Mateo, Alberto Nel V R.

O0B

Title: Bahnsen's Basic Training for Defending the Faith, Part I: The Myth of
Neutrality

Quote: "We are not forbidden from studying philosophy"

What I expect to learn: I expect to learn about neutrality being considered as a myth.

Review:
This summary is about the way of neutrality of thinking is to be considered as
a myth. In other words it is wrong to think that we are neutral especially when talking
about our religion and faith. It is for the reason that it we should not be neutral at the
first place. We must have a firm hold on our idea to what we believe in and be able to
act upon it. Thus, if we believe on something, we are denying the perspective that
opposes it. Therefore, we take our stand and go to a specific side. See now? We are
not neutral after all. No matter what religion you study, they all have their own
specific stand that makes them to take a side. That is what the author wants to tell
about the notions of Christians being biased.

Bahnsen also states here that it is not bad to learn the opposite ideas,
philosophies and even the false ones. He is just reminding us that we should be
careful in studying them that it might captivate our minds from its arrogance and
pretense. Thus we must resist intellectual discrimination and avoid returning the
discrimination itself. It is for the reason that we must learn authentic humility and not
cease the desire of winning a certain argument by introducing concepts that our
opponents don't know. If we do encounter this, we should acknowledge that we don't
know those kinds of concepts and ask for clarification. With this, we would
eventually realize the truth about neutrality being a mistake by means of emphasizing
or silencing a specific idea according to their personal preferences.

What I have learn:

• Neutrality being a myth
• Being careful when studying philosophies

Integrative Question:
• Are Christians really biased?
• Does neutrality in ideas really exist?
• What does the author remind its readers about studying philosophies?
• What should we do if we encounter intellectual bullying?
• How could we realize that neutrality is impossible?
Title: Bahnsen's Basic Training for Defending the Faith, Part II: Introduction to
Worldviews

Quote: "A network of presuppositions which are not tested by natural science and in
terms of which all experience is related and interpreted."

What I expect to learn: I expect to learn about the concept of worldviews

Review:
This summary is about the concept of worldviews and as to how we should
understand it. First is that the author defines worldviews as "a network of
presuppositions which are not tested by natural science and in terms of which all
experience is related and interpreted." Thus worldviews are like packaged deals to
which we can't choose as to what we want to pick for ourselves. Our only choice is to
accept it or deny it as a whole and not a part or specific substance of it. The author
also states in this summary the categories of questions that a certain worldview must
answer. These categories are metaphysics, epistemology and ethics. Metaphysics
focuses on the structure, origin and nature or reality. Epistemology focuses on the
nature and limits of knowledge as well as the methods to pursue it. Ethics, the last
category, focuses on the study of right or wrong. With all of these categories at hand,
it is now easier to understand the meaning or essence of a certain worldview.
Therefore, it would now be easier for us to have our own worldview to which we
would live our lives according and upon it.

What I have learn:

• Worldviews
• Categories of question regarding a worldviews

Integrative Question:
• What is worldviews?
• What are the categories of question that a worldview must answer?
• Can we only subscribe to a certain part of a worldview? Why or why
not?
• What is Metaphysics?
• What is Epistemology?
Title: Bahnsen's Basic Training for Defending the Faith, Part III: Worldviews in
Conflict

Quote: "The unbeliever professes to be open-minded and objective; they simply do

not have enough evidence."

What I expect to learn: I expect to learn the conflict of worldviews between Christian
and unbelievers.

Review:
This summary is still about worldviews but not on how we must recognize our
own worldviews but how to defend our worldview as a Christian against hostilities of
the unbelievers. This kind of defending our stand has something to do on us too. It is
our Christian thinking which involves consistency in words and acts. The author also
states that our actions and those of the unbelievers are often at the opposite direction
and would continue to be. Even so, it might even crossroads that we might notice that
what we are doing is the same as theirs which is most likely consistent with
Christianity. It is for the reason that those unbelievers may subscribed to our
worldview to make substance of what they are saying. Thus, it is in order for them to
arrive at a certain truth. With this, what we can do is to point out the consistency of
their actions against to what they profess. We should also remember that unbelievers
think that it is not their belief which is wrong but God itself. It is for the reason that
God is not clear and Christianity is like a leap of faith that requires abandonment of
intellect and reasoning. The truth here is that it is not God which is unclear but rather
their sin and unbelief. They try to justify their unbelief to which they create their own
worldviews that tells them that their limited minds can't interact with the infinite mind
of God. With all of this at hand, we can say that our key to defending our faith is to
show the vanity, unfairness, and natural contradictions in other worldviews. Any truth
that they claim are borrowed from us and it does not match with their profess
assumption.

What I have learn:

• Unbeliever's mistake on the things they profess
• The key in defending our faith is the mistakes that unbelievers have

Integrative Question:
• What is needed defending our faith against hostilities of unbelievers?
• Why do unbelievers subscribed to our worldview?
• What do unbelievers believe to be the mistake in our faith?
• What is the real mistake of unbelievers in their perspective of our
faith?
• What is the key in defending our faith against unbelievers?