Wednesday, February 25, 2009

Trilemma: A Liar, A Lunatic Or A Loser?

The venerable Watchman Daniel Chew Huicong has earlier on declared himself to be a Clarkian Presuppositionalist,

“Before I start, let me first state that I am defending the Christian faith. I am not interested even if you can prove the falsehood of all other faiths; they fend for themselves. In fact, if Christianity is true, all others are false (Jn. 14:6), so I am not interested in defending them. As such, my apologetic method has and always will be presuppositional (Clarkan [sic] as opposed to Van Tillian), and upon this basis I will proceed.”
In other words, he is not supposed to be an empiricist. I will show in this post that the Watchman Daniel Chew Huicong is really a closet empiricist in thinking.

Even those who have no knowledge of epistemology would read from Wikipedia that, “empiricism is a theory of knowledge which asserts that knowledge arises from experience.” “Empiricism emphasizes the role of experience and evidence, especially sensory perception, in the formation of ideas,” and surely in Watchman Daniel Chew Huicong’s latest post, we would find his empiricist leanings leaping out into the open like a zombie out of the closet. This is despite his repeated claims to being a “Clarkian Presuppositionalist.”

Empiricism: Reliance on experience as the source of ideas and knowledge. More specifically, empiricism is the epistemological theory that genuine information about the world must be acquired by a posteriori means, so that nothing can be thought without first being sensed. Prominent modern empiricists include Bacon, Locke, Berkeley, Hume, and Mill. In the twentieth century, empiricism principles were extended and applied by the pragmatists and the logical positivists.

So What's The Crime?
The promise of forgiveness of sin in this Gospel age (and even in the Old Testament era) was never to be taken to mean sins being forgiven through the instrumentality of prayer. Rather, it must be interpreted in the same way as the principle of forgiveness of sins in 1 Jn. 1:9, which is to say an experience of an established reality proving the genuineness of that same reality. In simpler terms, what this means is that true born-again Christians who have their sins forgiven will by nature confess their sins and pray to God in so doing. Such activities confirm that the ones practicing them have their sins forgiven, and the Holy Spirit uses such activities to bring peace and the sense of forgiveness within their hearts.
I would like to pounce upon the clause, “which is to say an experience of an established reality proving the genuineness of that same reality.”

If you were to read this convoluted, albeit self-indicting and jejune, rendition of the following sentence, “In simpler terms, what this means is that true born-again Christians who have their sins forgiven will by nature confess their sins and pray to God in so doing,” you will notice the following proposition by Watchman Chew:

P = An experience of X proves the genuineness of X.

In other words, whether X is true or not, genuine or not, factual or not, real or not, will be proven by an experience of the X.

An experience of X would inevitably involve perceptual experience, or rather, an experience or experiences of sensory perception. This experience (derived from the human senses) then serves as the “proof” for the genuineness of X.

Despite his rabid denial of the need for empirical evidence for the existence of God and related apologetic issues, he doesn’t seem to have coherent rationality when it comes to other areas of thought in theology. For example, in the aforementioned example, he insists that, “an experience of X proves the genuineness of X.” In other words, Watchman Chew does demand empirical evidence – experiential evidence. This he denies when he proclaimed himself to be a Clarkian Presuppositionalist.

Isn’t it fair, then, for the unbeliever to say, “An experience of God proves the genuineness of God,” therefore show me this experiential evidence for God? Be it visual, auditory, olfactory, gustatory, tactile, proprioceptive, equilibrioceptive, nociceptive, or thermoceptive, show me thine evidence. This is exactly what Watchman Daniel Chew Huicong is demanding in his theology. Show me the experiential evidence, or your profession of faith is false.

So apparently, Watchman Chew has a different set of epistemology when he deals with apologetics and theology. He claims that his “Clarkian” epistemology is derived from the Scripture. But when you ask him questions concerning Scripture exegesis and theology, he turns around and presents another set of epistemological beliefs which purportedly are not derived from Scripture. By the way, how can two opposing epistemological systems be both scriptural?

I have no choice but to conclude that Watchman Chew is either a liar, a lunatic or a loser. Herein lies the trilemma. Which is he?

Furthermore, which epistemology is the great Watchman convicted of? Both?


Anonymous said...


Watchman Chew doesn't know his right hand from the left?

You mean he claims Clark's epistemology is THE scriptural epistemology, and then make a roundabout turn, swallow his words, and insist upon an empiricist's understanding of 1 Jn 1:9?

So the Bible contradicts itself, or is Watchman Chew contradicting himself?

I hope it's the later. :D

Chen Wei Chieh

Anonymous said...

Hi AT,

Interesting stuff here.

Christian apologetics has its uses, though somewhat limited. I have never thought of Daniel as a "presuppositionalist" (sp?) - it does not come through his posts. But you may have better insights than I.

Yours sincerely,

Anonymous said...

Kudos to you, Antithesis. You have done an excellent job in exposing the irrationality and inconsistencies of this Watchman Chew. He watches our church pastor and elders, starts a parachurch organization to supervise our church’s leadership (the Reformed Resurgence), but lo and behold, his irrationality is now exposed for the world to see.

Thanks again,
Mr Lee

Anonymous said...

Who is this dandy pansy Daniel Chew Huicong? Read his blog ... what a freak! He thinks he is THE POPE.

POPE Daniel "I'm right you are wrong so shut up and admit it like I know everything" Chew.

What's up with him mate? Is he still in Singapore, eh?


Anonymous said...

Now Watchman Chew remind me of Sammul Chan’s character in “On The First Beat” TVB Drama, 李柏翹.

Only want to show off, want to show off so much that he blind to everything else. Like you Singapore say Kia Su. So Kia Su.

Oh come on, give me a break, Daniel Chew.

Weng Hooi

Tartanarmy said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Antithesis said...

Tartanamy aka Mark,

Hearken to this,

Please do not come to my blog and write such dishonest, vulgar, and libelous comments. It is most unchristian of you for hijacking this thread with your immensely rude and inane post.

As you are a blind supporter of the venerable Watchman Chew, you are not welcomed in this blog.

Please continue to be the sycophant Watchman Chew has made you out to be; it's really not my business. But try to act like what you profess to be: a christian.

And it is most un-Christ-like to slander, lie, and accuse others (christian or NOT) of allegations you have no evidence of.

Go and have a heart, Mark. Thank you.

Tartanarmy said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Antithesis said...

Hi Mark,

Oooops ... your comment violates rule no 3 cap 45 sec 4a of "Idiot's Guide to Blog Rules" by Watchman Daniel Chew Huicong.

As Christ have taught the "Golden Rule of Reciprocity" (Mt 7:12), I am just doing unto thee what you (and the other "Christians") have done unto me - deleting all my comments and lying through your teeth concerning what I wrote.

For Pete's sake, stop coming to my blog and slandering, accusing, lying against me.

Just as you have ALWAYS deleted ALL my comments and slander me of things I've never done, you are now receiving the SAME MEDICINE you (and Watchman Chew) administer to others.

Go have a life, Mark.

Anonymous said...

Whow! Who is this "Mark?"

Mark my words, Antithesis, rank and file followers of the venerable Watchman Chew will always be (blindly) on his side, marked by an insatiable desire to mark this blog with the fruits of perennial parroting.

Beware of these Watchman's parrots.

Lim Chee Hong

Tartanarmy said...

Go away you pest. It is people like you that make the Internet a bad place...


Antithesis said...

Beloved brother Mark (Tartanarmy),

I shall leave your terse comment this time; your language is telling. So that's your true color - Christ-like.



PS: This is my blog; who do you think ought to "go away?"

Tartanarmy said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Antithesis said...

Deary beloved Mark (Tartanarmy),

As I have warned, you have repeatedly broken blog rules no 3 cap 45 sec 4a, no 15 cap 77 sec 13e, and no 119 cap 54 sec 15a-16c of "Idiot's Guide to Blog Rules" by Watchman Daniel Chew Huicong. (please refer to Watchman Chew's blog for those rules).

Stop your unchristian behavior, and I might consider allowing you to comment on my blog. In the meantime, do learn some manners even ungodly pagans are capable of.

And remember to follow all the blog rules set down by Daniel Chew Huicong.


(PS: How does it feel to get the "Watchman Chew" treatment from godly, watching, "fellow" christians?)

Anonymous said...

Hi Antithesis,

Goodness gracious me!

14 comments in one day; you are in the BIG LEAGUE, Antithesis!

I read all your posts; do keep up the good work and expose these hypocrites for what they truly are.

THANK GOD for watchman of watchmen like you.

Geok Seng

Tartanarmy said...

You are one deluded individual..comic relief for the day!


Anonymous said...

Tartanarmy aka Mark,

You got a double chin. You should do something about it .... like exercise. Defending watchman chew won't make it go away.


Anonymous said...

Tartanarmy aka Mark,

Goodness gracious me!

You've got two good things: two chins.

THANK GOD for your two chins; do thank God and pray that you'll have more i.e. three.

Do you know the meaning of three in the Bible?

Three ... stands for that which is solid, real, substantial, complete, and entire.

All things that are specially complete are stamped with this number three.

God's attributes are three: omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence.

There are three great divisions completing time--past, present, and future.

Three persons, in grammar, express and include all the relationships of mankind.

Thought, word, and deed, complete the sum of human capability.

Three degrees of comparison complete our knowledge of qualities.

The simplest proposition requires three things to complete it; viz., the subject, the predicate, and the copula.

Three propositions are necessary to complete the simplest form of argument--the major premiss, the minor, and the conclusion.

Three kingdoms embrace our ideas of matter--mineral, vegetable, and animal.

Hey, ask God for three chins; but again, you may already have the third one in your belly ;)

Thanking God always,
Geok Seng

Tartanarmy said...

"You got a double chin"

The only chins around here are you and your friend.


Anonymous said...

You called us "chins". That's a degrading RACIST remark!! This is sinking too low.
You are not only a watchman chew supporter, you are also a RACIST!!

You should be ashamed of yourself! I feel sorry for you wife, 5 kids and your parents!!

Bob Chan

Anonymous said...

Dear Bob,

Mark (aka Tartanarmy) is from Australia. Apparently, being a Watchman Chew supporter (WC), he has inherited the negative effects of being a WC.

I read about Anti-Chinese racism in colonial Australia, and folks calling Chinese people "Chins." But I never expected it from a self-professing Christian man who blogs day in and day out about "Christ" and "Love" and "Bible."

What would you expect from a WC except fundamentalist extremism, jihad-ism, blind irrationalism, and of course, a WC full of racist sentiments and self-righteousness?

It's sad, but it's such people that give religion a bad name.

truly yours,

Chee Soon Guan (FYI, I'm a Chinese. You have a problem with that, Mark?)

Tartanarmy said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Dear Mark,

You said: "You might be that rare type of Chinese person, more like a certain type we have here in Australia (a minority), the ones who are hard hearted, do not mix well and seem to have a chip on their shoulder"

This statement by itself has a racist slur. So there is group of Chinese in Australia that you are against?

You bring shame to the people of Australia.

You are a teacher aren't you? You should be reported to the NSW Dept of Education and Training for your racist tendencies.

Perth Aust

Tartanarmy said...

You should be reported to the NSW Dept of Education and Training for your racist tendencies.

Lisa, please.
I am an equal opportunity racist.
Don't get me started on the white man. Or young females who do not think properly!


Antithesis said...

Dearly Beloved Mark (Tartanarmy),

Your comments (once again) broke the golden blog rules - this time for it's explicit sinophobic slurs.

Racism is not tolerated here; but you can try it at the Watchman Chew's blog. :)


Anonymous said...

Watchman isn't a true Clarkian Presuppositionalist or Reformed.

Keep up the good work Antithesis!

Lisa said...

You said: " ... young females who do not think properly"

You have a problem with the young and females? So you despise the youth and also a sexist.

Really, you do you think you are? A "trilemma"? - just like this Daniel - a racist, 'despiser-of-youth', or a sexist? Or a bundled three-in-one? You don't need to be a christian to know that these are wrong!

My gosh! Now I really feel sorry for your kids and wife. Hope you are not beating them you up too.

Perth Australia

Anonymous said...

Goodness gracious me!

Mark aka Tartanarmy is ALSO a trilemma!!!

Just like this Daniel Chew - a racist, 'despiser-of-youth', or a sexist?


Mark is not a trilemma; he is ALL OF THE ABOVE - a racist, 'despiser-of-youth', AND a sexist!


Perhaps all Watchman Chew's toadies are too.

Geok Seng

Chee Soon Guan said...

Mark said, "I am an equal opportunity racist."

Dear Mark/Tartanarmy

Be it equal or unequal opportunity, you are still a RACIST.

And you have admitted it.

Feeling sorry for you now, Mark. You are a "christian" racist, and you are now exposed.

Come on here and continue to expose yourself as a sinophobic racist AND sexist.

How godly. And how sad for Christendom.

truly yours,
Chee S G

Tartanarmy said...

You people are sad. This is not funny anymore. Poor Lisa, you seem like a person who is incapable of reason.


Lisa said...

You are right. Its not funny at all. It doesn't matter what you think of my reasoning.

You are a dangerous person in blogosphere and to the Australian society.

I am so glad that I am not in NSW part of Australia. And I will pull my daughter out if ever I find that you are teaching in her school!


Tartanarmy said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Antithesis said...

Hi Mark aka Tartanarmy,

You've come over here, attacked my friends, called them names and made horrendous racist comments against racial Chinese - all in the good faith of "Christianity."

I'm sorry, but as you have repeatedly broken the "Blog Rules for Idiots", by Watchman (TM) Daniel Chew Huicong, 2nd Ed., Watchman Publishing (2008), pp. 799-815 which details the restriction of sinophobic racist comments and the shaming of aborigines within blogosphere, you are hereby condemned to another comment deletion.

Furthermore, since you have fond feelings for our Watchman Chew, we welcome you to frequent his blog; however, we would entreat you to refrain from spouting racist sentiments and exposing yourself any further for the good of our nation, whose short existence is based upon justice and equality, regardless of race, language or religion. We strive to build a democratic society, so as to achieve prosperity and progress for our nation.



PS: Remember, my blog rules are derived from Watchman Chew's "Blog Rules for idiots." If you do not fancy it, then give Daniel Chew a call, eh?

Geok Seng said...

Hi Antithesis,

Goodness gracious me!

33 LONG comments in two days; you are REALLY in the BIG LEAGUE, Antithesis!

Keep it up!

In Christ,
Brother Geok Seng