Latest / Reformed Thinking / Does God Exist?

Transcript

Does God Exist? · Reformed Thinking

• 0:00
  Welcome to Reform Thinking and our deep Dive.
• 0:02
  For today, we're looking at a really foundational debate, one
• 0:05
  that pushes us to think about what grounds our entire
• 0:08
  understanding of reality. We'll be examining a classic
• 0:11
  intellectual clash between Doctor Greg Bonson, who is a
• 0:14
  Christian theist, a proponent of presuppositional apologetics,
• 0:18
  and Doctor Gordon Stein, who argued from an atheistic
• 0:21
  viewpoint. Our goal here is really to pull
• 0:23
  out the core arguments from their discussion.
• 0:25
  We want to focus on how each of them tried to build a foundation
• 0:28
  for things like logic, science, and morality.
• 0:32
  And just so you know, all this comes from analysis.
• 0:34
  Founded notes and transcripts from Lecture 6 on apologetics
• 0:36
  and evangelism by Doctor Michael Blackhead, Professor Jesse
• 0:39
  Johnson. That's right.
• 0:40
  And this isn't just, you know, some abstract academic thing.
• 0:44
  This debate really makes us grapple with questions that
• 0:46
  affect everyone. Like what makes reasoning
• 0:49
  possible? How do we even figure out right
• 0:51
  from wrong? And what explains the order we
• 0:53
  see in the universe? Bonson and Stein, they're both
• 0:56
  presenting these big picture world views.
• 0:58
  You can think of them as frameworks, the lenses they use
• 1:01
  to interpret everything. Our aim today is just to clarify
• 1:04
  how each debater defined and try to justify their positions on
• 1:07
  these really central questions. We're not here to pick a side,
• 1:11
  but to give you clarity on their arguments so you can understand
• 1:13
  what each was trying to put forward.
• 1:15
  OK, let's start where? Rational thought really has to
• 1:17
  begin. Logic itself, the basic.
• 1:20
  Question they both tackled was well, it sounds simple, but it's
• 1:23
  deep. What are the laws of?
• 1:25
  Logic. And how do we know they're
• 1:26
  valid? Dr. Bonson, coming from his
• 1:29
  Christian, theistic and specifically Reformed
• 1:31
  perspective, had a very particular claim here.
• 1:34
  Yeah, for Bonson, logic isn't something humans invented or
• 1:38
  just agreed upon. Not at all.
• 1:40
  His view is that these laws are actually built into the very
• 1:43
  character of God. It's fundamental to who God is.
• 1:46
  He described them as a reflection of the way God thinks
• 1:50
  and expects us to think. O.
• 1:52
  From that Reform standpoint, logic is grounded in the
• 1:55
  Creator's own perfect rationality.
• 1:57
  It's not arbitrary. Bonson called them universal,
• 2:00
  unchanging and invariant truths, meaning they apply everywhere,
• 2:04
  always the same way, whether you're thinking about math or
• 2:07
  just cause and effect in the everyday world.
• 2:09
  And he also argued their preconditions of experience.
• 2:12
  You have to assume them before you can even think or experience
• 2:15
  anything coherently. He saw them as more conceptual
• 2:18
  in nature rather than empirical. You can't test the law of non
• 2:21
  contradiction in the lab. But you can't see it under a
• 2:23
  microscope. Exactly.
• 2:25
  You presuppose it even to design the experiment.
• 2:28
  And Vonson argued this non empirical nature is a big
• 2:31
  problem for worldviews that try to ground everything in
• 2:33
  observation alone. He flat out said that no other
• 2:37
  worldview, especially atheism, can account for universal
• 2:41
  invariant abstract entities like logic or even math.
• 2:45
  So he often argued that when atheists use logic, maybe to
• 2:48
  make an argument or do science, they're actually, in his words,
• 2:51
  borrowing his worldview. Borrowing his worldview.
• 2:53
  Because, as he saw it, their own framework just doesn't have the
• 2:57
  philosophical resources to explain where these universal,
• 3:00
  unchanging truths come from. If logic was just, say, a human
• 3:04
  convention, Bonson argued, then why aren't contradictory systems
• 3:07
  seen as equally rational? But that's not how we actually
• 3:10
  operate as it. No, not at all, right?
• 3:12
  And ultimately, Bonson stated directly that God cannot be
• 3:14
  irrational. Rationality itself is measured
• 3:16
  against God's thinking and his revelation.
• 3:19
  For Bonson, coherent thought itself is tied to a rational
• 3:22
  God. OK, so for Bonson, logic isn't
• 3:25
  just a handy tool, it's like a divine signature on reality and
• 3:28
  our minds. Without that divine grounding,
• 3:31
  logic kind of floats free. Maybe becomes arbitrary.
• 3:35
  So how did Doctor? Stein, from his atheistic view,
• 3:39
  tackle this same fundamental question about logic.
• 3:42
  Well, Stein came at it from a completely different direction.
• 3:45
  As you'd expect, he defined logic mostly as a human
• 3:48
  construct, something we developed its basis, he said.
• 3:52
  It's practical utility and consensus.
• 3:54
  He literally called it a matter of consensus.
• 3:56
  Just so people agree works. Pretty much.
• 3:58
  He also mentioned it has a mathematical and linguistic
• 4:01
  basis and some conformity to the reality of the world.
• 4:05
  For Stein, the justification is simply its usefulness.
• 4:08
  It helps us make accurate predictions.
• 4:10
  He called logic conventional, meaning agreed upon rules, not
• 4:13
  some reflection of a divine mind, and he challenged Bahnson
• 4:16
  directly on this. He asked, OK, how exactly does
• 4:19
  God think logically? What kind of logic does God use?
• 4:22
  Stein argued that just saying logic reflects the thinking of a
• 4:25
  God is basically a non statement.
• 4:27
  It doesn't really explain the mechanics.
• 4:28
  Like replacing one mystery with another.
• 4:30
  That was his point. It doesn't really clarify
• 4:31
  anything. Stein even suggested that
• 4:33
  Bahnson pushed logic so hard because he knows that there's no
• 4:38
  explanation for the laws of logic that philosophers agree
• 4:41
  upon. He kind of saw it as Bonson
• 4:44
  setting a trap, highlighting a known philosophical difficulty.
• 4:47
  Interestingly, both of them agreed that philosophers and
• 4:50
  logicians do disagree about the ultimate nature and basis of
• 4:53
  logic. Stein used that disagreement to
• 4:55
  say, look, Bonson's demand for a perfect explanation is unfair
• 4:58
  since nobody fully agrees. But Bonson of course used that
• 5:01
  same disagreement to argue. See, non theistic explanations
• 5:05
  just fall short. They can't account for it.
• 5:07
  For Bonson, the disagreement itself showed the need for
• 5:10
  something beyond human reasoning, A transcendent
• 5:12
  standard. So you have these.
• 5:13
  Two really fundamentally different takes on logic.
• 5:16
  One roots it in God's unchanging nature, making it absolute.
• 5:19
  The other sees it as a human agreement driven by usefulness,
• 5:22
  maybe evolving. And this isn't just philosophy
• 5:25
  in an ivory tower, right? Understanding this difference
• 5:28
  helps you see why people argue about truth itself so
• 5:30
  differently. If logic is human made, maybe
• 5:33
  absolute certainty is hard to come by.
• 5:35
  If it's divine, there's an objective standard out there,
• 5:37
  whether we recognize it or not. This really sets the stage for
• 5:40
  everything else, like science and morality.
• 5:43
  Which brings us naturally to the next point.
• 5:45
  How does this affect how we see the universe and do science?
• 5:49
  Yeah, building right off that logic discussion, the debate
• 5:52
  moved into science, specifically this idea of the uniformity of
• 5:54
  nature. And here you almost feel the
• 5:57
  presence of David Hume, the old Scottish philosopher.
• 6:00
  Hume famously questioned the whole basis of induction, you
• 6:03
  know, the idea that the future will resemble the past just
• 6:05
  because it always has. He argued there's actually no
• 6:08
  rational basis for expecting the future to be like the past.
• 6:11
  That's a strong claim. Hume said if you assume the
• 6:13
  future will be like the past. Just based on past.
• 6:16
  Observations. You're actually begging the very
• 6:18
  question. You're assuming the thing you
• 6:20
  need to prove. So for Hume, science might just
• 6:23
  be. Based on convention.
• 6:24
  Or habits of thought because there's no logical guarantee
• 6:27
  that things will stay consistent.
• 6:29
  He even famously said you couldn't know for sure the sun
• 6:31
  was going to rise tomorrow. Based on induction.
• 6:34
  Past performance doesn't logically guarantee future
• 6:36
  results, and the problem of induction It's still a challenge
• 6:39
  for philosophy of science today. Right.
• 6:41
  And Bonson jumped right on Hume's challenge.
• 6:44
  He saw it as a critical weakness, something an atheistic
• 6:47
  worldview, in his view, just couldn't properly answer.
• 6:50
  He argued that without a personal God who imposes order
• 6:53
  on the universe, there is no basis for assuming the
• 6:56
  uniformity of nature, and that uniformity is absolutely
• 6:59
  essential for science to even work.
• 7:01
  From that Reformed theological angle, it's God's consistent
• 7:05
  character and sovereign rule that ensures the universe
• 7:08
  behaves in an orderly, predictable way, making science
• 7:11
  possible. Bonson really hammered Hume's
• 7:13
  point about begging the question.
• 7:15
  Just saying. Well, it's always been that way
• 7:16
  before, so it probably will be again is just assuming the
• 7:19
  conclusion. Doesn't explain why it's
• 7:21
  regular. Exactly, He pressed Stein.
• 7:23
  Unless there's an underlying reason for that regularity, past
• 7:27
  observations don't logically guarantee future ones.
• 7:30
  For Bonson, the fact that Stein couldn't, in his view, give a
• 7:32
  solid answer to Hume showed a major failure in the atheist
• 7:35
  worldview to account for laws of science.
• 7:37
  OK, in Bonson's system, only a God who actively upholds the
• 7:42
  universe and its properties can guarantee that uniformity,
• 7:44
  giving a rational basis for induction.
• 7:47
  OK, so Bonson uses Hume skepticism to argue that atheism
• 7:51
  leaves science on shaky ground without a real foundation for
• 7:54
  expecting consistency. How did Stein respond to that?
• 7:58
  Did he try to solve Hume's problem or just work around it?
• 8:01
  Stein's response was pretty direct.
• 8:02
  He said he disagrees with Hume on the issue of induction and
• 8:06
  basically asserted Hume was wrong about that one thing.
• 8:09
  Just disagreed, Did he? Offer a philosophical fix.
• 8:11
  Not really a philosophical solution in the way Bonson was
• 8:14
  demanding. It was more descriptive.
• 8:16
  Stein argued the uniformity of nature comes from the fact that
• 8:20
  matter has certain properties, which it regularly exhibits.
• 8:23
  Simple as that. He gave examples.
• 8:25
  You know electrons always repel Adam's bond in certain ways.
• 8:29
  These are just inherent properties of matter.
• 8:31
  How it is the universe is uniform because the stuff it's
• 8:34
  made of behaves uniformly. When Bonson pushed him.
• 8:38
  Like, how can you know all electrons behave that way if you
• 8:40
  haven't tested them all? Shnein basically relied on the
• 8:43
  lack of counter evidence, he said.
• 8:44
  Well, we don't see reports in physics journals of electrons
• 8:47
  suddenly attracting each other. He kind of accepted uniformity
• 8:50
  by default based on overwhelming scientific observation.
• 8:54
  A. Pragmatic approach then, yeah.
• 8:55
  Very much so, he said. We see no evidence that things
• 8:58
  have switched around either, and if they did, if matter started
• 9:01
  behaving randomly, scientific experiments will go haywire and
• 9:04
  we'll know it right off the bat. It works and we haven't seen it
• 9:07
  fail. That's the justification.
• 9:09
  He also made the point that science itself is atheistic, not
• 9:13
  meaning it denies God, but methodologically.
• 9:16
  Science, he argued, doesn't use God to explain things and
• 9:19
  operates on the understanding that matter behaves in a regular
• 9:22
  and therefore predictable way. That's.
• 9:24
  A clear. Difference again.
• 9:25
  One view needs a divine governor ensuring order.
• 9:28
  The other trusts the observed inherent properties of matter
• 9:31
  itself. And the implications are
• 9:32
  significant, aren't they? What does it mean for how
• 9:35
  reliable science is, how we understand the cosmos, if nature
• 9:38
  is only uniform because we've seen it that way so far?
• 9:41
  What if that changes? OK, so from the order.
• 9:44
  Of the universe, Let's shift to. Something equally central and
• 9:46
  often more personal. Morality.
• 9:49
  Right, let's get into. Morality and the problem of
• 9:50
  evil. This is often where these
• 9:52
  worldview discussions get really intense.
• 9:54
  When you say so started with Doctor Stein again.
• 9:56
  What would his take on moral laws and the existence of evil
• 9:59
  from an atheistic perspective? Stein.
• 10:01
  'S view on morality was again grounded in human experience and
• 10:04
  agreement. He stated that moral laws are
• 10:07
  primarily a matter of consensus, and he elaborated, saying this
• 10:11
  consensus is reinforced by the teachings of society.
• 10:15
  You know, parents teaching children, schools, media,
• 10:18
  literature, even religious texts like the Bible.
• 10:20
  All these things shape our moral understanding through teaching
• 10:23
  and just socialization. Plus societies pass laws to
• 10:27
  punish people that violate some of the more blatant cases of
• 10:30
  what the consensus deems wrong. So law backs up the social
• 10:34
  agreement. Now when it came to defining
• 10:35
  evil in an atheist universe, he was very clear.
• 10:38
  Evil is that which decreases the happiness of people the most, or
• 10:41
  just the unhappiness of pure. Utilitarianism.
• 10:44
  Exactly. He called it just straight
• 10:46
  utilitarianism. The goal is maximizing happiness
• 10:49
  for the most people. So if you're comparing 2, the
• 10:52
  one causing more unhappiness is considered worse.
• 10:55
  Now, this obviously raises questions.
• 10:57
  How do you measure happiness? Whose happiness counts most?
• 11:01
  Can the group's happiness override in individuals?
• 11:04
  Stein acknowledged We don't know it in some absolute sense, but
• 11:07
  it functions as the working standard based on consensus.
• 11:11
  He contrasted this with theistic approaches, suggesting they
• 11:13
  might involve trying to find answers in scripture or complex
• 11:16
  commentaries, which he saw as maybe less direct.
• 11:19
  Then Stein turned the existence of evil into an argument against
• 11:22
  God. He argued that all the suffering
• 11:24
  we see animal pain, childhood cancers, dementia, natural
• 11:27
  disasters, parasites like tapeworms or malaria.
• 11:30
  He said this is incompatible with an all good, all knowing
• 11:33
  and all powerful God. The.
• 11:35
  Classic problem of evil argument, right?
• 11:37
  He saw these things as either apparent inflictions of a
• 11:40
  creation or, if God exists, evidence that God isn't all
• 11:44
  powerful or maybe not entirely good.
• 11:47
  When Bonson pressed him on why Hitler was wrong.
• 11:49
  I mean, couldn't Hitler claim he was increasing the happiness of
• 11:52
  some group? Stein's answer was that Hitler
• 11:54
  couldn't just arbitrarily break from the established consensus
• 11:58
  of Western society with its deep Judeo-christian background.
• 12:01
  Even by declaring some people non persons, the other's actions
• 12:05
  violated that broad historical moral consensus.
• 12:08
  OK, so. For Stein, morality is social
• 12:10
  agreement focused on maximizing happiness, and the reality of
• 12:13
  suffering challenges the existence of a good, all
• 12:16
  powerful God. Now let's hear Bonson's
• 12:18
  response. His Christian theistic view
• 12:21
  offers a very different, and some find it quite jarring, take
• 12:23
  on evil and morality. Yes.
• 12:25
  Bonson's counter is probably one of his most famous and maybe
• 12:28
  provocative points. He stated flatly there is no
• 12:31
  problem of evil in an atheist universe because there is no
• 12:33
  evil in an atheist universe. No evil.
• 12:36
  How does he get there? His.
• 12:37
  Reasoning is tied directly to his presuppositions about God.
• 12:40
  He says since there is no God, there is no absolute moral
• 12:44
  standard and nothing is wrong. Used a really stark example.
• 12:48
  The torture of little children is not wrong in an atheist
• 12:50
  universe. It may be painful, but it is not
• 12:53
  wrong. His point is, without God
• 12:55
  providing an absolute standard of good, evil just becomes a
• 12:58
  matter of personal feeling or psychological discomfort.
• 13:01
  It's not an objective violation of anything.
• 13:03
  So. Wrong doesn't really mean
• 13:04
  anything objectively without God, that's exactly.
• 13:07
  His argument it becomes a preference, not a moral fact.
• 13:09
  In contrast, he says in atheistic universe, because
• 13:13
  there is an absolute moral standard God's character, the
• 13:16
  concept of evil is meaningful. And that's why theists actually
• 13:19
  have a problem of evil to wrestle with, precisely because
• 13:22
  they believe in a good God whose standard is being violated.
• 13:25
  Then he flips it. He argues that the very posing
• 13:28
  of the problem of evil presupposes my worldview rather
• 13:32
  than his own. How does?
• 13:33
  That work, he suggests. That the moral outrage people
• 13:36
  feel about terrible things, that gut feeling that torturing
• 13:38
  children is really objectively wrong, that feeling itself
• 13:42
  points towards a universal standard of good.
• 13:45
  And in his view, only the Christian worldview can actually
• 13:48
  ground that universal standard. So complaining about evil
• 13:51
  implicitly borrows theistic foundation for morality.
• 13:55
  As for where evil comes from, Bonson pointed partly to human
• 13:58
  rebellion. Men have decided to rebel
• 14:00
  against God, their maker, and sin enter the world, affecting
• 14:03
  everything. From the Reform view, the fall
• 14:06
  brought sin and suffering, but ultimately Bonson affirmed God's
• 14:09
  sovereignty, saying God has planned it and governs
• 14:12
  everything that's in history. This means God has a good reason
• 14:15
  for the evil that he plans or allows, even if we don't
• 14:17
  understand it. He was clear though, God didn't
• 14:20
  force Adam to sin. The rebellion was humanity's
• 14:22
  choice, but it fit within God's overarching plan.
• 14:25
  Bonson strongly attached Stein's utilitarianism, calling it
• 14:29
  arbitrary and just a stipulated standard.
• 14:31
  He asked why should anyone in an atheist universe follow a
• 14:34
  greatest happiness rule? He used the example of the
• 14:36
  Marquis Desad who enjoyed torturing women.
• 14:40
  Why should Desad care about his victims happiness more than his
• 14:43
  own pleasure? If morality is just stipulated,
• 14:46
  Bonson argued, then Desad could just stipulate his his own
• 14:49
  morality, and Stein would have no objective basis to condemn
• 14:51
  him. Whose preference wins a very.
• 14:53
  Pointed challenge? Extremely.
• 14:55
  Bahnson asked Stein why is there any moral obligation upon Hitler
• 15:00
  to live up to Western morality in an atheist universe?
• 15:03
  There is no answer. He concluded that in a
• 15:06
  materialist universe there are no laws, much less laws of
• 15:09
  morality. He challenged atheists to
• 15:11
  explain how binding laws of any sort could even exist in their
• 15:14
  worldview. His final point was that the
• 15:16
  atheist worldview simply cannot give us universe and absolute
• 15:20
  laws of morality. That's about as fundamental A
• 15:23
  disagreement as you can get, isn't it?
• 15:25
  It's not just about what is wrong, but why anything is wrong
• 15:28
  at all, who decides, and whether moral obligation even makes
• 15:31
  sense without God. This really highlights the need
• 15:33
  to be clear on terms, which leads us nicely into how they
• 15:36
  define basic labels like atheist and agnostic.
• 15:39
  Yeah, and debates like this, just defining your terms, can be
• 15:41
  half the battle, right? It shapes how the arguments
• 15:43
  land. So how did Doctor Stein define
• 15:46
  atheist and agnostic? Why were those distinctions
• 15:48
  important for him? Stein kept his definition of
• 15:51
  atheist pretty straightforward. An atheist is simply someone who
• 15:55
  does not believe in a God. He stressed that there's no
• 15:59
  middle ground. You either believe theism or you
• 16:02
  don't. Atheism.
• 16:03
  You either do or you don't. So it's a binary for him
• 16:06
  exactly. If you're not actively affirming
• 16:08
  belief in God, then by his definition you fall under the
• 16:11
  atheist category. Now, interestingly, he
• 16:14
  classified an agnostic as a subtype of atheist.
• 16:17
  That might surprise some people. He described two types.
• 16:19
  First, the Spinsyrian type, named after Herbert Spencer.
• 16:23
  These are agnostics who think it's impossible ever to know
• 16:26
  whether there is one or not. The question itself is
• 16:28
  unanswerable for humans. The second type is the person
• 16:31
  who has never examined the evidence and therefore has not
• 16:34
  made-up his or her mind. But crucially, even in that
• 16:37
  undecided state, they still does not believe in a God.
• 16:41
  So since they aren't affirming theism, they fit under his broad
• 16:44
  atheist umbrella. Stein made sure to say he
• 16:47
  himself was not an agnostic. He believed the questions are
• 16:49
  solvable and he felt he had examined the evidence and
• 16:52
  reached a conclusion non belief. OK, so.
• 16:54
  Stein sees atheism as the default state of non belief and
• 16:58
  agnosticism is just a flavor. Of that.
• 17:01
  How did Bunsen react to these definitions?
• 17:03
  Did his presuppositional approach change how he saw them?
• 17:06
  Bonson actually agreed briefly that agnosticism could be seen
• 17:10
  as a subclass of atheism. But then, he added, for reasons
• 17:13
  different than have been suggested.
• 17:15
  So agreement but with A twist, right?
• 17:18
  Stein focused on the state of belief, affirming or not
• 17:21
  affirming. Bonson likely viewed it through
• 17:23
  the lens of underlying assumptions.
• 17:26
  From his perspective, if you don't start by presupposing God,
• 17:29
  you're operating from an atheistic foundation, whether
• 17:32
  you call yourself agnostic or not.
• 17:34
  He also pointed out that Stein was using the traditional
• 17:37
  definition of atheist here, and hinted that Stein might have
• 17:40
  used a slightly different nuance earlier in the debate, defining
• 17:42
  an atheist as someone finding theistic proofs inadequate.
• 17:46
  Bonson was subtly suggesting Stein might be adjusting
• 17:48
  definitions strategically. But Bonson's more significant
• 17:52
  point was his claim that atheists also believe things on
• 17:55
  faith. Faith.
• 17:56
  How so? He clarified.
• 17:58
  By which I mean they believe things they have not proven as
• 18:01
  yet by their senses. He wasn't talking about
• 18:04
  religious faith, but about unproven assumptions within
• 18:07
  naturalism, like assuming there must be a natural explanation
• 18:10
  for things that look miraculous, or assuming the future will be
• 18:14
  uniform without a solid rational basis for that assumption.
• 18:18
  Bonson's argument is that everyone starts with
• 18:20
  foundational beliefs or commitments that aren't
• 18:22
  empirically proven, atheists included.
• 18:25
  Their faith might be in naturalism or materialism
• 18:28
  itself. It kind of flips the script,
• 18:30
  suggesting faith isn't just for religious folks.
• 18:32
  That's. Interesting.
• 18:33
  Even defining terms reveals these deep foundational
• 18:36
  assumptions everyone operates from.
• 18:38
  Which leads to a really practical question.
• 18:40
  What kind of evidence would actually be strong enough to
• 18:42
  make someone like Stein or Bonson change their mind?
• 18:45
  What would it take? Given these huge differences in
• 18:47
  starting points? Logic.
• 18:48
  Science, morality? What would count as adequate
• 18:51
  evidence for God's existence for someone like Doctor Stein?
• 18:54
  What would convince him? Well for?
• 18:56
  Shine. It boiled down to something
• 18:57
  clearly violating the established laws of nature.
• 19:01
  He defined a miracle primarily as an event that violates the
• 19:04
  known laws of physics and chemistry.
• 19:06
  It had to be undeniably supernatural.
• 19:09
  He gave a couple of very specific, almost thought
• 19:11
  experiment examples. First, he said, if a podium
• 19:14
  right there in the room were to suddenly rose into the air 5
• 19:17
  feet, stayed there for a minute and then dropped right down
• 19:20
  again, that would be evidence of a supernatural because it
• 19:23
  breaks. Physics as we know it.
• 19:25
  Exactly. It would violate everything we
• 19:27
  knew about the laws of physics and chemistry.
• 19:30
  But he added a big caveat. Provided there were no hidden
• 19:33
  wires, magnets, tricks, no natural explanation possible, he
• 19:37
  called it a supernatural violation of the laws right in
• 19:40
  front of your eyes. It had to be observable,
• 19:43
  repeatable perhaps, and just totally inexplicable by science.
• 19:47
  His second example was similar, any kind of a supernatural being
• 19:50
  putting in an appearance and doing miracles that could not be
• 19:53
  staged magic. So a direct unambiguous
• 19:56
  manifestation of God doing things clearly beyond human
• 19:59
  trickery. And he added, whatever this
• 20:02
  evidence was, it would also need to be logically non
• 20:04
  contradictory. He was really looking for clear
• 20:07
  empirical proof of something breaking the natural order in a
• 20:10
  way that couldn't be explained away.
• 20:12
  OK. So Stein wants an undeniable,
• 20:13
  observable breach of natural law, something empirical that
• 20:16
  forces a rewrite of the science books.
• 20:19
  How did Bahnson respond to this kind of demand for empirical
• 20:22
  miracles? What did his answer tell us
• 20:24
  about his view of belief in human nature?
• 20:26
  Bahnson. Started by acknowledging that,
• 20:28
  yes, history is replete with things which would be apparently
• 20:32
  miracles to people. History has stories like that.
• 20:35
  But then he immediately questioned how an atheist would
• 20:37
  interpret such things. From a naturalistic view, he
• 20:40
  argued, these events would seem miraculous only because they
• 20:45
  were ignorant of all the causal factors.
• 20:47
  The assumption would always be that there's a natural 'cause
• 20:49
  you just haven't found yet. The world view itself shapes the
• 20:53
  interpretation you see, so the. Evidence gets filtered through
• 20:56
  the existing belief system. Precisely what looks like a
• 20:59
  miracle to one person is just an unexplained natural event to
• 21:02
  another. But Bahnson went deeper,
• 21:04
  touching on that reformed understanding of human nature
• 21:08
  and sins effect on the mind. He argued that people are not
• 21:11
  made theist by miracles. Witnessing wonders doesn't
• 21:14
  automatically create faith. Instead, he said, people must
• 21:18
  change their worldview. Their hearts must be changed,
• 21:20
  they need to be converted. This gets at the idea of
• 21:23
  regeneration. A spiritual change is needed for
• 21:26
  genuine belief because our fallen nature is resistant to
• 21:28
  God. He pointed out that even people
• 21:30
  who saw Jesus perform incredible miracles first hand, many still
• 21:34
  hardened their heart and eventually crucified the Lord of
• 21:36
  glory. So.
• 21:37
  Seeing isn't necessarily believing in the deepest sense,
• 21:41
  right? Intellectual agreement that
• 21:43
  something unusual happened isn't the same as a fundamental shift
• 21:46
  towards God. And he came back to his point
• 21:48
  about atheists operating on faith too.
• 21:50
  Even facing seemingly miraculous things, he suggested, their
• 21:53
  naturalistic faith leads them to assume they believe things they
• 21:56
  have not proven as yet by their senses, namely that there must
• 22:00
  be a natural explanation, even if they don't know it yet.
• 22:03
  They interpret the data to fit their starting assumptions that.
• 22:06
  Is a really? Stark difference in what counts
• 22:08
  as proof. Stein wants an external physical
• 22:12
  event that breaks the rules, Boston argues.
• 22:15
  It's more about an internal transformation, a change in the
• 22:17
  whole way you see the world, which might happen before or
• 22:20
  alongside accepting any specific evidence.
• 22:24
  What a fascinating deep dive this has been into these core
• 22:26
  arguments. So as we.
• 22:27
  Wrap up this deep. Dive we've really.
• 22:29
  Traced the core. Fault lines, haven't we?
• 22:31
  We saw a Doctor Bonson's presuppositional approach,
• 22:33
  arguing you need the Christian worldview.
• 22:35
  As the very foundation. For logic, science, morality,
• 22:38
  it's the necessary starting point.
• 22:40
  And that's set against Doctor Stein's atheistic view, trying
• 22:43
  to build those foundations on human consensus on usefulness,
• 22:47
  or just the way matter behaves. And Bonson's consistent charge
• 22:51
  was that atheists are essentially borrowing from the
• 22:53
  Christian framework when they use logic or rely on induction
• 22:56
  or make moral judgments. He saw an inconsistency there.
• 23:00
  Using tools, he argued that their own worldview couldn't
• 23:03
  actually justify or account for without God.
• 23:05
  It was a challenge to the coherence of their whole system.
• 23:08
  Yeah. Ultimately, the debate shows us
• 23:09
  it's not just about different answers.
• 23:11
  It's about entirely different starting points, different ways
• 23:15
  of measuring what even counts as a good explanation for reality.
• 23:18
  It really pushes you to look. Beneath the surface arguments to
• 23:23
  those deeper commitments that shape everything it really.
• 23:26
  Does. And this whole discussion of the
• 23:27
  Bondsenstein debate, it kind of forces you, the listener, to
• 23:31
  think about your own foundations.
• 23:33
  We all operate from a worldview, whether we've thought much about
• 23:36
  it or not. It shapes how we see everything.
• 23:38
  So the question this leaves you with is, what is the ultimate
• 23:42
  basis for the rationality you use every single day?
• 23:45
  What grounds the moral sense you have?
• 23:47
  What makes sense of the order you see in the world around you?
• 23:50
  Which framework, when you really examine it, truly accounts for
• 23:53
  your experience of being alive and thinking and interacting in
• 23:56
  this universe? And what does that imply about
• 23:58
  the world and your place in it?