I decided to take one sample of Bethrick's drivel and show how he completely misunderstands and misrepresents his interlocutor. This will serve as a one stop shop for those who, when Bethrick asks, "show how I misrepresent presuppositionalism, Greg Bahnsen, Van Til, etc.," need to provide the evidence he requests for without having to spend the maddening hours showing not only how Bethrick misrepresents their defense but also who they're defending. This is an ongoing series and this post is part IV. Parts 1-3 will be listed directly below:
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
In this post I'll be looking at the first charge of prejudice on Bethrick's post
Bahnsen's Three Charges of Prejudice. Part 3 (above) dealt with Bethricks introductionary comments and has already done enough damage to Bethrick's reputation that I hardly need to continue. But, sometimes, in war, it is not enough to just beat a country, you sometimes will have to totally cripple them by dropping an a-bomb. So, we can all climb aboard this Enola Gay as we proceed to decimate what's left of Bethrick-land (inhabited by thick-headed people who seem unable to "get" anything).
Bethrick begins by quoting Bahnsen's book, Always Ready:
"The first [indication of] prejudice is the assumption that the Biblical text is no different from any other written document which we find in our natural experience throughout history - which of course begs the fundamental question over which the believer and unbeliever are arguing!" (p. 136)
Now in Part III above I decisively showed how Bethrick did not stick to the context and, indeed, seemed totally unaware of the context. This was especially embarrassing since Bethrick made it a point to say that his (mis)interpretation of Bahnsen was based on "the context." This is important because Bahnsen's "three charges of prejudice" follow on the heels of a doubter basing his objections on "what seems likely" to him. In part III I explain Bahnsen's context and argue against Bethrick that Bahnsen was justified in making the claim that "what seems likely" to someone is not a firm foundation from which someone should launch critiques. I pointed out that Dr. Bahnsen tells us that, "In the place of research and honest assessment of available evidence concerning some aspect of the Bible, many unbelievers have substituted personal conjecture about what 'seems likely' to them" (p. 135, emphasis mine). So we can see that "what seems likely" is juxtaposed with "research and honest assessment of available evidence concerning some aspect of the Bible." That is to say, "what seems likely" is to ignore, neglect, overlook, pass over, pay no heed to the available evidence; and, if one is familiar with some of our claims, they will handle assess those claims in a deceitful, devious, dishonest, evasive, shady, sneaky, under-the-table-ish, and underhanded way.
So, now we know the type of person who Bahnsen is talking about. To this person, "what seems likely" is based on prejudice, not on honest assessment of the evidence. So, this person has made the claim that we cannot trust our Bible. During the apologetic dialogue we find that this person has not done his homework. Instead of giving us reasons for why we should not trust the Bible, he just says that it "seems likely to him" that it just "must have" been corrupted. Bahnsen addresses "unbelievers who reason this way" (p.136). What way? Well, their reasoning is:
P1. Some messages get "garbled or distorted" in transmission (Always Raedy, p.135-36).
P2. The Bible is a message.
C1. Therefore the Bible was garbled or distorted.
This is the correct translation of Bahnsen's enthymematic statement. One can easily note that this argument is fallacious (the conclusion goes beyind the premise). Furthermore, Bahnsen then points out that this type of argument is prejudiced. It assumes that since books by mere humans have had transmission problems, therefore the Bible, in all likehood, has as well. But, this assumes that the Bible is a mere human book. Therefore, the argument assumes that the Bible is not divine in order to prove that it is not divine. Having laid this foundation, let's continue on with Bethrick's post.
In response to the above Bethrick writes,
If it is the case that "the assumption that the Biblical text is no different from any other written document...begs the fundamental question over which the believer and unbeliever are arguing," wouldn't the opposite assumption - namely the assumption that the biblical text is significantly "different from any other document which we find in our natural experience throughout history" - also "beg the fundamental question over which the believer and unbeliever are arguing"?
Here Bethrick takes it that he's scored a point. What is interesting, though, is that Bethrick takes himself to be an expert on Bahnsen and Van Til. Indeed, he arrogantly told me that if I wanted to learn about what Bahnsen and Van Til meant then I should "come over to his blog." But if he was the expert he claims then why does he not know that Bahnsen would commend Bethrick's point. Bethrick has Bahnsen's book on Van Til (VT: Readings & Analysis) but seems unaware of pages, 482-83, 518-20, 523-26, and 650-52. But this is odd for someone who claims to have studied this "tome in depth." More evidence can be found in Van Til. Van Til and Bahnsen all admitted that everyone reasons in a circle, or begs the question, when ultimate authorities are debated. Van Til writes,
[T]his brings up the point of circular reasoning. The charge is constantly made that if matters stand thus with Christianity, it has written its own death warrant as far as intelligent men are concerned. Who wishes to make such a simple blunder in elementary logic, as to say that we believe something to be true because it is in the Bible? Our answer to this is briefly that we prefer to reason in a circle to not reasoning at all. We hold it to be true that circular reasoning is the only reasoning that is possible to finite man. [...] Unless we are larger than God we cannot reason about him any other way, than by a transcendental or circular argument. The refusal to admit the necessity of circular reasoning is itself an evident token of opposition to Christianity. (A Survey of Christian Epistemology, p. 12)
So, the point of Bahnsen's charge of begging the question is not that begging the question on ultimate authorities is bad, but rather Bahnsen's point is to point out that the person also begs the question. Bahnsen intends to point out that the supposedly "neutral" objector is really prejudiced. He's not coming to the debate as a blank-slate, as it were. So, far from Bahnsen being worried that he's "begging the question," what we have here is Bahnsen showing the one who pretends to be neutral is not. For anyone with even a modicum of understanding of presuppositionalism this should have been clear. For those who do not understand presuppositionalism (as in our friend Bethrick) the elementary blunder is understandable. This entry is not for defending this idea, but rather to point out that Bethrick misunderstands presuppositionalism, on a basic point.
Bethrick continues to show his ignorance regarding presuppositionalism, and Bahnsen's works. He writes,
Bahnsen's rebuttal to reasonable impartiality regarding texts presented for review to non-believers requires him to take for granted the premise that the bible is singularly different from other texts without the need to first establish this premise. In other words, he takes the bible's utter uniqueness as a self-sufficient primary which does not need to be validated.
Yes, Bahnsen does take the Bible thusly. This is not new to Bahnsen, though. The idea of the self-attestation of God's word his a long held position, with a fine pedigree behind it. So, we can add Bethrick's general ignorance of Christian scholarship to his list of comprehension problems and scholarly ineptitude. It's simple, really:
How would we establish the authority of the Bible? Jesus taught with self-attesting authority. His words did not need the authority of another person or some "evidence" to back it up (Matt. 7:29). The standard by which we are to judge all teaching is the word of God (1 John 4:11). The Bible says, "let God be true, though all men are liars! (Romans 3:4). No man is in the position to talk back to God (Romans 9:20). Those who do, speak to soon and must contend with Jehovah (Job 40:1-5). There is no authority, evidence, or argument that is more authoritative than God's. The Westminster Confession of Faith summarizes this biblical doctrine: Section I: IV. The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, depends not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God. Therefore, if one needed some authority higher than the Bible, to prove that the Bible was the highest authority, then one would be engaging on a mission determined to end in frustration. That is because if someone did prove that the Bible was the ultimate authority, by some authority which was higher than the Bible, then one would, simultaneously, disprove the Bible.
Therefore, for Bethrick to ask Bahnsen to establish the Bible's unique and ultimate authority is for Bethrick to assume that the Bible is not the highest authority that one could appeal to, and thus beg the fundamental question. How ironic! This is yet another basic plank in presuppositional apologetics. This is also covered in chapter 6 of the book Bethrick is using for his ammunition. Therefore we see that Bethrick fails to understand the rich, broad, and varied arguments which form the cohesiveness of presuppositionalism. He's anything but a "Bahnsen expert." Therefore, Bethrick's missile fails to find its target. All it is, is an autobiographical remark. That is, all Bethrick succeeded in doing was showing everyone how much he does not know about presuppositionalism. If Bethrick did know how Bahnsen would answer, then he fallaciously and underhandedly sets up an opponent as not being able to answer a question that he has already dealt with. Bottom line: either way Bethrick loses.
Bethrick asks, "But is it really so inappropriate to view the books of the bible as 'no different from any other written document'?" But that's what we're debating. So, you can beg the question, if you want. As long as you know you're doing this, then fine. Once I note this, you'll get nowhere.
Bethrick stumbles, "Bahnsen gives no reason against this other than that it allegedly 'begs the fundamental question over which the believer and unbeliever are arguing.'" As if that were not reason enough. So, if Bethrick wants to assume that Christianity is false to prove that it is false, be my quest. Note that all he'd be offering is an external criticism, highly unpersuasive.
Bethrick insightfully notes, "The Muslim could deploy the same tactic with respect to the Koran." You're right, he could! Bahnsen has pointed this out over and over, if he was consulted than Bethrick might not appear so ignorant of those who he critiques. Indeed, if the Muslim were consistent with the Koran, he would do so. Furthermore, Bethrick assumes reason in order to argue for reason. Bethrick assumes that he's autonomous, in order to prove he's autonomous.
Bethrick states the obvious,
In actuality, there are overriding general features of the bible that it shares with all other written documents which put the bible on the same level. For example, like other written documents, the bible itself is a written document. Like other written documents, the bible consists of words written on pages which can be read by readers who can read the language in which those words are written. Also, like other written documents, the bible consists of written statements which readers can examine and relate to the broader sum of knowledge which they have acquired throughout their lives, and thus form judgments about the quality of its content, whether it is true or false, useful or useless, meaningful or meaningless, etc. This is the case with the bible just as it is with a play by Shakespeare, a poem by Pushkin, a play by Molliere, an essay by Jefferson, or a book by Greg Bahnsen.
But these facts are not what makes the Bible different. It is the propositional content, along with who authored the book that make it different. If these simple facts make a book "on the same level" then why are there genres of literature? Why is poetry distinguished from history? Bethrick's argument looks like this: since humans have two arms and legs, and since ape's have two arms and legs, therefore apes and humans are "on the same level." Indeed, what does "on the same level" mean here? Bethrick does not elaborate. Is "Dick and Jane" on "the same level" as Shakespeare? In one sense yes (a trivial one). In a more important sense, no. I'm afraid this is not only ignorant, but extremely sloppy.
Bethrick lamments,
In the case of Shakespeare's play, Pushkin's poem, Molliere's play, Jefferson's essay and Bahnsen's book, each can be judged by its content. Is Bahnsen saying that we should do this in the case of every written document except the biblical text?
To stand as judge over the Bible, assuming God's word as guilty before proven innocent, is "to beg the fundamental question." Furthermore, to "judge" something is to assume certain standards by which that something can be judged. In the Christian worldview, the standard by which we judge the content of the Bible is the Bible itself. All of this is basic stuff. Christianity 101. Why is it that almost all "ex-Christians" have less of an understanding of the Bible than my 6 yr. old has?
Bethrick asks, " Is Bahnsen worried about what outcome may transpire if someone does judge the bible by its content?" Yep, that's it! Bahnsen sat around, before his death, "worried" about people judging the Bible by autonomous reasoning. This is like what I heard on my kids playground. Some kid told another kid to jump off the top of the slide, about 20 ft off the ground. When a kid wouldn’t do it the other kids said, "what? you afraaaiiid?" Thus we see Bethrick's playground tactic. Moreover, we're fine if you judge the Bible by "it's content." That requires, obviously, judging it by it's content, all of it. The problem, as Bahnsen is illustrating in his book, is that people refuse to really judge the Bible, by its content. For example, they will "judge" that God is immoral for wiping people out. But if one were to take all the "content" of the Bible then one would find that this is an unfair charge. Since all life is God's. And since He is just and holy, and since men are criminal in his universe, God may punish criminals in a just way. This objection, then, takes part of the content of the Christian worldview. If the objector took all of the content then his objection reads thus: "God is a big meanie for giving criminals their just reward." The unstated assumption is that criminals should not be punished.
Bethrick then quotes the rest of Bahnsen's "first charge of prejudice:"
If the Bible is, as it claims, the inspired word of Almighty God, then the history of its textual transmission may very well be quite different than other human documents since God would have ordained that its text be preserved with greater integrity than that of ordinary books. (p. 136)
Bethrick then comments,
"This is a common refrain coming from apologists, but the special pleading and appeal to unseen magical forces are simply embarrassing."
Embarrassing for Bethrick! The fallacy of Special Pleading occurs when someone argues that a case is an exception to a rule based upon an irrelevant characteristic that does not define an exception. I'd say that if a book was inspired from an Almighty God, who governs all details in history, and makes sure that men have His word, is not an "irrelevant detail." Indeed, Bethrick assumes that the book is like all other books, thus he continues to "beg the fundamental question." Furthermore, note the emotive language employed by Bethrick. Of course its always nice when preaching to the choir to use language like the above. But if Behtrick thinks that he's going to have any one other than "the party line" give his arguments the time of day then he should stop with the throw-away arguments.
Bahnsen then, just to write, goes into a wholly irrelevant tirade. He writes,
"Today one can go into any bookstore and pull a Mario Puzo novel off the shelf, and the same title sitting right next to it is precisely the same, right down to a typo on page 172, since they were replicated from the same print master by the same automated technology. Modern technology has at the very least significantly reduced the enormous potential for error that plagues copying texts by hand. No doubt the bible's copyists would have been green with envy had they known about the ease with which their precious bibles could be mass produced today. So ironically, Bahnsen is correct, in a way he did not intend, when he supposes that "the history of [the bible's] textual transmission" is "different than other human documents," since there is no shortage of "other human documents" whose textual reproduction is far more faithful to their respective originals than one could ever hope for in the case of the biblical text, since the automated print technology in use today was not used in the preservation of the biblical text."
But what does this have to do with the objection? The objector has said that the book probably was not transmitted properly because people did not have copy machines. The response by Bahnsen is that they would not need copy machines if an all-powerful God controlled the process. The objection assumes that this premise is false. Therefore it "begs the fundamental question" as well as not "judging the book by all its content." Why would Bethrick not want to judge the book by its content? Isn't that what he lamented about above?
This sums up part IV. Bethrick has been shown, again, to be completely ignorant and uncharitable with those who he critiques. Bethrick constantly blunders through his post and also fails to live up to the criteria even he proposes (i.e, judging by content). The last paragraph of Bethrick party 1 is a bunch of ignorant conjecture. Basically Bethrick states that since God is all powerful then why did he need to give a written revelation? Bethrick pontificates that God could have "zapped" knowledge about Him into everyone. Despite the fact that God has done this, so-to-speak (cf Rom. 1), Bethrick's argument look like this: "God could have done X, therefore he should have." Upon analysis, this is simply ridiculous. I "could have" had Lucky Charms for breakfast, therefore I should have!
No comments:
Post a Comment