristotle disagreed
with this position and held to a form of materialism. He believed that change,
caused by motion, was the most pervasive thing in the universe, and it explains
all that we observe. Due to this, Aristotle did not believe a world of forms
was necessary to explain what occurs in the real world. In fact, he believed if
such a world existed, we could not know it and therefore it would be useless to
humans for acquiring knowledge or explaining things. Thus, Aristotle only
needed matter in motion to explain the world. I do not want anyone to
misunderstand me, however, for Aristotle was not an atheist. He believed in a
first mover that caused all motion since.
I only bring these two up to show how in 2,400
years, we still wrestle with the same fundamental issues when it comes to
relating immaterial logic and concepts like love, justice, truth, etc., to a
material universe. Christians will argue that the only way for this
relationship to exist is if beyond the material universe exists a spiritual
reality as well (heaven), and even beyond that is the personal, absolute,
infinite, tri-une, and sovereign God of the Bible – for all things that exist
are by Him, to Him, through Him, and for Him. Materialistic atheists will argue
that matter itself somehow accounts for these immaterial concepts, and thus
they will say that no God is necessary. As far as Plato and Aristotle go, they
were both arbitrary in their positions, as they started with their own finite
reasoning to define realities that are far greater than themselves. Plato’s
world of forms was his mere invention – a necessary invention for him since he
rightly saw that materialism cannot account for immaterial laws of logic and
concepts. Aristotle’s “matter in motion” explanation was also arbitrary since
his own empirical observations could never confirm that all things in existence
are explained by motion. Furthermore, motion and change does not explain
unchanging concepts like logic, truth, justice, love, etc.
Atheists are in the same position as both Plato
and Aristotle, as they start with non-exhaustive finite human reasoning to
build their positions. Christians are not in this position since we begin with
a revelational epistemology. We begin with certain truth that was revealed to
us by the infinite God that is the ground of all truth and possesses exhaustive
knowledge of everything. As long as finite minds build on that foundation, what
we build will stand the test of time.
So here we are in 2014 with the same issues and arguments. So why does the atheist argument fail? It is quite simple. John claimed that since different things exist, the laws of logic will exist automatically. With that explanation, the material world is primary, meaning it is the ground of immaterial logic. But on a closer evaluation, can this be so? Think about it. Let us grant that the universe just popped into existence by itself (the idea of this is so entirely absurd that I had difficulty writing it just now). When multiple things came into existence, John says logic also came into existence. And yet when we stop and think about it, those multiple things no longer exist. They have changed, decayed, and disappeared. The very things that allegedly brought logic into existence no longer themselves exist anywhere in the universe. And yet the laws of logic still exist, and they have not changed even in the slightest since that time. So we must ask is it possible that material things that move, change, and disappear can be the ground of immaterial laws that do not move, change, or disappear? Would that not be a contradiction of thought, one of the very laws of logic that the materialist claims can exist simply because matter exists? Logic has none of the properties or characteristics of matter, and yet John attempted to argue that matter’s existence is what created the laws of logic. If there was no matter, there would be no logic, and yet this makes no philosophical or even scientific sense. Pretty much, he is unwittingly arguing that finite and temporary matter created infinite and eternal immaterial laws.
Ontologically speaking, even the simplest of
philosophers understands that things that are mortal, finite, and temporary are
lower on the ontological scale than things that are immortal, infinite, and
eternal. And yet, the materialist position flips this scale on its head and
puts the lesser things on top and seeks to make it the ground of the greater
things. I am sorry John, but your position fails basic philosophy. You cannot
have materialism as the ground of immaterialism. However, it is philosophically
possible to have the reverse. Immaterial, eternal, and unchanging things can be
the ground of lower immaterial ones. Plato was keen enough to realize this,
though his explanation does not suffice.
So what explanation does suffice? Well quite
simply put, the laws of the logic are more than simple laws that exist to
explain relationships between categories and classes. They are laws of thought,
and thought itself is a property of minds, and minds are themselves immaterial.
Perhaps the atheist will not grant this since they equate the mind with the
brain, but I believe this shows philosophical imprecision on their part. It
requires a mind to understand and articulate the laws of logic. Furthermore,
above and beyond this, it requires a mind to be the ground of logic since logic
is a function of mind. It cannot primarily be a simple function of relationships
between different material things due to the reasons already explained –
changing, decaying, and disappearing stuff cannot be the ground or even the
origination of things that are immutable, imperishable, and everlasting.
But what do we do with John’s argument that the
existence of at least two distinct things creates logic? Why does the mere
existence of two things require the law of identity? First, let me rephrase it
to be more philosophically appropriate. Why is the mere existence of the law of
identity required to explain the relationship of two things that exist? I hope
you can see what I have done here. I just pointed out that this question is
just like the chicken and egg question. John’s very argument asserted and
presupposed that the matter comes first. He took this for granted and made no
attempt to prove it. The theist could just as easily present it as I just have,
and now it assumes and presupposes that the immaterial law must exist first and
prior to the existence of distinct material things. Given the discussion above
on this, ontologically the theistic position makes much more sense since
changing, decaying, and disappearing things cannot be the ground of the
existence of things that do not change, never decay, and always remain in existence.
So, if an atheist like John ever presents this kind of argument, you would do
well to understand the distinction between the immaterial and the material. You
would also do well to then flip-flop the statement to demonstrate the chicken
and egg nature of their assertion. This removes their ability to take their
statement for granted. Finally, you can show them with the very reason and
logic they claim to embrace that their position cannot be true with the
arguments that I presented throughout this post.
Seven billion humans can all reason according to
these laws because we alone are made in the image of the One from whom all of
these laws and concepts originate. We are simply “imaging” God to a finite
degree. If our minds were simply brains governed by random electro-chemical
processes, then it makes no sense for seven billion different humans to all
operate off of the same general laws of thinking. It makes no sense for them to
access immaterial concepts like justice and love and to understand these things
in similar ways. You see, just like the atheistic explanation cannot account
for the existence of logic and immaterial concepts, it also cannot account for
the universality of the use of such concepts by all members of the human race.
Yet, the biblical worldview alone accounts for their existence due to the mind
of God, and it accounts for humanity’s usage of such laws since all of us are
made in the image of the very God to whom these laws are original.
Again and again, the atheists at the Festival of
Lights said there is no evidence for God’s existence. And yet, the evidence
screams in their face. Immaterial logic exists. Diverse humans share identical
immaterial concepts and use objective words in debate. For these two things to
be true, there must be an objective standard, otherwise, our ability to
dialogue intelligibly would not exist. The fact that we debated, understood
each other, and talked about immaterial reality should be plenty of evidence
for the existence of God. Yet, they refuse to see it because they suppress the
truth in unrighteousness (Romans 1:18-21). The great irony was they said they
have no idea what caused the Big Bang, and they said they cannot know what
happened in the first plank second, which means they have no evidence that such
a cosmology even occurred, and yet at the same time they claim to not believe
in God because they lack sufficient evidence! That, my friends, is the
irrationality of atheism. On a daily basis they use functions that are only
possible if the biblical God exists, and yet they say there is no evidence. But
then they believe in a cosmology that they apparently have no evidence for. It
is for this reason that Christians have nothing to fear at all from atheists.
Atheism in all times and places is groundless, irrational, and untenable.
As I close this, I would like to also thank
another group of Christian evangelists from Sovereign Grace Community Church
from Perris, CA who went out on the same night and open-air preached. They too
debated with these atheists. May God bless them for their boldness that comes
only from Him! Amen.
The following link shows their work that night. The
man that tries to interrupt the preaching is the same atheist that I debated
with.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76vfQvHre-A&feature=youtu.be
No comments:
Post a Comment