Chapter 3 - Questions About Worldviews “Ideas have consequences.” Richard M. Weaver
WHAT IS A WORLDVIEW? We have already said that a worldview is analogous to an intellectual lens through which people view reality and the color of the lens is a strong determining factor that contributes to what they believe about the world. Moreover, a worldview is a philosophical system that attempts to explain how the facts of reality relate and fit together. Once the pieces of the lens are put together, it will bring into focus the “big picture” of reality that provides the framework into which the smaller pieces of life then fit. In other words, a worldview shapes or colors the way we think and furnishes the interpretive condition for understanding and explaining the facts of our experience. The adjacent picture may help to explain how a worldview works. If the intellectual lens through which we see the world is red in color, the world will look red to us. If the lens is blue in color, the world will look blue to us. The lens colors everything we see through it and shifts it towards the red or the blue end of the color spectrum, depending upon which lens we are looking through. One may see the world as red, another as blue, still another as yellow, and so on.
The World Looks Red
The World Looks Blue
Intellectual Lens Through Which The World Is Viewed
As important as it is to understand what a worldview is, it is even more critical to realize the logical consequences associated with living out the convictions of what a particular worldview holds to be true. This thought leads us to our next question.
Why Are Worldviews Important? Since our thoughts influence our emotions, reactions, and behaviors, it is particularly important for us to know what we believe and why we believe it. Think about the kind of consequences that are the direct and logical results of a worldview. History reminds us that people act on their convictions which have been derived from their worldview. One man, Adolf Hitler, appealed to the people of his country to have the backbone to advance the logical outworking of their worldview. He said, The stronger must dominate and not mate with the weaker, which would signify the sacrifice of its own higher nature. Only the born weakling can look upon this principle as cruel, and if he does so it is merely because he is of a feebler nature and narrower mind; for if such a law did not direct the process of evolution then the higher development of organic life would not be conceivable at all. . . . If Nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with the stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one; because in such a case all her efforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being, may thus be rendered futile.1
1
Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf (New York: Hurst and Blackett, 1942, Translated and annotated by James Murphy) 161-162. Copyright
C
2001 - Bethany House Publishers: Norman L. Geisler / Peter B. Bocchino
Questions About Worldviews
page 2
Hitler referred to this dispensation of nature as “quite logical.” In fact, it was so logical to the Nazis that they built concentration camps to carry out their convictions about the human race as being “nothing but the product of heredity and environment” or, as the Nazis liked to say, “of blood and soil.” 2 Auschwitz was one such camp where theoretical precepts were applied to the real world. If we were to visit Auschwitz today, we could walk down the hallways of some of the buildings where we would see the unimaginable impact a worldview can and did have on the people in the world. Most people are unprepared and shocked to see the photos of pregnant women and little children who were eventually tortured to death by Nazi officials. In preparing a cover story in remembrance of the fiftieth anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, Newsweek interviewed Leutenant General Vasily Petrenko, the only surviving commander among the four Red Army divisions that encircled and liberated Auschwitz. They said, Petrenko was a hardened veteran of some of the worst fighting of the war. “I had seen many people killed,” Petrenko says. “I had seen many people hanged and burned people. But still I was unprepared for Auschwitz.” What astonished him especially were the children, some mere infants, who had been left behind in the hasty evacuation. They were the survivors of the medical experiments perpetrated by the Auschwitz camp doctor, Josef Mengele, or the children of Polish political prisoners rounded up after the ill-fated revolt in Warsaw.3 The quote from Mein Kampf, along with this brief excerpt from Newsweek magazine, ought to be a sober reminder of the fact that there are some people who are dedicated to living out the logical conclusions of their worldview. The strong convictions of men like Adolf Hitler and Josef Mengele show that a worldview can change the face of the world. Understanding what different worldviews teach, and the logical outworking of each, is very crucial. Therefore, we plan to summarize some of the main tenets of the worldviews under examination in this book so that we can check their beliefs to see which ones are credible. However, there are many ways to view reality and it would seem as if there can be as many worldviews as there are people in the world. So, before we look at the main tenets of the worldviews we will be discussing, let’s identify which ones we plan to examine.
HOW MANY WORLDVIEWS ARE THERE? Classically speaking, there are seven worldviews: Theism, Atheism, Pantheism, Panentheism, Deism, Polytheism and Finite Godism. We know that all of these views have permeated our culture and exist, in one form or another, on virtually every secular college or university campus in North America and much of the rest of the world. In this book we will only investigate the three predominant worldviews that exists in our culture—atheism, pantheism and theism.4 First, let us consider the worldview under which orthodox Christianity belongs, the worldview called theism. Theism teaches that there is only one infinite and personal Being, beyond this finite physical universe. Theists believe that the attributes of the God of the Bible can be partially known through nature, just as the attributes of an artist can be recognized through the artist’s painting. The Bible informs us that God has put an deepseated knowledge in the hearts and minds of all the people of the world about some of His attributes and that this knowledge can be clearly seen through the observation of nature: 2
Viktor Frankl, The Doctor and the Soul: Introduction to Logotherapy (New York: Knopf, 1982), xxi. Jerry Adler, “The Last Days of Auschwitz,” Newsweek, January 16, 1995, 47. 4 Finite godism is briefly examined in chapter eleven with respect to Harold Kushner’s book, Why do bad things happen to good people? Also, for more information about worldviews, see N. Geisler and R. Brooks, When Skeptics Ask, (Wheaton: Victor, 1990), chapter three. 3
Copyright
C
2001 - Bethany House Publishers: Norman L. Geisler / Peter B. Bocchino
Questions About Worldviews
page 3
What may be known about God is made plain to them [all people] because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men [all people] are without excuse.5 The battle for truth will focus on what God has revealed to all people about Himself. According to biblical theism, this verse makes it clear that God will hold everyone, regardless of his or her culture or society, accountable for what He has revealed about Himself through nature. The first two chapters of the book of Romans helps us understand exactly what has been made clear by God—that He is the infinite and eternal power source that caused and sustains the existence of the physical universe and that His divine nature is the basis for ethics. However, God also says that this truth has been suppressed by the evil moral condition of individuals and not because of their intellectual ignorance.
HOW DO WORLDVIEWS DIFFER? The most fundamental dissension between worldviews is based on the existence and nature of God. In a book documenting a debate between an atheist and a theist, Peter Kreeft makes the following observation about the existence of God: The idea of God has guided or deluded more lives, changed more history, inspired more music and poetry and philosophy than anything else, real or imagined. It has made more of a difference to human life on this planet, both individually and collectively, than anything else ever has.6 To get an understanding of the primary differences that exist between atheism, pantheism and theism, we only need to define each worldview and list its major tenets. The reason for this comparison is to demonstrate the logically incompatible nature of the essential truth claims each worldview makes concerning God, reality, humanity, evil and ethics. Further study of each worldview is recommended, but these tenets will serve our purpose. Ultimately, we want to see which worldview tenets most accurately matches the fundamental truths used as the basis for each academic field of knowledge under consideration in this book.
WHAT DO ATHEISTS BELIEVE? Atheism believes that no God exists beyond the universe or in it. The universe or cosmos is all there is or ever will be; it is self-sustaining. Some of the more famous atheists were Karl Marx, Friedrich Nietzsche, Sigmund Freud, and Jean-Paul Sartre. Their writings have had a tremendous influence upon the world. These men expressed their views in different ways, but all of them held to the basic belief that God does not exist. Some of the main tenets of atheism, in general, are as follows:
GOD ...................................... DOES NOT EXIST, ONLY THE UNIVERSE EXISTS UNIVERSE ..........................ETERNAL UNIVERSE, OR CAME TO BE OUT OF NOTHING HUMANITY (ORIGIN)...... EVOLVED, MADE OF MOLECULES, NOT IMMORTAL HUMANITY (DESTINY) ...NO ETERNAL DESTINY, ANNIHILATION 5 6
Romans 1:20, quoted from the New International Version of The Holy Bible (Nashville: Holman, 1986). J. P. Moreland and Kai Nielsen, Does God Exist? (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1990), 11. Copyright
C
2001 - Bethany House Publishers: Norman L. Geisler / Peter B. Bocchino
Questions About Worldviews
page 4
EVIL (ORIGIN)................... AFFIRM ITS REALITY, CAUSED BY HUMAN IGNORANCE EVIL (DESTINY)................CAN BE DEFEATED BY MAN ETHICS (BASIS).................CREATED BY, AND GROUNDED IN, MAN ETHICS (NATURE) ........... RELATIVE, DETERMINED BY THE SITUATION
WHAT DO PANTHEISTS BELIEVE? Another major worldview is the belief that God is the universe. This view is called pantheism, manifest in popular form as the New Age movement. For a pantheist there is no creator beyond the universe. Creator and creation are two different ways of viewing the same reality. God is the universe and the universe is God. Ultimately only one reality exists, not many different ones. God pervades all things and is found within all things. Nothing exists apart from God: God is the world and the world is God. People believe in different kinds of pantheism, which are represented by certain forms of Hinduism, Zen Buddhism, and the New Age movement. Their views differ as to how God and the world are identified, but they all believe that God and the world are one. Some of the main tenets of pantheism are as follows: GOD ...................................... ONE, INFINITE, USUALLY IMPERSONAL, GOD IS THE UNIVERSE UNIVERSE .......................... ILLUSION, MANIFESTATION OF GOD (GOD ALONE IS REAL) HUMANITY (ORIGIN)......HIS TRUE SELF (ATMAN) IS GOD (BRAHMAN) HUMANITY (DESTINY) ...DETERMINED BY KARMA, CYCLES OF LIFE EVIL (ORIGIN)................... AN ILLUSION CAUSED BY ERRORS OF THE MIND EVIL (DESTINY)................WILL BE REABSORBED BY GOD ETHICS (BASIS)................. GROUNDED IN LOWER MANIFESTATIONS OF GOD ETHICS (NATURE) ........... RELATIVE, TRANSCEND ILLUSION OF GOOD AND EVIL
WHAT DO THEISTS BELIEVE? Conversely, theism is the worldview that holds to the belief that the world is more than just the physical universe. However, theists do not accept the idea that God is the world. They believe in the existence of God and see his existence as the essential component of the theistic worldview. Theists are convinced that the universe had a supernatural first cause, which is infinitely powerful and intelligent. An infinite God is both beyond and manifests Himself in the universe. This God is a personal God, separate from the world, who created the universe and sustains it. Theists believe that God can act within the universe in a supernatural way. The traditional religions of Judaism, Islam, and Christianity, represent theism. Some of the main tenets of theism are as follows: GOD .................................. ONE, PERSONAL, MORAL, INFINITE BEING IN ALL ATTRIBUTES REALITY......................... FINITE UNIVERSE, CREATED BY AN INFINITE GOD HUMANITY (ORIGIN).... IMMORTAL, CREATED AND SUSTAINED BY GOD HUMANITY (DESTINY) . ETERNALLY WITH, OR SEPARATED FROM GOD BY CHOICE EVIL (ORIGIN)............... PRIVATION OR IMPERFECTION CAUSED BY CHOICE EVIL (DESTINY)............ WILL BE ULTIMATELY DEFEATED BY GOD ETHICS (BASIS)............. GROUNDED IN THE NATURE OF GOD ETHICS (NATURE) ....... ABSOLUTE, OBJECTIVE AND PRESCRIPTIVE
Copyright
C
2001 - Bethany House Publishers: Norman L. Geisler / Peter B. Bocchino
HIS
Questions About Worldviews
page 5
WHAT IS WORLDVIEW CONFUSION? Our judgments concerning certain issues in life depend upon how we view the world. Our worldview will bias our conclusions because of the assumptions we make when we Human Life formulate it. For example, atheists who have decided that Evolved macroevolution accounts for the life we observe in the universe, base their theory on purely naturalistic assumptions made within the atheistic worldview. Consequently, atheists concluded that there is no God. At the same time, theists can look at the identical evidence and show that the only way to account for intelligent life in the observable universe is by positing an intelligent-first-cause (God). The same facts of the universe are available to the atheist and the theist, yet their conclusions are irreconcilable. These incompatible answers result from what is referred to as worldview confusion. Since our judgments about life are biased by our worldview, and different worldviews arrive at essentially different answers to the same questions, where do we go from here? Human Life Was Created
We suggest taking a closer look at the structure of the intellectual lens (worldview) being used to interpret the data under investigation and gain an understanding of how that lens is put together. This intellectual lens is made up of certain assumptions that constitute the main structure of a worldview. Understanding these assumptions will be an essential aspect of learning how to communicate our beliefs across various worldviews without having them being misinterpreted through another colored lens. Therefore, this lens is the place to begin to look for common ground—principles that are used in formulating any worldview. At first glance, each worldview represented above does not seem to have much in common: one is red (atheism) and one is blue (theism). Yet, they both are made of curved glass surfaces and each lens has a focal point. For that reason, we may be able to find some shared assumptions upon which to build a logical discussion before we argue about which interpretation of the evidence is the correct. We are suggesting that one good way to communicate across worldviews is to ask the right questions.
WHY ARE QUESTIONS SO IMPORTANT? There are many good reasons for asking honest questions during a dialogue. One important reason is that a sincere question lets the other person know that we are genuinely interested in his or her opinion. Remember that the ultimate goal in apologetics (giving reasons for our faith) is to gently confirm and defend our beliefs, in the hope that God will draw individuals into a relationship with Himself through Jesus Christ. Just spouting off answers or obnoxiously defending the Christian faith will not help to build relationships with people who need to know God. Therefore, it is essential to recognize that a properly focused question, asked in an attitude of love and concern, can be much more effective than just trying to prove a point and win an argument. It has rightly been said that one can win an argument but lose the person in the process. Furthermore, asking the right kinds of questions can help to disarm a potentially explosive dialogue and turn it into an effective discussion. When someone gets emotionally involved with an issue, it becomes increasingly difficult for that person to follow a logical argument. The distraction can become so great that the result usually ends up with the discussion “producing more heat than light.” With this in mind, our primary task is to get away from the emotional aspect of the dialogue and try to establish some common ground for proper
Copyright
C
2001 - Bethany House Publishers: Norman L. Geisler / Peter B. Bocchino
Questions About Worldviews
page 6
communication to take place. The classroom is just the kind of place where emotions might get out of hand, so let’s use that arena to take a look at what can happen when a professor or classmate questions Christianity. Imagine that you are a college student and your biology professor knows that you believe God created the universe. So, one day he decides to ask you to justify your position in class and says, “How can you believe in the Bible when it contradicts everything we know from science? For example, science has demonstrated that miracles are impossible. Yet you choose to believe in the miracles recorded in the Bible instead of science— why?” How should you respond to your professor? Most of us have been taught to respond to questions with answers. However, that is not always the wisest approach. It could be the case that your biology professor’s question needs to be understood better. Christian philosopher Peter Kreeft said, There is nothing more pointless than an answer to a question that is not fully understood, fully posed. We are far too impatient with questions, and therefore far too shallow in appreciating answers.7 Rather than give an immediate response to your professor’s question, it may be wiser to clarify his position first by asking him a question. However, your question better be a good one or else you may end up getting yourself into an emotionally charged conversation. For that reason, we want to discuss a method that will help us to ask the right kinds of questions in difficult surroundings: questions designed to neutralize a potentially emotional discussion.
HOW CAN WE HANDLE WORLDVIEW QUESTIONS? First of all, we should keep in mind that not every question is asked in a sincere manner. Yet, we should try to do our best to respond to what seems to be an insincere question in a gracious and truthful manner. We may not win over the questioner, but we may influence others who could be in the background waiting to hear our response. For example, it is highly unlikely that a professor who is standing in front of a class will be convinced of the truth of Christianity “on the spot.” However, God may use that situation to influence the minds of other students. The essential principle we want to teach about asking the right kind of questions concerns itself with shifting the discussion from a particular issue to the general truth principle behind the issue. We consider this to be the master key to unlocking a dialogue. Once we apprehend this key, we should be able to open the minds of our listeners with the turn of a simple question! We would like to suggest using this method in as many situations as possible. However, its success depends upon not just asking any question, but on asking the right question. Imagine once again that you are the student taking the biology class mentioned above. Now, rather than responding to your professor with an answer, let’s see what happens if you answer him by asking him the right question. Your professor asked you, “How can you believe in the Bible when it contradicts everything we know from science? For example, we know from science that miracles are impossible. Yet you choose to believe in the Bible instead of science—why?” Let’s say that at this point in the semester you know your professor is a naturalist and believes that nothing exists outside of nature. If so, how would you ever expect him to believe in the Word of God, if there is no God? In the same manner, how could a naturalist believe in miracles, or acts of God, if there is no God who can act? For you to tell him your reasons as to why you believe the Bible is true, namely because it is the Word of God, may only serve to isolate you from him and the rest of the class. So, where do you go from here? At this point there is no common ground between this professor and you. For that reason, it is time to ask the right question in order to shift the discussion from this particular issue (the credibility of the Bible and miracles) to the general truth principle behind it. This will expose the hidden assumption in your professor’s 7
Peter Kreeft, Making Sense Out of Suffering (Ann Arbor: Servant Books, 1986), 27. Copyright
C
2001 - Bethany House Publishers: Norman L. Geisler / Peter B. Bocchino
Questions About Worldviews
page 7
question. In order to do that, you must think about what your professor believes as a naturalist and find a way to ask him a question that puts both of you on common ground. Since logic is a fundamental area where common ground exists, we suggest using one of the first principles of logic, such as the law of noncontradiction (LNC), to formulate the right question. Your professor made a very confident and crucial statement when he said, “miracles are impossible.” However, he never offered you a definition of a miracle. Therefore, one place to begin seeking common ground start would be to make sure that you and your professor agree on the definition of the significant terms you are using. So, ask your professor to define what he means by the term miracle. He is most likely to respond by saying something like, “A miracle is an event in nature caused by a something outside of nature.” But since he does not believe that anything outside of nature exists, he is forced to conclude that miracles are impossible. 8 Now you have located his assumption, he believes that nothing exists outside of nature and that science has demonstrated this to be the case. Moreover, a naturalist believes that science only concerns itself with nature and is thereby restricted to natural causes of events within nature. Consequently, your professor has defined miracles out of existence but not by using the scientific method—rather by a philosophical assumption. For how can science prove that something does not exist outside of nature, when according to your professor, science cannot go beyond nature? There is something wrong here! Your professor is applying the wrong academic discipline to the question of miracles. C. S. Lewis explained how science cannot disprove the miraculous when he said, [The] scientific method merely shows (what no one to my knowledge ever denied) that if miracles did occur, science, as science, could not prove, or disprove, their occurrence. What cannot be trusted to recur is not material for science: that is why history is not one of the sciences. You cannot find out what Napoleon did at the battle of Austerlitz by asking him to come and fight it again in a laboratory with the same combatants, the same terrain, the same weather, and in the same age. You have to go to the records. We have not, in fact, proved that science excludes miracles: we have only proved that the question of miracles, like the innumerable other questions, excludes laboratory treatment.9 Your professor was not only being unscientific when he claimed that miracles are impossible, he also committed a logical fallacy called begging the question. This fallacy is committed when someone argues in a circle. Lewis has also pointed out that if someone claims that miracles are impossible that person must know that all reports of miracles are false. Yet the only way to know that all reports of miracles are false, is to already know that miracles have never occurred—because they are impossible!10 The only alternative to this circular reasoning is to be open to the possibility that miracles have occurred. If you think about it, you may want to also consider asking your professor to define the term natural. Let’s use Lewis’ definition and see where it leads us. He said, If the ‘natural’ means that which can be fitted into a class, that which obeys a norm, that which can be paralleled, that which can be explained by reference to other events, then nature herself as a whole is not natural. If a miracle means that which must simply be accepted, the unanswerable actuality which gives no account of itself but simply is, then the universe is one great miracle.11
8
For a thorough philosophical analysis of this topic, see Norman L. Geisler, Miracles and Modern Thought, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982) and C. S. Lewis, Miracles, (New York: Macmillan, 1978). 9 C. S. Lewis, God In The Dock, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970), 134. 10 C. S. Lewis, Miracles, (New York: Macmillan, 1978), 102. 11 C. S. Lewis, God In The Dock, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970), 36. Copyright
C
2001 - Bethany House Publishers: Norman L. Geisler / Peter B. Bocchino
Questions About Worldviews
page 8
Well, look at that—the only thing that your professor believes exists is the universe and now, by definition, it turns out to be the biggest miracle of all! We are not suggesting that your professor will agree with you, we are just trying to show you how to handle these kinds of questions. Asking for clarification will push your professor’s original question back to a common principle where you may be able to build bridges of truth to the Christian worldview. So now you can explain to your professor that if he agrees with the aforementioned definitions of miracle and natural, both of you share a common belief. In fact, you can further justify how the Bible is harmonious with the scientific method because it is consistent with the principle of causality. In Genesis 1:1, the Bible declares God to be the uncaused cause of the finite universe.12 We hope that the aforementioned scenario helped to show how asking the right kind of questions could be useful in guiding the direction of a discussion. Our goal is to shift the burden of proof from us to our questioners. By asking for clarification and using the LNC, we can ask our inquirers to define their terms, which in turn may force them to think about their assumptions. As pointed out above, asking for the definition of the terms miracle and natural and probing until the assumption were exposed, showed how this professor either reasoned in a circle, or accepted the greatest miracle of all—the universe. This method and reasoning process may or may not sway a college professor, but it can make a difference in the way other listeners perceive what we believe. This technique can be a very powerful tool, but don’t expect to be able to master it in a short amount of time, it will require practice and insight to effectively use it in real life situations. However, its success depends not upon asking just any questions, but rather upon asking the right questions.
HOW CAN WE ASK THE RIGHT KIND OF QUESTIONS? Asking the right kind of questions depends upon our ability to know and properly use general principles (first principles) that are related to the particular issue being discussed. Remember that when beliefs become convictions, a personal dimension enters the dialogue where emotions can run very deep! The right question can move a conversation back to common ground, a first principle, where it is more probable Conceptual that a healthy discussion can take place. With this in mind, we are calling the right kind of questions the principle questions. A principle question can catapult a conversation p out of the emotional, subjective level and put it on a more non-emotional, objective level. So, let’s begin thinking Emotional about questioning principles rather than personal beliefs in order to engage people at the level of concepts, rather than the level of convictions. Asking principle questions will depend upon a correct understanding of first principles and their application to the issues being discussed. Therefore, our first objective is to be working from shared assumptions. When an issue is being raised or a question is being asked, instead of directly addressing the personal issue or answering the question, we are recommending that we find the first principle related to the issue or question. Allow us to illustrate what we mean by using this method on a popular question concerning God’s ability to create a rock bigger than He can lift.
Q
12
The principle of causality, with respect to the origin of the universe, is thoroughly examined in chapter five. Copyright
C
2001 - Bethany House Publishers: Norman L. Geisler / Peter B. Bocchino
Questions About Worldviews
page 9
Let’s go back to the example of the college student. Imagine once again that you are at school and a certain student named Tom has been emotionally boiling over with your seemingly nonsensical belief in God. He can’t wait for the opportunity to embarrass you in front of some of the other students who are interested in hearing more about your faith. One day, while you are having lunch with some of those responsive students, Tom decides to sit at your table and says; “Do you mind if I ask you a few questions?” And you respond by telling him that you welcome his questions. So, Tom asks you, “ Didn’t Jesus say in Matthew 19:26, “With God all things are possible.” You answer, “Yes.” Tom asks, “Do you believe that God is all-powerful and can do all things?” You answer him in the affirmative. Now Tom thinks his moment is about to unfold, so with a sarcastic grin he asks, “Okay, can God create a rock so big that He cannot lift it?” You ponder the question for a moment, thinking to yourself, “If I say yes, I’ll be admitting that God is powerful enough to create the rock, but not powerful enough to move it! However, if I say no, I’ll be admitting that God is not all-powerful, because He cannot create a rock of that magnitude.” It seems that either answer will force you to contradict (violate the LNC) your view of God, defined as an all-powerful Being. It also seems as if Tom is using first principles to discredit you and your view of God. It is true that Tom is speaking correctly about God’s power, but is he using first principles correctly? Before we examine Tom’s questions, just remember that now is not the time to appeal to ignorance and tell Tom that he is trying to use human reason and there are some things we just cannot understand about God. Or to say that somehow God is exempt from such a question. This will only give Tom more emotional fuel to think of other pointed issues to raise with you and accomplish his goal of discrediting your faith in front of your peers. Instead, you must focus in on this question and think of a principle question to ask him so that you move the conversation from unstable emotional ground to firm conceptual territory. Now let’s think about Tom’s question and apply to it what we have learned from the proper use of the LNC. Tom wants God to create a rock so big that He cannot lift it. What is Tom really asking God to do? In order to find out, we need to define and clarify the use of Tom’s words. The first question that comes to mind is, “How big of a rock does Tom want God to create? Well, Tom wants God to create a rock so big that it would be impossible for Him to move it. Now how big would a rock have to be in order for God not to be able to move it? What is the biggest physical entity that exists? Of course, the biggest physical entity is the universe and no matter how big the universe expands to, it will still remain a limited, finite physical reality—a reality that God can “lift.” Even if God created a rock the size of an ever-expanding universe, God could still “lift” it or control it. The only logical option is for God to create something that exceeds His power to “lift” or control. But, since God’s power is infinite, He would have to create a rock of infinite proportions! But, Tom wants God to create a rock and a rock is a physical, finite thing. How can God create an object, which is finite by nature, and give it an infinite size? There is something terribly wrong here with respect to Tom’s question. So, let’s apply the correct use of the LNC to analyze Tom’s question. It is logically and actually impossible to create a physically finite thing like a rock and have it be infinitely big! By definition, an infinite thing has no limits and a finite, created thing does. Consequently, Tom has just asked if God can create an infinitely finite rock? That is, a rock that has limits, and at the same time and in the same sense, does not have limits. For that reason, this question violates the LNC. Therefore, the question turns out to be utter nonsense! Tom thought he was asking an important question, one that would put the Christian on the horns of a dilemma. Instead, he only managed to show his own inability to think clearly. Now that we have a clear understanding of the question put forth by Tom, it’s just a matter of formulating a principle question to ask him in order to reveal his error. So, how about this one, “Tom, how big do you want God to create that rock? If you tell me how big, I’ll tell you if He can do it.” Well, we can keep asking Tom that question until his answers approach the size of the universe and eventually introduce the idea of infinity. Copyright
C
2001 - Bethany House Publishers: Norman L. Geisler / Peter B. Bocchino
Questions About Worldviews
page 10
Once Tom reaches the point where he begins to see what he is really asking God to do, create an infinite rock, he needs to be shown that he is asking God to do something that is logically impossible. God could no more create an infinitely finite rock than He could create a square circle: both are examples of intrinsic impossibilities. Commenting on intrinsic impossibility and an all-powerful God, C. S. Lewis said, It [the intrinsically impossible] is impossible under all conditions and in all worlds and for all agents. ‘All agents’ here includes God Himself. His Omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to him, but not nonsense.13 By now we hope to have shown that not every question being asked is automatically meaningful just because it is a question. The question may sound meaningful, but we must be sure to test it with first principles to see if it is valid. Be careful then not to be too quick to respond to questions, you may wind up trying to answer a question that is pure nonsense! Remember what Peter Kreeft said, “There is nothing more pointless than an answer to a question that is not fully understood.” We would do well to heed Kreeft’s warning. So, when we are asked a question we should think it through carefully and utilize our understanding of first principles before we reply. We have presented logical principles, such as the LNC, that can be called upon over and over again in situations such as the ones presented above. To be effective, one must practice this methodology and combine it with a solid understanding of the LNC. It must be practiced over and over again until it becomes second nature. As a result, slowly but surely, learning how to Atheism Pantheism Theism formulate the right principle questions will also come naturally and will to move a discussion from an emotional issue to a shared conceptual assumption, or common ground. This method of questioning assumptions and using Relative Relative to Absolute Truth the LNC to detect error is essential to keeping a No Absolutes This World Truth Exists conversation moving toward the direction of truth. Always
Not Real
Created
Cosmos Existed Illusion Reality As has been shown, the use of logic is indispensable with respect to discovering truth. However, at the end of the Exists Does Not Exists chapter on logic we pointed out that logic’s primary God Unknowable Exist Knowable function is to correct faulty thinking, or groundless reasoning, and is therefore a negative test for truth. We Absolute Relative Relative to Law Objective Determined also said that we have designed this book in such a way that this world Discovered by Humanity its cumulative understanding and application of the foundational first principles of several fields of knowledge Human Selfish Not Real Evil Ignorance Heart An Illusion would help us to discover which worldview is most reasonable or true. As we have already shown, and as the Absolute Created by Relative worldview chart illustrates, they cannot all be true. After Objective Humanity Transcends Ethics that, it will be a matter of finding answers to questions that Situational Good / Evil Prescriptive makes sense within the parameters of that worldview and seems to fit most consistently with what we know from our experiences in life as well. Since many people believe that only what is scientifically verifiable is true, let’s begin with the discipline of science—the topic of our next chapter.
13
C. S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain (New York: Macmillan, 1962), 28. Copyright
C
2001 - Bethany House Publishers: Norman L. Geisler / Peter B. Bocchino
