I was listening to the radio program Coast to Coast the other night. The host was talking with Dr. Jacques Vallee about UFO’s, specifically about ancient UFO’s, such as those recorded in ancient documents found in Egypt, Rome, China, and in the Bible. That’s right, the Bible. The fact that ufologists seek to find UFO’s in the Bible was not a surprise to me, I knew they did that all the time. One of the passages in the Bible usually cited as a record of a UFO sighting is Ezekiel 1, which is the passage that describes Ezekiel’s vision of the four living creatures and the four wheels full of eyes. This “interpretation” of Ezekiel is fairly common, even appearing in popular media, such as the movie Knowing. Not only is Ezekiel 1 directly referenced in this movie, when the “alien craft” is finally seen, it resembles a wheel within a wheel, much like the description of the wheels full of eyes in Ezekiel.
Anyway, Dr. Vallee considers many records of UFO sightings to be authentic. His reason is, the recorded events must have made such an impression on people that they took the time to write a record of the event in stone, in some cases (isn’t mythology also recorded in stone?). What struck me is, wouldn’t an event such as a man dying, being buried for three days, and rising from the dead also make a huge impression on the people who witnessed it? Yet, Dr. Vallee does not take he Bible seriously, for he misinterprets Ezekiel 1 to be a record of an abduction (no exaggeration, he used the word “abduction” to describe Ezekiel 1). He even had the gall to say that Ezekiel was based on tradition handed down and written several years after Ezekiel’s death, therefore it was a less reliable record than UFO sightings recorded in ancient Egyptian, Roman, and Chinese documents. He discounted the Bible, not only the Word of God but also the most historically verified book in the world, as less reliable than poems written in ancient China (one specific example of a UFO record Dr. Vallee mentioned was just that: an ancient Chinese poem).
But probably the most outrageous thing Dr. Vallee said was when he disparaged religious explanations for UFO’s. That’s right: after misinterpreting Ezekiel 1 (a passage from the Bible, a religious book), Dr. Vallee considers a religious explanation of such an event as ridiculous. But more than that, Dr. Vallee deliberately steered clear of theorizing what the UFO’s actually are. So… he’ll leave what UFO’s are open to interpretation, but explaining them using religion is ridiculous? That’s not very open-minded.
That is why I occasionally listen to Coast to Coast: to remind myself that fringe ideas are poorly thought out and glaringly inconsistent (well, that and sometimes I am up late at night).
Lastly, do I think UFO’s are real? Some of them, yes. But I’ll take the religious explanation on this one. Most likely, they are demons or demonic activity designed to deceive people and create a hope and trust in UFOs and extraterrestrials as a substitute for a trust in God.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Friday, October 22, 2010
The Story of the Emerald Dragon
1684
“Hall thet thing up hare!” the sailor shouted. He was the first mate of the Emerald Dragon, a merchant ship. They were on a voyage across the Pacific, a trip the ship and crew has made several times before. This time was going to end differently.
“Naw don’t mangle thet thing!” the first mate yelled down at the crew. They were in boats surrounding the carcass of some huge creature. They were attempting to hook the carcass in order that it may be hauled on board. There was no real purpose for this activity. It was spurned on primarily by curiosity about the nature of the gigantic beast.
One of the crew climbed up the side of the ship and addressed the first mate. “We’ve hooked it as best we can, sir.”
“Wall, then, start hauling ‘er up. We’ve wasted enough time on this foolish endeavar.”
With all the crew back on board, they began to pull the great beast up onto the ship.
“Careful, she’s tearing!” someone called out. But the warning was too late. The carcass ripped free from the hooks and plunged back into the sea. All that was left was a single tentacle that had ripped free and was now dangling from a single hook.
The first mate growled in frustration. “Well, dan’t just stand thar watching ‘er sink. Haul that bit in ef you want it and get back to work!”
The first mate then turned away from the side of the ship and motioned for one of the crew, a seaman named Adaver, to come over. They spoke quietly together for a few minutes.
“Well Adaver, how’s the crew look’n?
“As ye know, we’re runnin’ with a light crew, since many of his favorites couldn’t make it on this trip. So most will side with us, though many will still remain loyal to ‘em.”
The first mate spat. “He’ll get whats comin’ to ‘em, and they’ll get the same ef thay stay with ‘em.”
Adaver lay on his back, with a knife in his chest. He felt his life ebbing away, but he still had enough strength to look around and consider his situation.
The mutiny had not gone as well as he though it would. More of the crew had sided with the captain. But the first mate was too stubborn to back down. It came to a fight, so fight they did, and now Adaver was the only one left alive. He smiled as he looked at all the dead bodies around him. All this, for what? The ship was now crewless, left to drift wherever it may. Then his gaze fell on a large tentacle in a corner of the kitchen.
“Who was the fool who put that thing in there?” was Adaver’s last thought.
1716
“Heav I ever told you ‘bout what happen’d to the Emerald Dragon?” and old seadog sitting on the pier asked a young lad who was busy unloading cargo from a ship.
Not getting a response, the old man continued. “Twasn’t mo’ then 32 years ago. I was on board the Sally Fey. Aye, she was a fine ship. We was en route across the Pacific, when all of a sudden, what does we see, but this ship come diften out o’ the mist. Wall, we calls out to the crew of the ship, so’s we don’t collide withs them, ya see. Now wouldn’t ya know it, we don’t get a reply. So, bein a might curious, we decides to board this ship. Wall wouldn’t ya know it? The crew all be dead! Ever last one o’ them. Worst carnage I ever did see. Never did quite figer out what ‘appened. Maybe it was a mutiny and both sides keeled themselves. That be odd though: you’d figer at least someone would survive a mutiny, the last man standing, ‘en all. But there was one other curious thing we found. A tentacle. Must ‘o been from a giant squid. Never could figer what that was doin’. May have somethun’ to so with the dead crew. Who knows.”
1835
“I heard a rumor that giant squid can be dangerous.”
The speaker was a tall, well dressed, young man named Thomas. He was speaking with two of his companions at the university. A large carcass had washed ashore at a nearby town, inspiring talk about sea monsters.
“I suppose they would be carnivorous, like other squid,” one of his companions considered. “So I imagine a giant squid would be dangerous, if you happen to be in the water when it was in the vicinity.”
“No, I mean I have heard a story about a group of giant squid devouring the entire crew of a ship.”
“Really?” Thomas’s other friend asked skeptically. “Where did you hear that from?”
“My uncle. He owns a fleet of merchant vessels and he has heard tale from his crew about a ship, the Emerald Dragon, which was found drifting aimlessly at sea. Much of the crew was missing, based on the size of the crew a ship that size should have, and those that they found on the ship were all dead. Those remaining bodies had parts, arms, legs, even heads, missing, and over the rest of their bodies, there were horrible scares left by suckers. They also found the severed limbs of giant squid on board, so apparently the crew had been fighting back.”
“That sounds like a tall tale to me.”
“That is what I thought at first, but I talked to several members of my uncle’s crew, and most of them have heard the story and confirm that it is true.”
2010
The radio host was speaking to his guest, George Calvert, an expert on the giant squid. They were on the air, and they were in the middle of a discussion about the physiology of the giant squid when the host decided to steer the conversation into a different direction.
“Now George, we talk about how big the giant squid is, and an animal of that size can be dangerous, right?”
“Oh, sure.”
“Now I have heard a story, and you tell me if this sounds plausible, a story about a ship way back in the 1600’s that was found drifting at sea. I believe the name of the ship was the Green Dragon. Anyway, the crew was gone, every one had disappeared, but they found a tentacle, a giant squid tentacle, on board the ship. Apparently, it had been hacked off by a sailor trying to defend himself.”
“Yes, yes, I know that story. Your description of the events is correct, though the ship was the Emerald Dragon, not the Green Dragon.”
“Oh, I knew it was green or some color like that,”
“Well, we want to make sure we get our facts correct, don’t we?”
“Oh, of course we do.”
“Anyway, the story of the Emerald Dragon is a dramatic example of how dangerous giant squid can be…”
George Calvert continued, telling other fascinating details about the mysterious giant squid, all of these details backed up with well documented sources.
“Hall thet thing up hare!” the sailor shouted. He was the first mate of the Emerald Dragon, a merchant ship. They were on a voyage across the Pacific, a trip the ship and crew has made several times before. This time was going to end differently.
“Naw don’t mangle thet thing!” the first mate yelled down at the crew. They were in boats surrounding the carcass of some huge creature. They were attempting to hook the carcass in order that it may be hauled on board. There was no real purpose for this activity. It was spurned on primarily by curiosity about the nature of the gigantic beast.
One of the crew climbed up the side of the ship and addressed the first mate. “We’ve hooked it as best we can, sir.”
“Wall, then, start hauling ‘er up. We’ve wasted enough time on this foolish endeavar.”
With all the crew back on board, they began to pull the great beast up onto the ship.
“Careful, she’s tearing!” someone called out. But the warning was too late. The carcass ripped free from the hooks and plunged back into the sea. All that was left was a single tentacle that had ripped free and was now dangling from a single hook.
The first mate growled in frustration. “Well, dan’t just stand thar watching ‘er sink. Haul that bit in ef you want it and get back to work!”
The first mate then turned away from the side of the ship and motioned for one of the crew, a seaman named Adaver, to come over. They spoke quietly together for a few minutes.
“Well Adaver, how’s the crew look’n?
“As ye know, we’re runnin’ with a light crew, since many of his favorites couldn’t make it on this trip. So most will side with us, though many will still remain loyal to ‘em.”
The first mate spat. “He’ll get whats comin’ to ‘em, and they’ll get the same ef thay stay with ‘em.”
Adaver lay on his back, with a knife in his chest. He felt his life ebbing away, but he still had enough strength to look around and consider his situation.
The mutiny had not gone as well as he though it would. More of the crew had sided with the captain. But the first mate was too stubborn to back down. It came to a fight, so fight they did, and now Adaver was the only one left alive. He smiled as he looked at all the dead bodies around him. All this, for what? The ship was now crewless, left to drift wherever it may. Then his gaze fell on a large tentacle in a corner of the kitchen.
“Who was the fool who put that thing in there?” was Adaver’s last thought.
1716
“Heav I ever told you ‘bout what happen’d to the Emerald Dragon?” and old seadog sitting on the pier asked a young lad who was busy unloading cargo from a ship.
Not getting a response, the old man continued. “Twasn’t mo’ then 32 years ago. I was on board the Sally Fey. Aye, she was a fine ship. We was en route across the Pacific, when all of a sudden, what does we see, but this ship come diften out o’ the mist. Wall, we calls out to the crew of the ship, so’s we don’t collide withs them, ya see. Now wouldn’t ya know it, we don’t get a reply. So, bein a might curious, we decides to board this ship. Wall wouldn’t ya know it? The crew all be dead! Ever last one o’ them. Worst carnage I ever did see. Never did quite figer out what ‘appened. Maybe it was a mutiny and both sides keeled themselves. That be odd though: you’d figer at least someone would survive a mutiny, the last man standing, ‘en all. But there was one other curious thing we found. A tentacle. Must ‘o been from a giant squid. Never could figer what that was doin’. May have somethun’ to so with the dead crew. Who knows.”
1835
“I heard a rumor that giant squid can be dangerous.”
The speaker was a tall, well dressed, young man named Thomas. He was speaking with two of his companions at the university. A large carcass had washed ashore at a nearby town, inspiring talk about sea monsters.
“I suppose they would be carnivorous, like other squid,” one of his companions considered. “So I imagine a giant squid would be dangerous, if you happen to be in the water when it was in the vicinity.”
“No, I mean I have heard a story about a group of giant squid devouring the entire crew of a ship.”
“Really?” Thomas’s other friend asked skeptically. “Where did you hear that from?”
“My uncle. He owns a fleet of merchant vessels and he has heard tale from his crew about a ship, the Emerald Dragon, which was found drifting aimlessly at sea. Much of the crew was missing, based on the size of the crew a ship that size should have, and those that they found on the ship were all dead. Those remaining bodies had parts, arms, legs, even heads, missing, and over the rest of their bodies, there were horrible scares left by suckers. They also found the severed limbs of giant squid on board, so apparently the crew had been fighting back.”
“That sounds like a tall tale to me.”
“That is what I thought at first, but I talked to several members of my uncle’s crew, and most of them have heard the story and confirm that it is true.”
2010
The radio host was speaking to his guest, George Calvert, an expert on the giant squid. They were on the air, and they were in the middle of a discussion about the physiology of the giant squid when the host decided to steer the conversation into a different direction.
“Now George, we talk about how big the giant squid is, and an animal of that size can be dangerous, right?”
“Oh, sure.”
“Now I have heard a story, and you tell me if this sounds plausible, a story about a ship way back in the 1600’s that was found drifting at sea. I believe the name of the ship was the Green Dragon. Anyway, the crew was gone, every one had disappeared, but they found a tentacle, a giant squid tentacle, on board the ship. Apparently, it had been hacked off by a sailor trying to defend himself.”
“Yes, yes, I know that story. Your description of the events is correct, though the ship was the Emerald Dragon, not the Green Dragon.”
“Oh, I knew it was green or some color like that,”
“Well, we want to make sure we get our facts correct, don’t we?”
“Oh, of course we do.”
“Anyway, the story of the Emerald Dragon is a dramatic example of how dangerous giant squid can be…”
George Calvert continued, telling other fascinating details about the mysterious giant squid, all of these details backed up with well documented sources.
Saturday, October 2, 2010
An Example of Neutrality
So, I kind of rushed through the postings of presuppositional apologetics because I read something today that inspired me to write a new post, and for consistency's sake, I didn't want to break up the presuppositional apologetics posts. So now to change gears midway through a thought...
There was an interesting article on World Net Daily recently. It was titled “You can’t advertise with us—you’re Christian” posted on October 1, 2010. The address for the article is http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=210573. The article was about a Christian bookstore owner who paid for an ad to appear in the menu of a restaurant. His check was returned and he was informed that his ad could not be displayed because it had the word “Christian” in it, and that might be offensive to some people.
The owner of the Christian bookstore commented on how what happened to him is indicative of how political correctness has lead to fears about the term “Christian” may offend people, despite the fact that this country has a Judeo-Christian background. I agree, and I think it also illustrates the danger and outright error of political correctness.
One concept involved in political correctness is neutrality. It is apparent from the article that neutrality was the reason behind the rejection of the ad. According to the article, the advertising company has a policy of rejecting any expressly religious or political ads (interestingly, the Christian bookstore ad was not rejected because it was expressly religious, rather it was because someone in the advertising company misinterpreted the policy). This policy was put into place after the company was sued by a satanic group because its ads were rejected. So rather than creating a policy that ads for satanic groups be rejected, the company took the neutral approach and banned all religious or political ads. In attempting to be neutral, they threw out the bad (satanism) with the good (Christianity). That is the danger of neutralism. Being unable to take a stand on what is good or bad, neutrality ceases to be neutral and becomes is own arbitrary standard. That is the error of neutrality.
There was an interesting article on World Net Daily recently. It was titled “You can’t advertise with us—you’re Christian” posted on October 1, 2010. The address for the article is http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=210573. The article was about a Christian bookstore owner who paid for an ad to appear in the menu of a restaurant. His check was returned and he was informed that his ad could not be displayed because it had the word “Christian” in it, and that might be offensive to some people.
The owner of the Christian bookstore commented on how what happened to him is indicative of how political correctness has lead to fears about the term “Christian” may offend people, despite the fact that this country has a Judeo-Christian background. I agree, and I think it also illustrates the danger and outright error of political correctness.
One concept involved in political correctness is neutrality. It is apparent from the article that neutrality was the reason behind the rejection of the ad. According to the article, the advertising company has a policy of rejecting any expressly religious or political ads (interestingly, the Christian bookstore ad was not rejected because it was expressly religious, rather it was because someone in the advertising company misinterpreted the policy). This policy was put into place after the company was sued by a satanic group because its ads were rejected. So rather than creating a policy that ads for satanic groups be rejected, the company took the neutral approach and banned all religious or political ads. In attempting to be neutral, they threw out the bad (satanism) with the good (Christianity). That is the danger of neutralism. Being unable to take a stand on what is good or bad, neutrality ceases to be neutral and becomes is own arbitrary standard. That is the error of neutrality.
Thoughts on Presuppositional Apologetics, Part 3
As a hypothetical, consider that there is a person who holds to a unique religion and derives his worldview from this religious belief. Let’s say that in this religion, there is a triune, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent god who created the world in eight days and rested on the ninth; this god created a good world that was corrupted by his crowning creation, man, who sinned by drinking from the pool of self-authority; the god chose the man Obadiah to be the father of his special people, Murima; the nation of Murmia continually fell away from this god, even though he sent many prophets to bring them back to him; and this god sent his son, the second person in the godhead, named Klitsmar, to be born of a virgin, grow up, be tempted, teach the people, and die the terrible death of being flayed alive to redeem his people from their sins. Would such a religion, and the worldview resulting from it, provide a foundation for the preconditions of intelligibility?
Obviously, all I did was base this religion (let’s call it “Klitsmaranity”) directly on Christianity, only I changed many of the historical details. All of the ideas from Christianity that are necessary for the preconditions of intelligibility (a transcendent creator god who is just and requires a penalty for sin, a creation corrupted by the creation itself, and a substitutionary death by the son of god for his chosen people) remain intact. So while Klitsmaranity is not Christianity, like Christianity it would also be capable of providing a basis for the preconditions of intelligibility. Therefore, based on presuppositional apologetics, wouldn’t one have to conclude that Klitsmaranity is or could be true?
Obviously, Klitsmaranity is not a religion, and it isn’t even a particularly novel religion. So it would be rejected as truth because there is no evidence that a book detailing Klitsmaranity exists, that anyone follows Klitsmaranity, or that any of the events or people described every happened or existed.
I made up Klitsmaranity to illustrate why I do not think that presuppositional apologetics is the ultimate apologetic method. Klitsmaranity can not be discredited because it is self-contradictory or is arbitrary: the only thing that can is an examination of physical and historical evidence. To put it another way, I do not think that the Bible can be treated merely as a book with a collection of words, phrases, sentences, and statements in it, whose words, phrases, sentences, and statements alone are significant to prove itself true. The Bible came to mankind over time in history, and as such, we have to look at where the Bible came from. In similar fashion, Klitsmaranity is discredited because of where it comes from (a goofy theory put forward in a blog).
I think Klitsmaranity illustrates that there are other possible worldviews that are also capable of accounting for the preconditions of intelligibility and the way to discriminate between these worldviews is using something other than presuppositional apologetics. To reiterate, I am not suggesting that man can discriminate between religions autonomously, I am saying that the ability to discriminate comes from God to begin with, whether that is recognized or not. So a Christian would not have to appeal to worldly assumptions to show that something such as Klitsmaranity is false, he would only have to appeal to the preconditions of intelligibility, which the world holds to not knowing where they come from.
Obviously, all I did was base this religion (let’s call it “Klitsmaranity”) directly on Christianity, only I changed many of the historical details. All of the ideas from Christianity that are necessary for the preconditions of intelligibility (a transcendent creator god who is just and requires a penalty for sin, a creation corrupted by the creation itself, and a substitutionary death by the son of god for his chosen people) remain intact. So while Klitsmaranity is not Christianity, like Christianity it would also be capable of providing a basis for the preconditions of intelligibility. Therefore, based on presuppositional apologetics, wouldn’t one have to conclude that Klitsmaranity is or could be true?
Obviously, Klitsmaranity is not a religion, and it isn’t even a particularly novel religion. So it would be rejected as truth because there is no evidence that a book detailing Klitsmaranity exists, that anyone follows Klitsmaranity, or that any of the events or people described every happened or existed.
I made up Klitsmaranity to illustrate why I do not think that presuppositional apologetics is the ultimate apologetic method. Klitsmaranity can not be discredited because it is self-contradictory or is arbitrary: the only thing that can is an examination of physical and historical evidence. To put it another way, I do not think that the Bible can be treated merely as a book with a collection of words, phrases, sentences, and statements in it, whose words, phrases, sentences, and statements alone are significant to prove itself true. The Bible came to mankind over time in history, and as such, we have to look at where the Bible came from. In similar fashion, Klitsmaranity is discredited because of where it comes from (a goofy theory put forward in a blog).
I think Klitsmaranity illustrates that there are other possible worldviews that are also capable of accounting for the preconditions of intelligibility and the way to discriminate between these worldviews is using something other than presuppositional apologetics. To reiterate, I am not suggesting that man can discriminate between religions autonomously, I am saying that the ability to discriminate comes from God to begin with, whether that is recognized or not. So a Christian would not have to appeal to worldly assumptions to show that something such as Klitsmaranity is false, he would only have to appeal to the preconditions of intelligibility, which the world holds to not knowing where they come from.
Thoughts on Presuppositional Apologetics, Part 2
I have a couple questions about presuppositional apologetics. First, what is the reason why every other worldview, aside from the Biblical worldview, illogical? I have heard or read explanations for why some worldviews are illogical (materialism says only material things exist yet logic and reason are non-material, empiricism says only things that can be tested can be true yet it is impossible to test the preconditions of intelligibility), but there are lots of worldviews and probably many more possible worldviews that have not yet, or may never be articulated.
As an analogy, compare the Biblical worldview to a curve described by a single equation. Logic, reason, uniformity, and reliance on senses can be points on the curve. These points are going to be used (or will attempted to be used) by other worldviews, since any worldview will have some structure to it, and that structure will incorporate the preconditions of intelligibility. Now, it is possible to take several points from one curve and create a different curve that fits those exact same points. It is true that the more points that are borrowed from the original curve, the more complex the equation for the second curve becomes.
Might a similar thing work for worldviews? Any other worldview will borrow points from the Biblical worldview (namely, the various preconditions of intelligibility), but wouldn’t it be possible to construct a worldview that fits those points, even if it is a convoluted, complicated worldview? If it is possible for another worldview to fit the preconditions of intelligibility, then this worldview would not be inconsistent or hold to the preconditions of intelligibility arbitrarily, which are the two critiques presuppositional apologetics makes of all worldviews aside from Christianity.
My second question is, if logic, reason, uniformity, and the reliability of senses are derived from an understanding of God, even if that understanding of God is suppressed, wouldn’t it be possible to start with those things and work toward a demonstration of the validity of the Biblical worldview? Now, I am not suggesting that the Biblical worldview be constructed from an autonomous foundation of logic and reason. What I am suggesting is using logic and reason, which come from God whether it is acknowledged or not, to show how the world and history conform to the Biblical worldview. For instance, how can it be demonstrated that the Bible’s claim to be the Word of God is true? From my understanding of presuppositional apologetics, some would claim that the only legitimate way that does not question God’s authority would be to accept the Bible as the Word of God and then demonstrate its consistency.
But what about another method? Historical documentation shows that the Bible is a reliable historical document whose text has not been changed since its original writing. So the Bible can not be rejected as a recently constructed fable. The question still remains, how can the Bible’s claim to be the Word of God be demonstrated? Well, as the Bible was being written, many of the human authors of the Bible demonstrated their claim to be the mouthpiece of God by performing miracles. For instance, Moses demonstrated that God was working through him by turning Aaron’s rod to a serpent (Ex. 7:8-10) and Elijah showed he was a prophet of the true God by the showdown at Mt. Carmel (I Kings 18:36-37). Even Jesus demonstrated His authority by using miracles (Matt. 9:1-8, particularly verse 6). There may not be prophets today whom God is speaking through and using to perform miracles, but there is a record of these events in the Bible, and if the Bible is a reliable historical document, then these events, and others recorded therein, can be used as a credible witness to the claim that the Bible is the Word of God. I want to point out that I am not suggesting that the Biblical worldview be independently verified. Rather, I am suggesting that a remnant of general revelation (the preconditions of intelligibility) granted by God applied to demonstrations of God’s power (miracles recorded in the historically reliable Bible) can be used to demonstrate that God truly is God. I do not see this as subjecting God to a human test, I see it as God confirming Himself, insofar as humans assume the preconditions of intelligibility (whether it is rational or irrational, the assumption comes from general revelation), and we can use those preconditions of intelligibility to look at history (the Biblical record) to determine that God is God.
As an analogy, compare the Biblical worldview to a curve described by a single equation. Logic, reason, uniformity, and reliance on senses can be points on the curve. These points are going to be used (or will attempted to be used) by other worldviews, since any worldview will have some structure to it, and that structure will incorporate the preconditions of intelligibility. Now, it is possible to take several points from one curve and create a different curve that fits those exact same points. It is true that the more points that are borrowed from the original curve, the more complex the equation for the second curve becomes.
Might a similar thing work for worldviews? Any other worldview will borrow points from the Biblical worldview (namely, the various preconditions of intelligibility), but wouldn’t it be possible to construct a worldview that fits those points, even if it is a convoluted, complicated worldview? If it is possible for another worldview to fit the preconditions of intelligibility, then this worldview would not be inconsistent or hold to the preconditions of intelligibility arbitrarily, which are the two critiques presuppositional apologetics makes of all worldviews aside from Christianity.
My second question is, if logic, reason, uniformity, and the reliability of senses are derived from an understanding of God, even if that understanding of God is suppressed, wouldn’t it be possible to start with those things and work toward a demonstration of the validity of the Biblical worldview? Now, I am not suggesting that the Biblical worldview be constructed from an autonomous foundation of logic and reason. What I am suggesting is using logic and reason, which come from God whether it is acknowledged or not, to show how the world and history conform to the Biblical worldview. For instance, how can it be demonstrated that the Bible’s claim to be the Word of God is true? From my understanding of presuppositional apologetics, some would claim that the only legitimate way that does not question God’s authority would be to accept the Bible as the Word of God and then demonstrate its consistency.
But what about another method? Historical documentation shows that the Bible is a reliable historical document whose text has not been changed since its original writing. So the Bible can not be rejected as a recently constructed fable. The question still remains, how can the Bible’s claim to be the Word of God be demonstrated? Well, as the Bible was being written, many of the human authors of the Bible demonstrated their claim to be the mouthpiece of God by performing miracles. For instance, Moses demonstrated that God was working through him by turning Aaron’s rod to a serpent (Ex. 7:8-10) and Elijah showed he was a prophet of the true God by the showdown at Mt. Carmel (I Kings 18:36-37). Even Jesus demonstrated His authority by using miracles (Matt. 9:1-8, particularly verse 6). There may not be prophets today whom God is speaking through and using to perform miracles, but there is a record of these events in the Bible, and if the Bible is a reliable historical document, then these events, and others recorded therein, can be used as a credible witness to the claim that the Bible is the Word of God. I want to point out that I am not suggesting that the Biblical worldview be independently verified. Rather, I am suggesting that a remnant of general revelation (the preconditions of intelligibility) granted by God applied to demonstrations of God’s power (miracles recorded in the historically reliable Bible) can be used to demonstrate that God truly is God. I do not see this as subjecting God to a human test, I see it as God confirming Himself, insofar as humans assume the preconditions of intelligibility (whether it is rational or irrational, the assumption comes from general revelation), and we can use those preconditions of intelligibility to look at history (the Biblical record) to determine that God is God.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
