THEISM I - Page 1

1A. Denial of the Knowledge of God's Existence

1B. Absolutely  Denial That God Exists: Atheism

1C. Definition

1D.   Stated

   "Atheism, according to its etymology, signifies a denial

   of the being of God. It was applied by the ancient

   Greeks   to Socrates and other philosophers, to indicate

   that they failed to conform to the popular religion.   In

   the   same sense it was applied to the early Christians.

   Since the usage of the term Theism has been definitely

   fixed in all modern languages, atheism necessarily stands

   for a denial of  the existence of a personal Creator and

   Moral Governor. Notwithstanding that the belief in a

   personal   God is the result of a spontaneous recognition

   of   God as manifesting himself  in consciousness and the

   works of nature, atheism is still possible as an abnormal

   state of consciousness induced by sophistical speculation

   or by the indulgence of sinful passions,"   A. A. Hodge

   Out. Theo., p. 46

         2D.        Source

                      "In view of the semen religion is implanted in every man

                by his creation in the image of God, it is safe to assume

                that no one is born an atheist. In the last analysis

                atheism results from the perverted moral state of man and

                from his desire to escape from God. It is deliberately

                blind to and suppresses the most fundamental instinct of

                man, the deepest needs of the soul, the highest

                aspirations of the human spirit, and the longings of a

                heart that gropes after some higher Being. This

                practical or intellectual suppression of the operation of

                the semen religion is often involves prolonged and painful

                struggles." Berkhof, Sys. Theo., p. 22

        2C. Delineation

     1D.     Dogmatic Atheism

          1E. Affirmation

          "Dogmatic Atheism is the type that openly professes

          atheism. Most people do not boldly flaunt their

          atheism before men, for the term is one of reproach;

          but there are some who do not shrink from declaring

          themselves atheists." Theissen, Lec. Sys. Theo., p.

          65

     2E.     Appraisal

          "The atheistic position is a very unsatisfactory,

          unstable, and arrogant one. It is unsatisfactory,

          because all atheists lack the assurance of the

World Views            Class #1   Page2

forgiveness of their sins; they all have a cold and empty life; and they all know nothing of peace and fellowship with God. it is unstable, because it is contrary to man's deepest convictions. Both Scripture and history show that man necessarily and universally believes in the existence of God. The virtual atheist testifies to this fact in that he adopts an abstraction to account for the world and its life. It is arrogant, because it really pretends to be omniscient. Limited knowledge can infer the existence of God, but exhaustive knowledge of all things, intelligences, and times is needed to state dogmatically that there is none. The dogmatic atheist is to be explained as being in an all normal condition." Ibid., pp. 65‑66

POINT:

2D. Practical Atheism

     1E. Among Non‑Christians 1F. Description "They are not necessarily notoriously wicked in the eyes of men, but may belong to the so-called "decent men of the world," though respectably indifferent to spiritual things. Such people are often quite conscious of the fact that they are out of harmony with God, dread to think of meeting Him, and try to forget about Him. They seem to take a secret delight in parading their atheism when they have smooth sailing, but have been known to get down on their knees for prayer when their life was suddenly endangered." Berkhof, Sys. Theo., p. 22

2F.  Defense

  1G. Ps. 10:4

2G. Ps. 14:1    

3G.   Rom. 3:10‑12, 18

2E. Among Christians

1F. Evidence

     1G. Regarding Our Salvation "No practical atheist ever yet turned to God, but was turned by God; and not to acknowledge it to God is a part of this atheism, since it is a robbing God of the honor of one of his most glorious works. If this practical atheism be natural to man ever since the first taint of nature in Paradise, what can be expected from it, but a resisting of the work of God, and setting up all the forces of nature

World Views            Class #1 Page             3

against the operations of grace, till a day of power dawn and clear up upon the soul? Not all the angels in heaven, or men upon earth, can be imagined to be able to persuade a man to fall out with himself; nothing can turn the tide of nature, but a power above nature. God took away the sanctifying Spirit from man, as a penalty for the first sin; who can regain it but by his will and pleasure? who can restore it, but he that removed it? Since every man hath the same fundamental atheism in him by nature, and would be a rule to himself and his own end, he is so far from dethroning himself, that all the strength of his corrupted nature is alarmed up to stand to their arms upon any attempt God makes to regain the fort.

 * * Man cannot rise to an acknowledgment of God without God; hell may as well become heaven, the devil be changed into an angel of light. . . .

An atheist by nature can no more alter his own temper, and engrave in himself the divine nature, than a rock can carve itself into the statue of a man. . . .

That soul that by nature would strip God of his rights, cannot, without a divine power, be made conformable to him, and acknowledge sincerely and cordially the rights and glory of god." Charnock, Exist. & Attrib. of God, 1:165‑66

1G.     Regarding Our Sanctification

     "Let us be sensible of it is ourselves.

     Have any of our hearts been a soil wherein

     the fear and reverence of God hath

     naturally grown? Have we a desire to know

     him, or a will to embrace him? Do we

     delight in his will, and love the

     remembrance of his name? Are our respects

     to him, as God, equal to the speculative

     knowledge we have of his nature? Is the

     heart, wherein he hath stamped his image,

     reserved for his residence? . . .

Have there not been frequent neglects of God? Have we not been deaf whilst he hath knocked at our doors? slept when he hath sounded in our ears, as if there have been

World Views            Class #1  Page             4

no such being as a God in the world? How many strugglings have been against our approaches to him! Hath not folly often been committed, with vain imaginations starting up in the time of religious service, which we would scarce vouchsafe a look to at another time, and in another business, but would have thrust them away with indignation? Had they stept in to interrupt our worldly affairs, they would have been troublesome intruders; but while we are with God they are acceptable guests.

. . . Are not our minds bemisted with an ignorance of him, our wills drawn by aversion from him, our affections rising in distaste of him? more willing to know anything than his nature, and more industrious to do anything than his will? Do we not all fall under some one or other of these considerations? Is it not fit, then, that we should have a sense of them? it is to be bewailed by us, that so little of God is in our hearts, when so many evidences of the love of God are in the creatures; that God should be so little our end, who hath been so much our benefactor; that he should be so little in our thoughts, who sparkles in everything which presents itself to our eyes." Ibid., pp. 167‑68

2F.     Exhortation

     "Let us labor to be sensible of this

     atheism in our nature, and be humbled for

     it. How should we lie in the dust, and go

     bowing under the humbling thoughts of it

     all our days I Shall we not be sensible of

     that whereby we spill the blood of our

     souls, and give a stab to the heart of our

     own salvation? Shall we be worse than any

     creature, not to bewail that which tends

     to our destruction?

. . . Let us, therefore, be truly sensible of it, till the consideration draw tears from our eyes and sorrow from our souls; let us urge the thoughts of it upon our hearts till the core of that pride be eaten out, and our stubbornness changed into humility; till our heads become waters, and our eyes fountains of tears, and be a spring of prayer to God to change

World Views            Class #1  Page 5

the heart, and mortify the atheism in it; and consider what a sad thing it is to be a practical atheist: and who is not so by nature?" Ibid., pp. 167‑68

2B.     Relatively ‑‑ Denial That God's Existence Can Be Known: Agnosticism

1C. Explanation 'gas the etymology of the word implies, agnosticism is simply not knowing. Its objective is to discredit certitude in the field of human knowledge. It is an attack upon man's mental powers and engenders a distrust in the common facts and forces of human existence. It is negative in every particular and therefore destructive in its effect upon truth which is gained by the normal functions of the human faculties. Agnostics discard reasonable proofs, which process, if followed consistently, would eliminate the very proofs they advance for their own theories." Chafer, Sys. Theo., 1:165

NOTE:                    

2C.     Evaluation    

     "It is impossible for the Agnostic to limit his knowledge to

     experience, and to reject as unverified the implications of

     experience, without abandoning nearly all that he holds true.

     If he sticks to his principle, his creed will be a short one.

     Consciousness is confined to the present moment. How do I

     know that my fellow‑men whom I see about me have minds like my

     own? The senses cannot perceive the intelligence of the

     friends about me. I infer that they are intelligent, but in

     this inference I transcend experience. Experience reduced to

     its exact terms, according to the methods of Agnosticism, is

     confined to the present feeling, ‑‑ the feeling of the transient

     moment. When the Agnostic goes beyond this, when he infers

     that what is remembered was once presented in consciousness,

     that his fellow‑men are thinking beings, and not mindless

     puppets, that any intelligent beings exist outside of himself,

     he transcends experience. if he were to predicate

     intelligence of God, he would be guilty of no graver

     assumption than when he ascribes intelligence to the fellow­

     men whom he sees moving about, and with whom he is

     conversing. Fisher, Gods of Theistic & Chr,. Belief, pp. 78—79

OBSERVATION:    

2A. Denial of All Knowledge: Skepticism

1B.     Aspects of Skepticism

1C. Absolute Skepticism

1D.     The Academics

     "Most likely, skepticism as a philosophical methodology

World Views                                Class #1   Page 6

was developed by the leaders of Plato's Academy in the third century B.C. The Academics, as they were called, rejected Plato's metaphysical and mystical doctrines. Rather, they concentrated on what they thought was paramount in Socrates' remark, 'All that I know is that I know nothing.'" Geisler, Feinberg, Intro. to Phil., P. 85

2D.    Sextus Empiricus (250‑325 A.D.)

    1E.    Background

        "Little is known of him, except that he was probably

        Greek, because he seemed to know the subtleties of the

        language. He also knew details about Rome, Athens,

        and Alexandria, but we do not know where he was born,

        where he taught, or where he died. We do know that

        he practiced medicine." Ibid.

    2E.    Thought

        1F. The first stage is antithesis.

2F.  "The second state is epoche, or the suspension

  of judgment. Instead of either asserting or

  ‑denying any one claim about the subject at hand,

  one must embrace all mutually inconsistent

  claims and withhold judgment on each of them.

3F.  The final stage is ataraxia, a state of

  unperturbedness happiness, and peace of mind.

  When that occurs one is freed from dogmatism.

  He can live peacefully and undogmatically in the

  world, following his natural inclinations and

  the laws or customs of society."

     3D. David Hume (1711‑76) 1E. Life "He was born in Edinburgh and entered the university there at the age of twelve, leaving two or three years later. He enjoyed a chequered career which included tutorship to a lunatic, secretaryship to a general, and a librarianship in Edinburgh. For a time he was attached to the British embassy in France, and became a familiar figure in the Parisian scene. On returning to London, he brought over Jean Jacques Rousseau, who rewarded him with charges that he was out to kill him." Brown, Phil. & Chr. Faith, p. 67

2E. Philosophy 1F. Concerning Cause/Effect 1G. Exposition "Before we are reconciled to this doctrine, how often must we repeat to ourselves, that the simple view of any two objects or actions, however related, can never give us any idea of power, or of a connexion

World Views           Class #1   Page 7

betwixt them: that this idea arises from a repetition of their union: that the repetition neither discovers nor causes anything in the objects, but has an influence only on the mind, by that customary transition that it produces: that this customary transition is therefore the same with the power and necessity; which are consequently qualities of perceptions, not of objects, and are internally felt by the soul, and not perceived externally in bodies?" Hume, Treatise on Hum. Nat., 1:3:14

2G.     Elaboration

     "In other words, all that we are in the

     habit of thinking of as cause and effect is

     really a matter of sequence. It is not

     something that happens between objects. It

     is really a habit of mind." Brown, Phil. &

     Chr. Faith, pp. 68‑69

     2F. Concerning Miracles 1G. Expression "A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature; and as a firm and unalterable experience has established these laws, the proof against a miracle from the very nature of the fact, is as entire as any argument from experience can possibly be imagined." Hume, Enquiry into the Nat. of Hum. Understanding, 10:90

2G.     Explanation

     "Thus miracles can never be appealed to as

     the foundation of a religion. They can

     never be used to establish faith. They can

     be swallowed only by those who have enough

     faith already." Brown, Phil. & the Chr.

     Faith, p. 70

     3F. Concerning God's Existence

     "Hume pointed out that we are not entitled to

     attribute to a cause any capacities other than

     those necessary to produce the effect in

     question. And we are not entitled to attribute

     to a first cause (even if such a thing could be

     established) moral attributes." Ibid., p. 69

     NOTE:       

     4F. Consequence for Hume

     "Most fortunately it happens that since reason

World Views            Class #1  Page  8

is incapable of dispelling these clouds, Nature

herself suffices to that purpose, and cures me

of this philosophical melancholy and delirium,

either by relaxing this bent of mind, or by some

avocation and lively impression of my senses,

which obliterate all these chimeras. I dine, I

play a game of backgammon, I converse, and am

merry with my friends; and when, after three or

four hours' amusement, I would return to these

speculations, they appear so cold, and strained,

and ridiculous, that I cannot find in my heart

to enter into them any further." Hume, Treatise

on Hum Nat., 1:4:7

POINT:          

        2C. Limited Skepticism

1D. A. J. Ayer (1910‑70), Language, Truth, and Logic

1E.   Explanation: The Principle of Empirical Verification "the heart of the verification principle is this: Any statement for which we cannot state the conditions that would count for or against its truth, is not a statement about reality, and hence cannot be knowledge.

Given the verification principle, Ayer and others argue that metaphysics can, once and for all, be eliminated. Since metaphysical disputes or claims cannot be evaluated in the light of empirical evidence, they are not genuine claims about reality. As a matter of fact, Ayer put it in even stronger language. metaphysics is not just false; it is meaningless." Geisler/Feinberg, Intro. to Phil., p. 90.

2E. Evaluation:   

2D. Anthony Flew

1E.     Parable of the Gardner

     "He tells of two explorers who find a garden in the

     middle of the jungle. In this garden there are many

     flowers and many weeds. One explorer claims that

     there must be a gardener who tends the plot, while

     the other explorer denies it. They set a watch, but

     nothing happens. The believing explorer still

     affirms his belief in a gardener, but suggests that

     the gardner is invisible. The two explorers set up

     an electrified barbed‑wire fence and patrol it with

     bloodhounds. Still nothing happens. The wires never

     sway, and the bloodhounds never bark. The believer

World Views                                Class #1  Page             9

maintains his belief in the gardener. The gardener, so he argues, is invisible, intangible, and insensitive to electric shocks. He has no scent and makes no sound, but he loves and tends the garden. Finally, the skeptic despairs and asks the believer how his gardener differs from no gardener at all." Ibid., pp. 90‑91

2E. Problem with the Parable

2B. Appraisal of Skepticism

1C. Logically

1D.      It is Rationally Inconsistent as developed by Augustine in

      his Contra Academicos

      "The skeptic's assertion that we cannot know anything is

      itself a claim about knowledge. If the skeptic's claim is

      false, then we need not worry about the skeptic's charge.

      On the other hand, if it is true, then his position is

      self‑contradictory, because we know at least one thing‑­

      that we cannot know anything." Ibid., p. 94

2D.      It Is Practically Inconsistent

      The skeptic is never for real. There he stands, cocktail

      in hand, left arm draped languorously on one end of the

      mantelpiece, telling you that he can't be sure of

      anything, not even of his own existence. I'll give you my

      secret method of demolishing universal skepticism in four

      words. Whisper to him: "Your fly is open." If he thinks

      knowledge is so all‑fired impossible, why does he always

      look? Carpon cited in Sire, Univer. Next Dr., p. 88

2C. Philosophically

1D.  It Is meaningless

     "The argument from non‑vacuous contrast. To be

     meaningful, any statement must exclude some states of

     affairs. In other words, an assertion must not be

     compatible with every state of affairs. Thus, 'not­

     knowing' must distinguish a state of affairs which is

     different than 'knowing.' If, however, all states of

     affairs are 'not‑knowing,' as the skeptic claims, then his

     whole claim is meaningless. 'Not‑knowing' would not

     exclude any states of affairs." Geisler/Feinberg, Intro.

     to Phil., p. 94

World Views            Class #1  Page             10

2D. It Contradicts Common Sense

1E. Background

"Thomas Reid (1710‑1796), a contemporary of David

Hume, was one of the first to appreciate the

skeptical import of Hume's arguments. . . .

Reid recognized that given Hume's assumptions, Hume's logic was unassailable. At the same time Reid considered Hume's conclusions clearly false. Thus, Reid bet about to challenge Hume's assumptions." Ibid., pp. 95‑96

2E. Basis IF. Subject‑object Distinction "Reid pointed out that all languages carefully distinguish among the terms that describe the process of perceiving, the mind which perceives, and the object perceived." Ibid., p. 96

2F.  intuitive Foundation of Knowledge

  "Reid argued that rational proofs of belief are

  inappropriate, for they would demand an infinite

  regress of justifications (each justification

  would itself need a rational justification, ad

  infinitum). Reid also claimed that these basic

  beliefs are not rooted in blind prejudice, as

  Hume supposed. Rather they reflect the very

  constitution of our rationality, and thus are

  known through intuition, not demonstration.

  These beliefs form the basis of all other

  proofs, but themselves cannot be proved." Ibid.