Apologetics Class 5 - Textbook Discussion

Materialism, Darwinism, and the Question of Rationality

All right, I'm going to give you guys one more thing before we get to this classical arguments thing. I do want to give you one more question. We ran out of time, but I want to give this to you so you have it.

Another good question you can ask a person who says, I don't believe in God, is say, if you believe life came from non-life, and that's Darwinism. Darwinism is life came from non-life. If you believe life came from non-life, what is life?

That goes back to the whole stardust question. Are we just that? Here's a consideration on that. If a person is a materialist, a materialist is a person who believes that the only thing that exists is the material world.

There's nothing spiritual. You don't have a spirit. What you think is your spirit is just your brain functioning. If a person is an absolute materialist, consciousness in an individual is simply the experience of chemical reactions in the brain.

And if thought is nothing more than a chemical reaction, then there's no such thing as genuine rationality. And rationality is actually reactionality, chemicals reacting in the brain. And you have to ask them, why would you trust that?

Free Will, Determinism, and the Limits of Atheism

Yeah, and why would you trust it? Like I said, why trust that? If that's all that it is, I wanna give you two quotes. This is why I didn't wanna leave this without giving you these quotes. Because if you ask a person, why do you not believe in God?

They'll often say I'm a free thinker. In fact, like I told you earlier, the free thinker's movement, right? But do you understand that atheism is actually the opposite of free thinking? Because let me give you why I say that.

Because if what you believe is that you are simply organic material, and chemicals is what create the sensation you believe is thought, then you don't really have any control over that. You are biologically predestined to be the way that you are.

So I would say, I'm biologically predestined to believe in God. So why would you be upset with me for doing that? It's the way I was, well, I wasn't created according to your worldview. I guess this is just the way the universe made me.

But here's the thing, Stephen Hawking, you remember him? He was, now he's the guy in, now he died. Well, listen to what he said, though, about will, human will. The molecular basis of biology shows that biological processes are governed by the laws of physics and chemistry, and therefore, are as determined as the orbits of the planet.

Recent experiments in neuroscience support the view that it is our physical brain following the known laws of science that determines our actions and not some agency that exists outside of those laws.

So it seems that we are no more than biological machines, and free will is just an illusion. Well, why would free will be something if all you are is the reactionary chemicals in your brain? You don't have a will, you have chemicals reacting.

See, it's not a will, that's the point he's making. You're predestined to be what you are, because you're just the chemical, that you just happen to be the chemicals that make up Janus. And it's different chemicals that make up Darien.

Sam Harris on the Illusion of Free Will

Sam Harris, another atheist, neuroscientist, said this. This is from a neuroscientist. Free will is an illusion. Our wills are simply not of our own making. Thoughts and intentions emerge from background causes of which we are unaware and over which we exert no conscious control.

We do not have freedom, we do not have the freedom we think we have, huh? Well, yeah, in that sense, it's saying that we don't have any power. But ultimately, he's saying we don't have a will, it's all an illusion.

Everything that we experience that we think is us deciding is just our brains. Like Mozart's type of? No, not like that, even though, what he's saying is Somebody else. We talk about free will, and everybody wants to have free will, right?

And I'm a free thinker. But if you are simply the product of organic material, if all you are is organic material, there's no spirit within you, then there's really no will. It's just your brain, and it's just chemicals, and that's it.

You are doing what the chemicals in your brain do. This is, I'm not saying this is true. I'm saying this is their argument. This is all they got. I'm just trying to wrap my head around what they're saying here.

What? Okay, that's somewhat of a different conversation, but I will answer the question. The Bible says that our will is bound in sin, but that's not what they're talking about. We don't deny the existence of a will.

We say our will is bound in sin, and that we function as slaves to sin before we're set free by Christ for righteousness. That's what we're talking about. We don't deny the existence of will. We don't deny the existence of spirit.

We don't deny the existence of soul, but they do. They have to, because they believe the only thing that exists is that which is organic, that which is material. They're materialists, therefore they only believe in that which is material.

And the will is not material, therefore it doesn't exist. That's the point. You don't have a free will. You simply do what the chemicals do. And that's why some people act the way they act, and some people don't.

And that's why I say, why are you upset with me for believing that's what my chemicals do? According to your worldview, you shouldn't be upset with me. You should be celebrating the way my chemicals are.

We celebrate diversity. My chemicals are different than your chemicals. Atheism gives no room for hope, and that's the most sickening thing of all, is to hear them proselytize. They make it sound as if they have the best worldview of all, because their worldview doesn't depend on making God happy.

I can just make myself happy. That's the... I can do what I think is right. Well, there is some truth to that, Ed, because you don't typically see atheism in places where there is despair. There's people looking for something to hope in.

Yeah, Bobby, you had a...

Atheism, Hope, and Presuppositional Engagement

I'm going to disprove this, and I'm going to stand for this, that it does not exist. I have to fight so hard to prove that it does not exist. Well, the two most consistent...

The two most consistent beliefs among atheists are, number one, God does not exist, and number two, I hate him. That's the two most consistent beliefs among atheists. And that's why you asked the question, if it can be proven to your satisfaction that God did exist, would you worship him?

The answer is no, almost always no, because it's not about not knowing that God exists. But again, has this been somewhat helpful in how to engage? Just little thoughts on how to engage. We're not out there trying to become, you know, smarter than the other person.

We're just asking questions and pointing to the Bible, our presupposition. This is what we believe is true, and this is what we're going to share with you. Don't start with... Never start with, well, I'm going to set the Bible aside, and let's just have...

No, no, no, no, no. You're giving up the one sword, the one weapon God has given you. Don't put it to the side and say, hey, we're just going to start neutrally, because what was our second class? There is no neutrality, right?

So, all of this is based on... This is all just another form of how to have that presuppositional conversation. So, in your book this week, we looked at chapter 5, Apologetics as Proof, and Dr. Frame dealt with the classic arguments for the existence of God.

And let me tell you how funny this is. I did that video yesterday, and if you haven't seen it yet, please go back and watch it. It is a 30-minute podcast where I outline the cosmological, teleological, ontological, and moral arguments.

I try to help you understand what they are. And if you haven't watched it, please do. But what's interesting, I posted that video yesterday at about 4 o 'clock, because I filmed it here in the room. I posted it around 4 o 'clock.

By the time I got home last night, I already had an atheist post a comment. Yeah, immediately. And he said, classical arguments equal fallacious. That's all he said, but that was the response. Where? It's on our YouTube page.

Oh, okay. We're everywhere. We're not on YouTube. We're not on YouTube. I didn't know where. That's the only place that people can actually engage, except for, of course, Facebook. But if you go to our YouTube page and go through our videos, we don't have a ton of views because we don't have a popular page.

You know, the most views we have is like the debate I did. There's a bunch of views on that. But there are comments. Comments on it. And YouTube brings out the commenters. In this chapter, what's that?

Keyboard bullies. Yeah. Keyboard commandos. One of the things that Dr. Frame did in this chapter that I really thought was good is he made the argument, and I hope you caught this, he made the argument that really all of these boil down to the moral argument.

And what he was saying, essentially, is that moral argument is to say there is right and wrong. And so let's say that a scientist comes to you and says, this is a scientifically proven fact. And you say to that person, I don't believe it.

And they say, but it's scientifically proven. I don't care. Well, it's wrong not to believe something that's true. Why? Why is it wrong? That's the point Dr. Frame is making. That really all of this boils down, even really the teleological argument, it all sort of boils down to the moral argument.

You're saying something is not right. But by what standard is it not right? This is getting to that by what standard? You know, hashtag precept. Right? That's the reason. By what standard is it not right?

By what standard is it right? Or is it wrong for me to believe in a flat Earth? I don't. But what if I did? By what standard? Somebody says, well, we have pictures. We can show you the Earth is round.

We can show you the other planets around. We know the Earth is round. I don't care. I believe what I want to believe. But you're morally wrong for believing wrong. They would say that. By what standard?

Is it wrong for me to believe what's wrong? By what standard is it wrong for me to teach what's wrong? By what standard is it wrong? By what standard is anything wrong? That's the moral argument. If you don't have a standard for ought, then you don't have ought.

All you have with the material world is is. That's the point. And don't miss this. All you have with materialism is is. You do not have ought. A material world cannot give you ought. It can only give you is.

It can give you what is. Not what ought to be. The concept of ought and ought not is a moral concept. And it really exists in all of science. Because what does science say? You ought to believe this because it's true.

Why? Who cares what's true? How can you give me an ought if there's no standard for right and wrong? So that really is the heart of Frame's argument. He's saying that really it all boils down to the argument of ought.

And as I said, I've seen guys use this with some really with some fantastic success because it boils down to the question of by what standard? What standard? Look at your sheet I gave you. This is the summary of Chapter 5.

This chapter will argue moral values, comma, therefore, God. Moral values exist yet they are not material nor are they perceived through the empirical means. Prescription is not the same as description.

Objective moral values are real as physical laws. Excuse me, are as real as physical laws. Ethical laws are more than merely subjective and emotional preferences. If there are no moral obligations then we are free to believe, think, and do whatever we want.

Epistemological duties can't be divorced from morality. Hear that again. If there are no moral obligations, we're free to believe, think, and do whatever we want. Now, it's not on here, but just remember this quote.

Without God, all things are permissible. Without God, all things are permissible. Does that connect to the implications argument? Answer? I mean the question on implications? Yes, yeah. When you ask the question what are the implications of your world view?

There are no standards in your world view. Everyone must acknowledge a highest moral norm and where does the highest moral principle get its authority? Impersonal realities, that is a material world, a material universe, cannot create ought since we cannot derive an ought, a prescription from what is a description.

Obligations arise in the context of personal relationships, so an absolute obligation would require an absolute person. By the way, if you haven't picked it up in the book yet, Frame began this argument back in chapter one and chapter two because he said we're not just arguing for some impersonal deity who started the world spinning like a top.

That's what the deist believes. The deist believes that the world was started by some powerful being but that it just keeps going on its own. The theist says not only did God create the world but that he is personally active in his world and provides the basis for morality, provides the basis for objective truth.

Some have objective that if goodness is based on the character of God, then to say God is good is tautological. Now that's, I don't know if we have time to get into that. Tautological means in a sense circular if you say God is good, well what is good?

Good is God you know and it's it's this. How do you define good? It's not bad. Who said that? You get a gold star, James. What's good? Not bad. But how do you define the ultimate standard of good? Without God you wouldn't be able to.

That's right. But notice in the book what he said though. He made the point that if you say God is the standard of goodness then what you're saying is that God is good and that's what good is. Good is God.

Right? And so that becomes a tautology or a circular statement really that has no meaning. Did you know the word God actually is it's the word good actually comes from it's etymology is God. Good speed, God speed both have the same etymological foundation good and God do have somewhat in English a common linguistic ancestor.

But going back we talk about how do you know something we talked about this in ethics right? Remember Jackie I think you were probably the only one that was here for that class. Well you were John were you here for ethics?

Remember what we said we said if we said this is a line and this represents good we said where is God? We said God is the line. Right? Because God if God does it it's good. But when you're talking about that and you're having that conversation with someone you do have to you have to you don't have to get more than that but you have to explain it in such a way that say goodness is God's nature.

We're saying that that is what God is and so that's how we define it. We define goodness as that which is flowing out of God's being. The Bible says God is good. And I'm simply making the point that that some would have an issue with that and say well how do you understand but notice what it goes on to say whatever God says or does is good no matter what that is.

And somebody says well what about the times when God does things in the Bible that we don't think are good? Well we're not the standard. We're not the standard. If the standard of goodness is outside of God then he is subordinate to it and God is subordinate to nothing.

This objection assumes that ultimate standards must be impersonal. That's not true. There is no impersonal standard that God God's not below the line of good trying to reach it. That's what we talked about in ethics class.

God's not down here trying to reach up to meet goodness. God is the standard. So here's a tough one. When God determined to kill every first born child in Egypt because of the disobedience of Pharaoh was that good?

Yes. His ways are higher than our ways. His ways are higher than our ways. That's true. But that's that's a difficult one. This is what we're going to get to next week when we talk about evil and how do we understand it.

But when God does it there is no standard above him that he has to reach. He is the standard. And so he did what now? He came and gave God did you just say and I want to make sure the microphone gets this.

Did you just say God gave Job the business? I just love the fact that he just quoted Wally from Leave it to Beaver. That's actually going to be part of next week's lesson. Actually not the business but we are going to well because if you look forward at chapter 7 and 8 he actually addresses Job.

He says what was the answer God gave for what all Job went through? I'm God. It wasn't deal with it. What's your deal brother? God gave him the business and said deal with it. I'm God. That's the way it is.

But the heart of it is that God's ways are above our ways and understanding is sometimes beyond us. Look at the second paragraph on your sheet. It says in epistemology our minds and knowledge correlated with the comprehensibility of the universe makes far more sense given the absolute personality of the creator God who created ourselves and the world.

Impersonal rules of logic cannot obligate us to reason in a particular way. Metaphysical arguments should try to show that to explain some aspect of reality presupposes God. The teleological argument is difficult to formulate in a rigorous way given that the world was designed and created with similarities too.

Our ability to distinguish facts assumes knowledge which requires a personal absolute God. In cosmological arguments we seek causes reasons for phenomena rational beings seek explanations for things at some point there must be an ultimate explanation.

Cosmological, Teleological, and Moral Arguments for God's Existence

That's what the classical arguments are. If you haven't understood this yet hopefully you will by tonight's end. The classical arguments as I said from the very first class seek to give rational and logical reasons arguments for the existence of God.

So the cosmological arguments say what? Something is and nothing comes from nothing therefore something always had to have been. That's one of the classic cosmological arguments. There's something rather than nothing and since something is something always had to have been.

What's another one of the classical arguments? Things are moving there must be something to have moved them and that thing that moved them must be himself unmoved. That's the unmoved mover argument. There has to be something that moved all this because nothing moves on its own.

It has to be moved by something else. Has to be something that was rational. There has to be a unmoved mover. There has to be an unmoved mover. Just like there has to be an uncaused cause. St. Thomas Aquinas was known for his five proofs for the existence of God.

Three of those proofs were cosmological arguments. The unmoved mover, what's the second one? I have them on here. It just ran out of my mind. It's the unmoved mover, the motion, the cause and effect, the uncaused cause, and the contingency, the dependent, the independent one upon which everything else is dependent.

That's the three of his five arguments for the existence of God. Sometimes called the five proofs for the greatest thinker in the middle ages of the church. Logic and reason lead us to believe there must be something that has always been.

So that's the cosmological argument. And the teleological argument is purpose. That's William Pele. You've all heard the watchmaker analogy. Especially if you listened to my video. Because I talked about it in the video.

If you were walking on the beach and you found a watch and it was running and you picked it up and it was set to the right time, you would have to assume that that came about through an intelligent creator.

It did not come about by wind and erosion and chance. In fact, I think I've told this story. I know I have it set free but I don't know I've ever told it here. I have a good example of this from my own life.

We had a youth leader here named James and we all went to camp and I went with them and while we were at camp we went canoeing and while we were canoeing down the river I looked and I saw a park bench that someone had put on the bank of the river to sit and look at the river go by.

But the bench had been covered with sand and it was covered with all kinds of ick but the shape of the park bench was evident in the dirt and all the ick and I remember thinking that is a good example of Pele's argument because I know simply by looking at that that didn't come about by accident simply by looking at the design of that bench that didn't come about by erosion on the beaches of the river the water didn't create that in the same way I can look at the Grand Canyon and say yeah I could see how water could cut that canyon away but if I looked at the Mount Rushmore heads there's no way that could have accidentally happened.

Now you look at the cell now you look at the intricacies of the body you look at all these things and you say there's design there's purpose. The world around us has so many things we talked about this earlier Bobby just the amount of things that are required for this world to not only produce life but to sustain it.

You realize this world creates medicine. Well everything everything comes from the earth. Now we mix it up and shake it up but it all comes from the earth. Nobody's ever made anything. It's all been taken from the earth.

It's all here. Now we because we're made in the image of God have ability to put things together and mix them up. But we've never made anything. It's always just been redoing what's already here. It's just amazing.

This world produces food. It produces medicine produces air for us to breathe water for us to drink all seemingly for a purpose sustaining of life. That's the argument as I said in my video. It's one that I find the least persuasive but still nonetheless true.

But I'll let you watch the video and see what you come up with out of that. And of course the moral argument is the argument from ought. That's the one we've spent the most time with. Do you have any questions on this week's reading.

Reading Summary, Upcoming Guest Speaker, and Closing Prayer

Is the book starting to make more sense enjoying it a little better. Hopefully you are. Well next week we're going to deal with the problem. We're going to talk about the problem of evil. But I want to say this there's two chapters to read.

These chapters are heavy duty. My recommendation to you is read this summary first. Try to read as much of the chapters as you can. You may have a hard work week or whatever. If you don't read it all obviously I'm not going to penalize you.

Try to read as much as you can. Don't forget. In two weeks from tonight we're going to have a very special guest speaker rich is going to be here. Ask a former atheist dot com. Look at his information.

He will be here. We may meet that night in the sanctuary because people from church want to come and hear him speak. He's going to be speaking here twice. He's going to be preaching Wednesday night. Thursday night he's going to be giving a lesson on.

I think it was the five fallacies of atheism I think is what his lesson is for us. But that those two nights if you want to be here I would encourage you to come to both. Be a lot of good stuff. Any questions.

All right. Let's pray. We'll leave you of glory. We thank you so much for this opportunity to be here tonight to continue to look at the question of how do we deal with the people who are suppressing the truth and unrighteousness.

And how do we give a defense for the hope that is within us lord. I pray that this class will be useful for all of us to help us to do that very thing in Jesus name amen.