 |
| 1929 cover of the USSR League of Militant Atheists magazine, showing the gods of the Abrahamic religions being crushed by the Communist 5-year plan. |
The Christian perspective is rational; the unbeliever's is based on blind faith
 |
| A Lion Attacking a Horse by George Stubbs 1770 |
a. When the unbeliever attacks Christianity for being based on "faith" as opposed to "reason," it is important to reverse the complaint. The unbeliever, too, has presuppositions that he does not question and that govern every aspect of his thought and life. Thus in a relevant sense, he too has "faith." He too argues in a circle. It is not as if the two are equal, however, for the non-Christian has no basis for trusting reason, except his blind faith. If this world is ultimately the product of chance plus matter, of space and time, why should we assume that events in our heads will tell us anything reliable about the real world? The Christian, though, knows that God has given reason to us as a reliable tool for knowing Him, the world, and ourselves. Thus the shoe is on the other foot. The Christian perspective is rational; the unbeliever's is based on blind faith.
Scripture says that the unbeliever has refused to acknowledge and obey God, exchanged the truth for a lie, and sought to suppress the truth
 |
| Quid Est Veritas? Christ and Pilate, by Nikolai Ge. |
b. It is also appropriate for the apologist to point out to the unbeliever what Scripture says about him. Although he is made in God's image and surrounded by God's clear revelation, he has refused to acknowledge and obey God, exchanged the truth for a lie, and sought to suppress the truth, to hinder its functioning.
The unbeliever seeks to substitute the truth with idolatry or nihilism
 |
| Moses Indignant at the Golden Calf by William Blake, 1799–1800 |
c. Something also can be said about what the unbeliever seeks to substitute for the truth -- the rationalist-irrationalist dialectic. We may recall that the non-Christian rationalist claims an autonomous criterion of truth apart from God's revelation; the non-Christian irrationalist denies the existence of truth and rationality. These are the only two possibilities if one rejects the God of Scripture: idolatry or nihilism.
The rationalist could also be the Pharisee, the church elder who thinks that because of his good works or doctrinal knowledge he deserves God's favor
 |
| The Pharisee and the Publican (Le pharisien et le publicain) by James Tissot, 1886-94 |
Rationalists and irrationalists are not found only among professional philosophers. Ordinary unbelievers also demonstrate these commitments, though not in such epistemologically self-conscious ways. The rationalist could be the self-made businessman who sees himself as the master of his fate or the local politician who thinks that by careful government planning we may overcome all of our social woes or the bartender who has an opinion on everything or the neighbor who thinks that "modern science" has utterly disproved Christianity. (He could also be the Pharisee, the church elder who thinks that because of his good works or doctrinal knowledge he deserves God's favor, or the "black sheep" -- actually a Pharisee in another garb -- who thinks that he must become a much better person before he will have the right to seek God.) The irrationalist could be the town drunk who couldn't care less about anything or the happy milkman who lives on sentimentality and seems bewildered when anyone asks him his basis for living or the angry teenager who hates all authority and seeks to destroy everything he sees.
Rationalists and irrationalists are often at odds with one another, but under the skin they are the same, united in unbelief.
The non-Christian accepts reason
only by an irrational leap
 |
| The Sacrifice of Isaac by Caravaggio |
(i) Rationalism is irrationalistic. The non-Christian has no right to have faith in reason. He accepts it only by an irrational leap. The rationalist's rational scheme never gives him the divine knowledge that he claims. Since this is God's world, the facts never fit into his godless system. Faced with this problem, three courses are possible to the unbeliever: become an irrationalist, compromise with irrationalism (admitting that the scheme is not fully adequate), or cling to his scheme and deny the existence of any discrepancies. The latter course is the most consistently rationalistic, but it too has pitfalls. It pulls the rationalist father away from reality and isolates him in a world of his own. The farther he goes in this direction, the more he is isolated, the more he comes to know only his own system, the less he comes to know the world. And what do we call it when someone is locked in a fantasy world, knowing only his own thought processes, ignorant of reality? Well, we could call him an irrationalist! Thus the rationalist is forced to become an irrationalist -- either directly or by way of some compromise with irrationalism as a middle ground. The middle ground, however, is unstable. Where do we draw the line between the competence of reason and its limitations? The Christian has the guidance of revelation to do that, but the non-Christian has no basis for making any decision. He can only follow his inclinations -- irrationalistically. In all of those ways, then, rationalism must lead to irrationalism.
Irrationalism, once compromised, is refuted
 |
| Dr. Philippe Pinel at the Salpêtrière, 1795 by Tony Robert-Fleury. |
(ii) Irrationalism is rationalistic. (A) Irrationalism can only be asserted on a rationalistic basis. How can one know that there is no truth or meaning? To know that, he would have to know the whole universe. It is that difficult to prove a negative. (B) Irrationalism is self-refuting. It claims to know that there is no knowledge; it believes it to be true that there are no truths, thus asserting rationalism and denying it at the same time! (C) Irrationalists generally compromise their irrationalism in the way they live. Remember Schaeffer's example of John Cage, who preaches irrationalism through his music but who assumes an orderly world when he grows mushrooms. Short of the lunatic asylum, such inconsistence is inescapable. But irrationalism, once compromised, is refuted. Once one concedes the existence of any meaning or order, he is no longer able to deny the existence of meaning or order.
Rationalism and irrationalism are opposed to Christianity, yet depend on Christianity
 |
| Pure Rationalism Painting by Matthew Quick |
(iii) Rationalism and irrationalism are parasitic on Christianity. Of course, rationalism and irrationalism are both radically opposed to Christianity, yet they depend on Christianity in some ways for their plausibility. It is, after all, the Christian revelation that informs us that human reason has both powers and limitations. Rationalism and irrationalism build on those notions of powers and limitations, respectively, but they do so independently of God, and neither is able to specify what those powers and limitations are. Thus rationalists and irrationalists have no principle to keep them from the extremes of sheer irrationalism and sheer rationalism.
In those ways, both rationalism and irrationalism (as well as the various compromise positions) are vulnerable to Christian attack. None of these positions is really distinct from the others, and thus each is subject to all the difficulties mentioned. These positions would have no plausibility at all if it were not for their resemblance to Christianity.
Those analyses can guide our witness to many different kinds of people. Of course, people may not be willing to listen to us. They may lose interest and walk away -- at that point becoming irrationalists, abandoning the search for truth. Or an inquirer may become so irrationalistic that he will not be moved by anything you say to him. If you charge him with inconsistency between his irrationalism and his life-decisions, he may answer, "So what? Who cares about consistency?" Once a person's thinking gets that far from the truth, there isn't much you can say to him as an apologist, except to witness to him by your life and proclamation. A person like that is much like someone who is catatonic or otherwise withdrawn from reality. With my colleague Jay Adams, I agree that in such cases you should keep talking but don't expect (at first, anyway) to carry on any rational arguments.
Point to Jesus as the only one who can give a lasting peace and comfort in a harsh world.
 |
| The Descent from the Cross (van der Weyden) |
This discussion has been a bit philosophical, and the reader might well wonder if any of it will help in witnessing to "ordinary people." Well, remember what I said earlier: we find rationalists and irrationalists not only among philosophers but also among all sorts of people. Consider the fellow who has "dropped out" of life. In a rare sober moment, he confesses to you that he sees no meaning in life. Ask him why he drinks. His answer will reveal that he does value something, whether that is drunkenness itself or freedom from pain or whatever. Further questions will reveal additional contradictions with his irrationalist perspective. Ask him why he values what he values, and you will be able to show him how arbitrary his values are. Point to Jesus as the only one who can give a lasting peace and comfort in a harsh world. Of course, at some point, he may lose interest or be unwilling to talk any further. No apologetic method can guarantee that that won't happen. We can only do our best and pray for God to work.
Source: Frame, John. The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God. New Jersey: P&R Publishing. Pages 360-363. 1987.
