Reasoning With Unbelievers - Dr. Greg Bahnsen

キリストは主である・2 minutes read

Christian apologists should challenge the arbitrary opinions and prejudices of unbelievers, emphasizing the lack of reasoned arguments and pointing out underlying philosophical presuppositions. Materialistic, atheistic, and dualistic worldviews struggle to account for rationality, morality, and the origin of life, leaving Christianity as the only viable option for providing the preconditions of intelligibility.

Insights

  • Apologists must challenge the arbitrary opinions and prejudices of unbelievers, emphasizing the need for reasoned arguments rather than unfounded conjecture.
  • The reliability of the New Testament is supported by early manuscript evidence and scholarly assessments, countering claims of textual tampering.
  • Presuppositional apologetics aims to demonstrate the inadequacy of materialistic worldviews by questioning the basis for rationality, morality, and scientific inference, highlighting inherent philosophical challenges.

Get key ideas from YouTube videos. It’s free

Recent questions

  • What are common criticisms of Christianity by unbelievers?

    Unbelievers often criticize Christianity based on personal conjecture rather than objective evidence. Some assume the Bible is unreliable due to alterations by medieval monks, relying on conjecture rather than research. Hostile critics may dismiss the Bible's historical accuracy without considering available evidence or scholarly consensus. Unbelievers may reject the possibility of miracles due to their metaphysical beliefs, but if God exists, miracles are plausible. Critics once ridiculed the Old Testament for mentioning the Hittites, a tribe unknown outside the Bible until their discovery in 1871 by archaeologists.

  • How do apologists counter unfounded opinions of unbelievers?

    Approximately 80% of apologetics work involves countering unfounded opinions of unbelievers. Christians should press unbelievers for reasons behind their opinions rather than accepting arbitrary statements. Apologists challenge arbitrary opinions and prejudices of unbelievers, emphasizing the lack of reasoned arguments. They should point out the underlying philosophical presuppositions of unbelievers and challenge their arbitrary opinions. Dialectical tensions in an unbeliever's philosophy, like inconsistencies or incoherence, should be identified and addressed.

  • What philosophical biases do unbelievers exhibit?

    Unbelievers often exhibit unargued philosophical biases, assuming certain beliefs without justification. They commonly dismiss biblical miracles due to a preconceived notion that such events are impossible. Unbelievers' claims about the predictability of nature and the impossibility of miracles lack a solid rational foundation. The limits of possibility are determined by one's worldview, highlighting the importance of recognizing and questioning unargued philosophical assumptions. Unbelievers may unknowingly hold Epicurean philosophical biases, assuming all knowledge is perceptual and living for pleasure.

  • How do presuppositionalists critique materialistic worldviews?

    Presuppositionalists aim to show the flaws in materialism by questioning the basis for rationality, the origin of life, scientific inference, general principles, and morality, highlighting the philosophical problems inherent in the materialist worldview. Materialists struggle to justify rationality, leading to philosophical inconsistencies when pressed on the basis for being rational. The atheist's inability to account for morality in a naturalistic worldview highlights the absence of absolutes, ethics, freedom, and dignity. Materialists face a dilemma in justifying scientific inference in a chance-driven universe lacking personal control or uniformity. The atheist's reliance on immaterial categories like similarity and laws of logic contradicts their materialistic beliefs, raising questions about the basis for such reasoning.

  • How does Christianity provide a rational basis for beliefs?

    The Christian worldview provides the preconditions for intelligibility, rationality, and morality. Different theistic worldviews require internal critique to assess their rationality and coherence, with Christianity offering a rational basis. Living apart from God leads to condemnation and guilt, with no apologetical argument possible due to arbitrariness. Christianity differs from Confucianism and Buddhism by offering historical and philosophical evidence for its beliefs, making sense of life and history. Muslims and Mormons, while appearing as competitors, are dependent on the Bible, which can be used to refute their beliefs through internal critique.

Related videos

Summary

00:00

Countering Unbelievers' Prejudicial Conjectures in Apologetics

  • In discussions with unbelievers, watch for prejudicial conjectures, which often involve arbitrariness and inconsistency, two intellectual sins.
  • Approximately 80% of apologetics work involves countering unfounded opinions of unbelievers.
  • Christians should press unbelievers for reasons behind their opinions rather than accepting arbitrary statements.
  • Unbelievers may criticize Christianity based on personal conjecture rather than objective evidence.
  • Some unbelievers assume the Bible is unreliable due to alterations by medieval monks, relying on conjecture rather than research.
  • The assumption that the Bible is like any other text is a prejudice that overlooks its unique divine inspiration and preservation.
  • Unbelievers often lack concrete evidence to support claims of textual tampering in the Bible.
  • The reliability of the New Testament text is supported by early manuscript evidence and scholarly assessments.
  • Hostile critics may dismiss the Bible's historical accuracy without considering available evidence or scholarly consensus.
  • Secular historians like Tacitus provide external evidence supporting the existence of Jesus and the events surrounding his life.

16:50

Archaeology validates Bible, challenges unbelievers' biases

  • Critics once ridiculed the Old Testament for mentioning the Hittites, a tribe unknown outside the Bible until their discovery in 1871 by archaeologists.
  • Archaeology has consistently validated historical details in the Bible, countering critics' prejudices.
  • Scholarly views have shifted to acknowledge the likelihood of biblical accounts being true rather than false.
  • Even secular sources like Time magazine have noted the Bible's resilience against scientific scrutiny.
  • Apologists should challenge arbitrary opinions and prejudices of unbelievers, emphasizing the lack of reasoned arguments.
  • Unbelievers often exhibit unargued philosophical biases, assuming certain beliefs without justification.
  • Unbelievers commonly dismiss biblical miracles due to a preconceived notion that such events are impossible.
  • The extraordinary nature of miracles is precisely what defines them, challenging the unbeliever's bias against extraordinary events.
  • Unbelievers' claims about the predictability of nature and the impossibility of miracles lack a solid rational foundation.
  • The limits of possibility are determined by one's worldview, highlighting the importance of recognizing and questioning unargued philosophical assumptions.

34:07

Challenging Unbelievers' Epicurean Philosophical Biases

  • Unbelievers may reject the possibility of miracles due to their metaphysical beliefs, but if God exists, miracles are plausible.
  • Rejecting the Bible based on its miracles is circular reasoning, as critics often hold unargued philosophical biases against Christianity.
  • Christian apologists should challenge the arbitrary opinions of unbelievers and point out their underlying philosophical presuppositions.
  • Dialectical tensions in an unbeliever's philosophy, like inconsistencies or incoherence, should be identified and addressed.
  • Epicurus, a materialistic atomist, believed reality consists of atoms and advocated living for higher quality pleasures.
  • Epicurus' philosophical method emphasized starting with sense perception and organizing opinions based on non-contradiction.
  • According to Epicurus, everything, including gods and the human soul, can be explained materially and naturalistically.
  • Epicurus denied an afterlife, advocating living for pleasure moderated by prudence, not fear of gods or consequences.
  • Unbelievers may unknowingly hold Epicurean philosophical biases, assuming all knowledge is perceptual and living for pleasure.
  • Epicurus' theory of reality and free will, based on atomistic swerves, fails to account for purposeful choice and ethical advice.

51:59

Challenging Materialism: Presuppositional Apologetics Explained

  • Epicurus struggles to justify arguments due to the lack of free engagement in reasoning, leading to subjective choices and incoherence in his theory of knowledge.
  • Presuppositional apologetics involves pointing out the unbeliever's failure to provide the preconditions of intelligibility, focusing on necessary truths about man, reasoning, science, moral judgments, human freedom, and dignity.
  • The apologetic approach aims to show that the Christian worldview is preferable by demonstrating the inadequacy of the unbeliever's worldview in providing the preconditions of intelligibility.
  • Gordon Clark views presuppositions as unprovable axioms, endorsing fideism as an approach to apologetics where faith in axioms guides reasoning.
  • Cornelius Van Til's approach sees presuppositions as preconditions of intelligibility, allowing for indirect arguments to reduce opponents to absurdity and critique their philosophy.
  • Francis Schaeffer's use of presupposition differs from Van Til and Clark, treating presuppositions as hypotheses subject to testing rather than ultimate commitments.
  • The final step in the apologetic procedure involves demonstrating the inadequacy of empiricism and atheism in accounting for objectivity, rationality, freedom, moral absolutes, and science.
  • Materialistic monism, dualism, or religious philosophies are the basic worldviews encountered, with the materialist worldview facing philosophical challenges in rationality, the origin of life, scientific inference, general principles, and morality.
  • Materialists struggle to justify rationality, leading to philosophical inconsistencies when pressed on the basis for being rational.
  • Presuppositionalists aim to show the flaws in materialism by questioning the basis for rationality, the origin of life, scientific inference, general principles, and morality, highlighting the philosophical problems inherent in the materialist worldview.

01:10:46

Atheism and Materialism: Rationality and Morality Debate

  • Belief in rationality is essential as it is required by God, but if the world is meaningless, why bother with rationality or consistency?
  • Materialists who advocate rationality contradict their beliefs as rationality is not inherent in a materialistic worldview.
  • Atheism challenges the need for rationality and questions the origin of life, proposing life came from non-life, which defies established biological principles.
  • The atheist theory of life originating from a prebiotic phase is deemed scientifically and philosophically preposterous due to the vast differences between the components involved.
  • Atheistic materialism suggests illogical origins for life, morality, and intelligence, with qualities emerging from their opposites.
  • Materialists face a dilemma in justifying scientific inference in a chance-driven universe lacking personal control or uniformity.
  • The atheist's reliance on immaterial categories like similarity and laws of logic contradicts their materialistic beliefs, raising questions about the basis for such reasoning.
  • Materialists struggle to explain the existence of universal concepts like similarity, laws of logic, and categories in a purely material world.
  • The atheist's inability to account for morality in a naturalistic worldview highlights the absence of absolutes, ethics, freedom, and dignity.
  • Naturalism undermines the concept of morality by denying absolute prescriptions and universal obligations, leaving actions to be viewed as mere happenstance without moral judgment.

01:30:00

"Debating Hitler's Atheism and Plato's Dualism"

  • Hitler's actions were discussed in a debate, highlighting the lack of moral basis in atheism or naturalism.
  • Atheistic or materialistic worldviews lack the foundation for rationality, morality, and understanding life.
  • Plato's idealistic worldview posits a physical world and a world of ideals or ideas.
  • Dualistic worldviews, like Plato's, believe in both matter and non-matter, facing challenges in reconciling the two.
  • Plato's explanation involves a personal demiurge bringing matter and ideas together.
  • The interaction between matter and ideals in dualistic worldviews poses philosophical challenges.
  • Plato's concept of the soul's existence in the realm of ideas raises questions about its origin and nature.
  • The internal critique of dualistic philosophies reveals inconsistencies and reliance on mythology.
  • The Christian worldview provides the preconditions for intelligibility, rationality, and morality.
  • Different theistic worldviews require internal critique to assess their rationality and coherence, with Christianity offering a rational basis.

01:47:55

Comparing religions reveals Christianity's logical foundation.

  • Living apart from God leads to condemnation and guilt, with no apologetical argument possible due to arbitrariness.
  • Confucius is presented as a wise man, but Jesus provides the foundation for wisdom and intelligibility.
  • Christianity differs from Confucianism and Buddhism by offering historical and philosophical evidence for its beliefs, making sense of life and history.
  • The Bhagavad Gita does not claim a personal God's revelation, unlike the Bible, undermining logic, morality, and human choice.
  • Materialists and dualists fail to provide the preconditions of intelligibility, leaving Christianity as the only viable option.
  • Muslims and Mormons, while appearing as competitors, are dependent on the Bible, which can be used to refute their beliefs through internal critique.
  • Muslims claim the Bible is corrupted to align with the Quran, lacking evidence, while Mormons rely on Joseph Smith's questionable credibility for their beliefs.
Channel avatarChannel avatarChannel avatarChannel avatarChannel avatar

Try it yourself — It’s free.