Last night I had the opportunity to attend Frank Turek's I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist. It was amazing to see that in such a short amount of time, Turek could present an unbelievable amount of evidence for the existence of God. This is an amazing thing, given the fact that he only addressed a small portion of what was contained in his book.
For those who believe, his talk certainly provided a catalyst for praise. In the cosmological argument he stretched one's understating of the greatness of God by showing something of the expansiveness of the universe. Then he elicited awe by going in the opposite direction, down to the minuteness (and wonderful complexity) of a single cell. Of course, he also talked about things that were much beyond me in the feilds of physics and astronomics. I'm not sure that I agreed with it all, but, I have to confess, it was dazzling to the mind!
Yet, while his presentation did an excellent job of developing the three classical arguments for God (cosmological, teleological, and moral), Turek also gave a clear evidence why evidencial apologetics fails as a system upon which one can build a case for God. At one point Turek openly admitted, "I am not absolutely sure that Christianity is true." He went on to explain that evidences are limited in that they can only get you to the point where you can be somewhat sure that God possibly exists. As in a courtroom, a lawyer's duty is to bring the jury to the point of reasonable doubt with his evidence. Turek admits that he can only make it seem like there is a great amount of evidence that suggests that it's likely that God exists.
But who wants to build his faith on the possibility that God might exist!
This is just one reason why the the presuppositional approach to apologetics is superior to the evidentialist approach. A presuppositionalist begins with the fact that the Triune God exists and the Bible is His word. He need not doubt the existence of God because the word of God bears witness to Him and the Spirit convinces our hearts that Christianity is absolutely true (for more on this, and the many other reasons why presuppositionalism is supperior, see my remarks on Calvin's doctrine of the self authenticating word).
I spoke with Mr. Turek after his presentation about the evidentialist v. presuppositionalist positions. He remarked that we have to start, not with God, but with the laws of logic. I asked him why and he said because they were true. I then asked him why they were true. He responded by saying that they are true because they are rooted in God. I then said, "Then why not just start with God?"
He did not think that this was sufficient since our purpose was to prove God (in other words, we can't start with something we are trying to prove). But why must we deny God's existence in order to prove his existence? This is absurd. If someone wanted to know whether or not I was married, I wouldn't have to deny the fact that my wife existed first. Moreover, the evidentialist really doesn't deny that God exists either. He knows God exists, he just doesn't admit it for argument's sake.
This last remark, I would submit, is a sin. That's because it does not give God his place. The Bible commands us to put God first in everything and always acknowledge him before men. Certainly that would mean that when we go about defending the faith he should be acknowledged rather than "tucked away" for the moment until we "prove him" with our clever arguments.
In essence though, the evidentialist position reverts us back to Enlightenment thinking. It exalts reason over revelation. Thankfully, Mr. Turek admitted this. When I said that he begins with himself (and his own powers of reason), he agreed that he did. This is humanism at core and a denial of where true wisdom is found (i.e. in the fear of the Lord).
While evidences do have their place and can serve noble purposes (see the link above for detail on this) we must remember that evidences alone will not suffice as the foundation for faith. We are to begin with the center of the universe: self-existing God revealed in Scripture.
2 comments:
While I fully respect your opinion on Dr. Turek's presentation, I feel that you may have missed some of his explanation during the question and answer session of the evening. Either that, or I simply had a different interpretation of his comments during the answers. While he may have began one of his answers by saying that he cannot be fully assured that his belief in God and in Christianity is legitimate, he explained this answer soon after. It was my understanding that when he made this statement, it was only in regards to the first half of his presentation (which is what we had just heard). He said that not all of his argument was going to be addressed that night. Later during the Q&A portion of the evening, he also confirmed that he was completely sure of his beliefs. While these might seem contradictory, his first answer seemed to be only pertaining to the first portion of his presentation and the fact that his complete argument had not been made and did not actually portray his level of faith.
In addition, while you and Dr. Turek may have differing approaches to apologetics, both have valid applications. Coming from a science background, I have known many people with whom Dr. Turek's evidence would resonate more than a different approach would. The real question is, does it really matter which method is used to deliver the message as long as the end result is the same? After all, some people cannot be persueded simply by the passion of your speech and others cannot take the first step by faith alone.
You are correct in saying that he affirmed his belief absolutely later on in the evening. I do not believe that it was because his presentation was only half done though. I believe it is because he knows in his heart of hearts that it is true due to the Spirit's confirmation. As the Scripture says, "But you have been anointed by the Holy One, and you all have knowledge."
As was pointed out in the post, evidence cannot give you 100% confirmation (even if you go through the whole presentation). At best it can only bring you to the point where you have "a really good chance" that it is right (as in a courtroom w/ reasonable doubt). Dr. Turek was very clear and open about this. It is just the nature of evidences.
The limitation of evidences is also witnessed in the inability of the method to prove the Trinity. As far as I know, no one has provided evidence, other than the biblical data, that God exists as Trinity. This is why I asked my initial question having to do with his defending generic theism, rather than distinctly Christian theism. He openly admitted that he can only prove the possibility of theism in general.
Moreover, if evidence was sufficient to convince people of spiritual truths then the people of Jesus' day should have all converted. They had all the evidence clearly presented to them in Christ's miracles and resurrection.
I agree that evidences can have valid applications. But, as the link points out, it is valid only for those who believe and not for those who do not have faith in God. To present evidences to the unbeliever is, as mentioned in the link, sinful because it exalts man to a position where he judges God.
As well, the only means God has appointed for the converting of sinners is the reading and preaching of his word (Rom. 10:17 "So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.")
So yes, it does matter which approach we use. When we defend the faith, we must do so in a way that respects God's majesty and recognizes the sinfulness of the unbeliever's heart.
Perhaps also you need to see presuppositional appologetics in action (many around here have never even heard of it, let alone seen someone do it). For examples of presuppositional appologetics, please see the following links:
http://covenantchapel.blogspot.com/2008/05/chrisitanity-is-only-true-religion.html
http://www.grovergunn.net/andrew/apolo32.htm
I would encourage you too, to read the initial link provided in the post if you have not already done so. It speaks directly to the issue of why the presuppositional approach is to be prefered.
Post a Comment