Objection (Continuation of Methodology)

This post is basically a continuation of the one before it (on methodology). Not my favorite lecture, but it was shorter than the first and a bit easier to keep track of.

E.J. Carnell- A student of Van Til's that disagreed with his philosophies.

Van Til rejected reasoning to the best explanation because it cuts us off from certainty. He thought God somehow "deserves" 100% certainty. (He basically turns the Bible into one big math book). What he's really doing is confusing the two kinds of certainty.
There's Logical Certainty, and Psychological Certainty.

Nash's words (Verbatim):
There is no Logical certainty in Apologetics. No logical certainty in this class. So what? There cannot be logical certainty in History, Apologetics, Philosophy, ect. In fact, the margin that logical certainty fits under is extremely small in comparison to the things it doesn't encompass. It only covers Math, Deductive Logic, and Geometry.

Psychological Certainty:
Relative from person to person. (Remember the world view lens?)
Can also be known as Moral Certainty.
Carnell's words (Verbatim): "The lack of logical certainty and relation to probability in Christianity is not a weakness. Instead it shows that Christianity is a world view trying to match up with actual History- not some abstract idea that came from a philosophers head. In the world of blood, sweat, and tears all there is, is moral certainty. It's about the real world."

My thoughts for a second:
In English we've been talking about metaphors (and how they apply to life in general). One of the biggest ones our teacher pointed out was math. All math is, is a metaphor. How do you measure something abstract? With a metaphor. A measurement is just an arbitrary distance that we made up to try and understand space or time. But neither of those things can ever really be measured or understood. What Nash and Carnell are saying here, is that Christianity isn't like 2+2. It's not some metaphor that we made up to understand the world. It's truth- and we know that. Not because its 100% concrete or can be proven with a theorem, but just because it is.

If a person claims to only do things by logical certainty- they're crazy. Presuppositions. There's no way to only have logical certainty. That's why Van Til is invalid.

A few more thoughts:
In this world, there are going to be people who claim that just because we can't "prove" it, we're wrong. We just need to hang in there. Reasoning is what's important. Make a case- lay out an argument- give your points. But- understand that not everyone will always listen. Sometimes people are mistaken. Whether it's because of Van-Tilian type thinking, or something else, there'll always be stubborn people. All we can do is present our argument and let the Holy Spirit do the rest.