If I Could Te

You Jus

ThingNatha

Pitchford

Chapter Three: To the Non-Christian (Part One)

I am writing this book, not just because the message I have is good and true (although it is); but primarily, because the message I have matters. It matters to you. Whoever you might be, whatever youmight think about Christianity, whether you're content as you are, looking for something more, unsureof Christianity, antagonistic to Christianity, or almost persuaded of Christianity – no matter what your situation may be, the true message of Christianity has something to say to you. In the next twochapters, I hope to speak to you specifically with some clear implications of the message I detailed inthe previous chapter; and in order to do so as comprehensively as possible, I intend to address in order first the convinced atheists, agnostics, or adherents to non-Christian religions; second, the content, thesatisfied and secular, the pursuers of pleasure and the American Dream; third, the dissatisfied,depressed, cynical or unsure; and fourth, those who are considering, who are at least open toChristianity, who are already searching and wanting to think these things through.

To the Atheist

In the last chapter, I intimated that I would soon take the time to defend my claims of the utter centrality of the Christian message to all of life, reality, and the history of human existence. This iswhere I will do so. But I must admit from the beginning that I will probably not do so in the way thatyou are expecting or hoping for. I simply do not buy into the accepted paradigm for religious debate,which says that we are two neutral examiners of evidence, and that reason or logic is the undisputedarbiter to which we must appeal for the final validation of our point of view. If I did buy into this paradigm, I could probably demonstrate to a high degree of probability that an Unmoved Mover existssomewhere behind this universe, which stretches back immemorially by an unbroken chain of causalityand dependence. But I'm not interested in some nameless, unknowable god who probably exists. Icould get you that far, perhaps, but how would that be any better than where you are now? No, for at least two reasons I do not buy into this paradigm. First, because I don't think logic or reason is a sufficient standard for the validation of overarching worldviews. Now, don't get me wrong,logic is a very useful tool. It can point out inconsistencies in any confined discussion, and this is aneminently useful ability for a wide range of applications. It can tell me, from within an already-established grid for comparing and evaluating bits of information, why one way of interpreting the datais wrong and another way is right. But it cannot give me the grid itself. It is part of the grid, thus lesser than the grid, and therefore illegitimate to use in substantiation of the grid. Logic and evidence can tellme the conditions necessary for the transmutation of liquid water to ice. It can tell me the chemicalcompositions effective for treating certain diseases in the human body. It may even be able to tell mewhether or not the globe is actually warming, and if so, what the probable causes are, and what effectsare likely to ensue. But it cannot tell me anything about the origins of the universe, the meaning of life,or any of the big questions that mark off the sphere in which we make and correlate observations, andgovern the way in which we do so.In fact, if I were to accept your paradigm of the authority of logic to determine an overarchingview of reality, I would already be conceding my own argument from the outset. As a convincedChristian theist, the fundamental tenets of my worldview include the truth that God alone is ultimateand supreme, and that all other things, material or immaterial, are lesser than he. If I defer to your proposed ultimacy of reason or logic as the supreme arbiter which can pass judgment on whether or notGod exists, and if so, on what he must be like, then I am already guilty of idolatry. Because God is,logic is. Because God is authoritative, that which he has instilled into us to enable us to interpret data ina manner analogical to the way he sees and has structured reality, then those instilled parameters of

If I Could Te

You Jus

ThingNatha

Pitchford

logic are likewise authoritative to do what he has designed them to do. But they are not authoritative to pass judgment on him who is their source and the very reason for their authority.But consider for a moment: how can you reasonably assert that reason has any authoritywhatsoever? “I am right in assigning truth to this view regarding the nature of reality,” you say. Allright then, why are you right? “Because reason confirms my opinions,” you say. All right then, why isreason to be trusted? “Because we all know and accept the laws of logic,” you may say. All right then,how do you support what you know about the legitimacy of the laws of logic? “Well, because that isthe only reasonable way of looking at the universe”. Will you use reason to support knowledge aboutreason, and knowledge about reason to support reason? How is it possible even to argue about theoverarching matters of reality logically when the very existence and reliability of logic is one of thethings that needs to be argued about?If you suppose that I am playing with semantics to avoid any real argumentation, then let meissue you a simple challenge: find one internally consistent ontology or epistemology that does notsupport itself circularly. Use all the great minds in the history of civilization if you will, study Aristotleand Plato, study Kant and Hegel, study Locke, Berkely, and Hume, study whomever you want, and tellme if you can articulate any ontology at all that is not inherently circular, self-contradictory, or absurd.You see, the big issues of ontology, metaphysics, and epistemology are patently beyond the bounds of reason and logic, which are mere subsets, lesser parts of those broad domains, and hence manifestlyincapable of affirming or denying them. To attempt to do so is striving to repeat the enigmatical feat of Bugs Bunny, who was somehow able to pull himself up off the ground by his own ears. Logic used tosupport epistemology pulls itself up by its own ears, with the vast weight of a complete worldview allthe while hanging from its toes.“Fine,” you may say, “but even if I concede your point, you still have the same problem. I maynot be able to defend my worldview to your standards, but neither can you defend yours. In effect,you've just made the whole conversation meaningless and impossible.”I will concede part of that response: I've made the logical defense of my worldview impossible,simply because logic itself is not big enough to prove something so all-encompassing. However, myworldview has at least this going for it: it is internally consistent and does not support itself circularly.It makes perfect sense to suppose that God created both the world and the laws that govern it, bothreality and the manner and means of observing and analyzing it. When I assume just this much, thatGod is and God has spoken, that is, that he has conveyed at least some basic information regarding howto look at the world, information which is common to all thinking creatures, and by means of whichconversation is even possible, then I can make sense of everything. If I deny this, I can make sense of absolutely nothing, and even to attempt to do so is absurd. Do you want proof of Christianity? Wellthen, it is only this: without Christianity, you can't prove anything

.I have made a very brief foray into the realm of the philosophical, although I have been loath todo so. I have developed a distinct distaste for philosophy in general, and I think it little apt to producedesirable results. So let me forget the philosophical side of the debate and speak specifically to youwho are atheists or agnostics, but not philosophers. Let me wrap up my basic argument in a way thatmakes sense to the average person who says in his heart, “There is no god; or if there is, there is notenough evidence to know so for sure.”Let me ask you this: what matters to you? What bothers you? Does it bother you when you hear about child abuse? Does it bother you to hear about rape? What about genocide? What about blatanthypocrisy? Does anything matter to you?

1“The basic proof of Christianity is that, without it, you can't prove anything” – Greg Bahnsen, in the dvd series of lectures on

Basic Training for Defending the Faith

, produced by American Vision.

If I Could Te

You Jus

ThingNatha

Pitchford

If you are answering yes, as I am sure you must be, then simply ask yourself why. If theuniverse is a giant, self-supporting, self-existent organism progressing according to certain inexplicablelaws governing matter and motion, and if you yourself are merely a part of that great material machine,then why do things that happen according to the enigmatical universal laws of matter and motion evenmatter? Why does it matter when the laws governing the desires and actions of the pedophile next door lead him to rape your little sister? Why does it matter when they compel Nazi Germany to murder countless thousands of “undesirables”? Why does it matter when one race of people subjugates,represses, or exterminates another?Granting the one moral law governing the process of evolution, that all species, for somemeaningless reason, want to survive and to pass on their biological information to their descendants,then do not such things as rape, subjugation, and racial extermination make perfect sense? What better way to ensure the survival of my own race than to exterminate those who are weaker, and to spread my biological information as widely as possible, at the expense of those who are unable to resist?Things bother you. If you were truly an atheist, then they wouldn't. The only worldview that cansupport the moral outrage that you have known and remember all the time, when you see things youdon't like, is the Christian worldview: that God is, and that he has conveyed to all people a universal setof data including basic morality, logic, and sensibility to outside phenomena. This morality, logic, andsensibility may be terribly distorted and different from one culture to another, yes; but its veryexistence in any form is impossible and absurd apart from the Christian worldview.I have only mentioned one of my reasons why I do not buy into the commonly accepted paradigm for arguing about the existence of God; and that is, that logic or reason is not a sufficientarbiter to wield any authority in arguments about the overarching structure of reality. The secondreason is this: I do not believe that you are a neutral observer, willing to accept the truth if reasoncompels you to it. You are not wanting to examine the evidence for the existence of God in an unbiasedfashion, and to believe in him if the evidence is great enough. You say that you do, but only becauseyou do not want to carry the blame of rebelliously choosing to live life your own way. It is as if you aresaying, “It's not my fault that I'm refusing to acknowledge you and to obey your laws, God! I'm anunbiased, reasonable person, and if you gave me sufficient evidence I would believe in you. But youhaven't given me enough evidence. It's your fault that I don't believe in you.” Now, if I can only saythis, then I can do those things I want to do but that God would condemn me for, and still not feelguilty about it. I have made my sin God's fault, so I don't have to carry the blame.I am not speaking from the outside here. I am speaking as one of you. One of all of us. Everyday I suppress the truth that I know because I want to do my own thing. I grumble and complain aboutcircumstances, and in doing so I am saying, at least by implication, “It's not my fault I'm not happy – if things were better, I would be! It's actually your fault, God, for not managing the things in my life theway they should be managed!” I hate to admit that, because it stings deeply to know that, in actuality, Iam so rebellious to my Maker and Redeemer. But if I am being honest, I do this sort of thing all thetime. Every time I sin, in fact. But let me be clear about this, as well: my own confession does not getanyone else off the hook. It does not make your rebellion any less egregious. We cannot say, “Well,nobody's perfect. Even Christians mess up sometimes. If everyone's done it, it can't be that bad. Godwill just overlook it.” No, because everyone's done it, it's even worse. It's not just a terrible affront tothe God of heaven, it is a terrible and universal affront to him.Sin is not just ignorance, it is rebellion; because deep down, everyone knows God, at least to acertain extent. Notice, I did not say that everyone knows that there is a god, but that everyone knowsGod. The God of the bible. The God who gave us the fundamental moral, logical, and perceptive gridsthrough which we all view the universe. We may have distorted some of these grids, but they are still