Agnostic goose steps

eNewsletters

User Login

Agnostic goose steps

Written by Mr. Trev McCallum

Views

296

Favoured

This article is an excerpt from a lengthy debate and witnessing opportunity that I have had with a work colleague. Our email and verbal discussions have been ongoing for more than half a decade now. For privacy purposes the name of the other person has been hidden. The email that you read below has also been edited slightly from its original form; fuller end notes have been added and some tidy up work has been done. Ultimately I believe it is important for us to understand that; “[t]he task of apologetics must be exercised upon the infallible and presupposed authority of the Word of Christ in Scripture. Apologetics does not first do obeisance to human philosophy and science and then proceed to encompass God in its sphere of reverence. The Christian cannot, indeed must not, take…[a] neutral stance with respect to his faith in order to win the unbeliever over to Christ’s authority…Since God is faithful to us, our apologetic must not be faithless to Him; in setting forth our defense we must not set aside or waiver with respect to the profession of our faith.”^[1] I have sought to set the glory of Christ before my colleague. It is by no means a perfect defence of the faith. Your comments and suggestions are most welcome.

"There is one thing that can't be denied - agnosticism is a valid position in epistemology."^[2]

Bruce, I am not too sure about the validity of that statement. In response I will use the definition of agnosticism coined by its founding father, Thomas Henry Huxley. Huxley was also known as Darwin’s Bulldog. He asserted that one should not “pretend conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable.”^[3] In other words Huxley asserted that we should not profess a belief before it can be empirically proven. This formed the bedrock of Huxley’s epistemology. Unfortunately for Huxley, and every professing agnostic, this begs the question. Huxley’s conclusion is implicitly used as a premise to his argument. To defend the claim that all beliefs must be proven empirically Huxley assumes that every belief must be observable. “Thus the argument assumes just what it is trying to prove.”^[4] Let me jump up (down?) onto the agnostic worldview for a moment. One of the fundamental issues all life philosophies must internally resolve is; does their theory of knowledge (i.e. epistemology) actually comport with reality (i.e. metaphysics). This issue places every worldview system on the horns of the dilemma.^[5] Reality forces the agnostic to use and promote principles, ideas or laws. Many of these principles are universal (e.g. the laws of logic) and they are not physical. In other words the (e.g.) laws of logic cannot be empirically proven. We cannot observe, with our senses, the actual laws of logic. They are intangible (immaterial). The funny thing is though; they are used every day by agnostics. You cannot hold a meaningful conversation or an argument (like we are) if you do not believe in universal laws. Let me break this down to a little further, to an ethical level. An agnostic may have high moral standards; possibly the same ones as Christians do, but he cannot account for those principles on his life philosophy. He cannot believe that they exist, because they cannot be empirically proven within the realms of observational science. In other words, upon the agnostic philosophy Hitler (or any other like figure) cannot be seen in a bad light. On what grounds, within agnosticism, can a person or their actions be deemed as evil? According to their own philosophy agnosticism cannot accept universal principles of good and evil, right and wrong. Hitler was merely doing what he felt was enjoyable. He was simply acting upon his belief system. The atheistic evolutionist Sir Arthur Keith reminds us that; “The German Führer…is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.” Hitler believed that he was the strongest of the species and acted upon it. He determined who the outcasts of society were and “dealt” with them according to evolutionary principles. By the common grace of God most agnostics (atheists and evolutionists) do not act upon their religious convictions. They do not live out their “faith.” To me this highlights a glaring self contradiction within the agnostic worldview; their theory of knowledge does not go hand-in-hand with what is seen and practised in reality.

Agnosticism boils down to subjectivism. There can be no absolutes or universals within their system. What we must remember is that when comparing life philosophies we are arguing about first premises. These first premises cannot be empirically proven (e.g. that the world and all its fullness evolved from nothing by nothing). Why should I believe what an agnostic says or believes upon his/her authority? Maybe the next agnostic will say something different! So this view point leads to subjectivism and ultimately absurdity. Bruce, the agnostic philosophy forces its adherents to deny the very things they see, experience, believe and use! The agnostic view is not logically coherent; for example the system promotes believing only that which is empirically provable and on the other hand the system uses and “believes” in the immaterial laws of logic, moral standards and so on. Bruce, an agnostic religiously holds to his unprovable assumptions (i.e. presuppositions). He firmly asserts that he can believe only that which can be empirically proven. This leaves much that he uses on a day to day basis unprovable. This system yet again begs the question; can agnosticism empirically observe and thus prove that empiricism is the only valid test for believing something? I am sure you can see the absurdity of this. You cannot observe immaterial laws, they are abstract and unobservable. Don’t be mistaken, you can see the results of these laws but not the laws themselves. To me, it sounds like agnosticism, like all other life philosophies is a religion with presuppositions that are empirically unprovable.

Again, I get back to asking the question of which worldview actually comports or can account for the world around us; where we came from, what happens when we die and how we should live. And the answer is emphatically and consistently Christianity. The Bible is self authenticating; God authenticates Himself through the pages of Scripture. No, I cannot prove that empirically but that is my presupposition - the Bible is the Word of God, it is a supernatural book that has been written by men under the influence of God and has been perfectly preserved by God throughout all ages. Christianity is the only worldview that does not contradict itself. It accounts for how we know what we know, what we experience in life, why we are here, what happens when we die and how we should live.

And how do I know this? Well, because Jesus died on the cross for me, a wretched sinner. You see; the Bible details for us the perfect God who created all things by the power of His Word. This same God lays out what he expects of His creatures. Just like any creation (e.g. a computer), the creator demands it to work according to his commands. God requires us to obey His commands. Have you ever stolen, lied, been unfaithful to a promise, and been involved in immorality? The Bible asserts that even if you just thought about doing these things you are not perfect in God’s sight. And because God is perfect He cannot tolerate imperfection in His creation. All people fall short of perfection Bruce. All people are wrong doers (i.e. sinners) in God’s sight. The Bible says the punishment for sin is death. And because you have fallen short of God’s perfection Bruce, He requires you to tell Him what you have done wrong (i.e. confess your sins), repent (i.e. turn away) from your old ways and place your trust in Jesus Christ who died on the cross to deflect God’s wrath from your sins. God requires you to repent, believe and then live according to His commands.

End Notes

^[1] Bahnsen G L, 2009, Presuppositional Apologetics – Stated and Defended, American Vision, Powder Springs & Covenant Media Press, Nacogdoches, pp. 3-4

^[2] Epistemology is “the philosophical theory of knowledge” (as cited October 2009 on WordNet; http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=epistemology). Epistemology thus seeks to answer the question of how do we know what we know.

^[3] Huxley T, as viewed in Cline A, Agnosticism & Thomas Henry Huxley, How Did Huxley Understand Being an Agnostic?, cited October 2009: http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnosticism/a/huxley.htm

^[4] Begging the question in an argument is to assume, in your premise, that which you seek to prove. Weston A, 2009, A Rule Book for Arguments, 4^th ed., Hackett Publishing Company Inc., Indianapolis, p. 75.

^[5] Being placed on the horns of the dilemma means that you; “you are faced with two equally unpleasant options and have to choose one” (as cited October 2009 on UsingEnglish.com; http://www.usingenglish.com/reference/idioms/horns+of+a+dilemma.html). Each choice will destroy your philosophical position.

Anselm Study House on Facebook

Published in : Worldviews, Apologetics

Users' Comments (0)

Add your comment

No comment posted

Add your comment

< Prev		Next >

[ Back ]