Presuppositional apologetics method...

[derrick09]

Hey guys, I've got a few quick questions on presuppositional apologetics. Now even though I currently lean toward classical, evidential apologetics, just like with young earth creationism, I'm not a big fan of it. But since it's related to Christianity and it doesn't conflict with essential doctrines I'm civil and respectable to it. Like for an example, here is a link that gives a good definition of presuppositional apologetics and gives some good illustrations on how it's supposed to be properly used. http://carm.org/presuppositional-apologetics Now then, I'm scared that many Christians who swear by presuppositional apologetics may misuse it in such a way and almost use it as an excuse for not giving good reasons (whether it be scientific, historical or philosophical evidences and arguments) for their belief. I'm nervous that it could also lead to circular reasoning such as in this example...


Believer: I believe that the Bible is the Truth, that it's inerrant, and it's the Word of God.

non believer: Ok, why is the Bible "the truth"

Believer: Well, because it's the Word of God

non believer: Why do you think it's the Word of God?

Believer: Because it's inerrant

non believer: Why do you think it's inerrant?

Believer: Because it's the Word of God!

non believer: ??????

Now I'm not knocking presuppositions or presuppositional apologetics, it just needs to be used properly, if used in such a way as described above, many nonbelievers would walk away thinking that Christianity is just like a Jonestown style cult. Now even if you do think that the Bible is the truth, is inerrant, and is the Word of God, and you have a presupposition to it, that's fine and great, but when talking to a non believer about that, you have to realize that they don't have that presupposition, they either don't think the Bible is those three things or at the very least they are unsure about it and probably like good reasons to accept it before committing their lives to it. And quite honestly, if I was the unbeliever, I would want those same things, because it's almost like buying a new house or signing a big time contract. You want to make sure the house doesn't have any problems with it before you buy it and when you sign a big contract you want to go over it and read it to make sure what all the fine print says and that you are not being duped. To get a unbeliever to think about even considering Christianity you have to find out where they are at (whether atheist, agnostic, a follower of another religion or undecided) and go from there. For example if they are an atheist, you don't want to start cramming biblical inerrancy down their throat because they don't even think there is A God. You have to get them to accept, that there's A God first, once that's established, take them to Christianity, then after that, to non essential stuff like inerrancy, old earth creationism, and so on. Either way, it's some food for thought.

[August]

I think that is a typically weak representation of presuppositional apologetics. I know that the main objection is that it is circular, but the objection assumes that it is fallaciously circular, when it isn't.

When dealing with any other apologetical method, the problem is multiplied. One is assuming (wrongly) that there is a neutral middle when it comes to epistemology. There isn't. Everybody brings a presupposition to the table and the purpose is to subject the presuppositions to an internal and external critique to see which one is the most rational and logical. But when using classical or evidential apologetics, which presupposition shall be used? In the end, all of the arguments and evidence leads back to the starting presuppositions.

Evidential apologetics in particular suffers from the same problems that atheistic arguments suffer, in that it is inductive reasoning. One can never arrive at 100% true conclusions through inductive reasoning, merely conclusions that approach 100% truth.

When I have more time I will expand more. But I rarely use anything but a presuppositional apologetic.

[jlay]

Derrick, thanks for starting this thread.

Yes, it can be misused. August has already given the heart of the answer I would have given.

It is also important to note that not all evidentialists or presuppositionalists are the same. These are very broad terms, and lack the ability to define the different fundementals within each category. Evidentialists have presuppositions. Presuppositionalists use evidence. Presuppositionalists that do not examine evidence are not being intellectually honest. The difference is how we use the evidence.

Evidentialist arguments can make the same mistakes that many materialists make. I call it evidence stacking. It assumes that the unbeliever's mind is suitable for finding God, apart from the revelation of the Word of God. Of course the bible warns us against this very thing. So you end up with a lot of "Yes, but....." "Yes your mind is perfectly adequate to discover that God exist. But, you just don't have enough evidence." And so you have a lot of, "but have you considered...."
and things like, "The odds of life originating out of random chance processes are, whatever %." That is a probability. Well the person opposed to God will likely run to the percentage that verifies his presuppositions. You see, if something is probable, not matter how much so, then the opposite is still possible. And that is where the antagonist will hide. They will develop defense stategies to maintain their worldview.

Another problem is the fallacy of reification.
"Evolution says....."
"This evidence speaks for itself."
"Science says...."
Evidence doesn't speak. Science doesn't speak. Scientists do. And people interpret evidence through the lens of their worldview, which includes their presuppositions. That is why it is totally insane that scientists would set out on explorations to FIND missing links. They have already presupposed what they will find. They have already corrupted the evidence with their worldview.
And it isn't surprising to see what is demonstrated by people like Hawking and Dawkins, who don't see where scientific method ends and philosophy begins. And thus you end up with bad philosophy. So, as apologists we don't want to make these same errors.


It is also circular to exclude biblical authority for evidential reasons.

*We should not rely on biblical authority when presenting apologetic arguments to a non-believer.
*Because non-believers do not believe the bible is true.
*Therefore it is not a good idea to presuppose the bible is true when dealing with this group.
This is the fallacy of neutral ground. Let me make this clear,there is NO neutral ground.

You see the reality is that almost everyone is going to fall back to a circular argument. You may have to take them back through their reasoning to show them how, but it is almost always the case. How many atheists have you met that when you cut through all the stuff, you find out that the reason they reject the bible ultimately has to do with an emotional issue. "Christians are hypocrites." Not evidence, but some personal issue. And so they are interpreting all the evidence through this lens.
So, what is the issue here? Evidence, or worldview?

We know that the Bible isn't true because of the Kalam cosmological argument. And if the KCA were demonstrated to be faulty, it wouldn't change the validity of the Bible. Yet there are some evidentialist who think that very thing. Too me, that is very dangerous place to establish your faith. Not that I don't see the value in the argument. I do. I think it is a good one. But it is not the foundation of my apologetic.

The best apologetic is when we can get someone to do an internal critique of their worldview. We need to tear down worldviews that are opposed to biblical truth. Otherwise, most people will see what they want to see. That is why I sited the OJ Simpson case in another thread. You see, the believer knows why logic, reason, the universe, morality, etc. exist. We have an explanation. Without the biblical worldview, there is no basis for any of these things. The unbeliever uses all these things, yet has no explanation as to why any of them are. None. And so we need to show the unbeliever that he can't come to any conclusion on anything apart from the Word of God. Otherwise he is merely trespassing on the Christian worldview. I'd say 90% of apologetics is evidential. Which is sad too me. Because we see how ineffective it is. You rarely see the unbelievers worldview being challenged. In fact I've challenged unbelievers worldviews right here on this site only to have evidentialist challenge me for challenging them.

[narnia4]

I find presuppositional apologetics (in the most general sense now) to be incredibly important. If you are talking evidentialism, yes, most arguments/debates/dialogues will be examination of the evidence in an attempt to make a judgment. For your own life, however, and for your own spiritual edification, I believe it's necessary to examine inward. Do I have a rational, coherent, complete worldview? Do I know why I believe what I say I believe.

That's something a lot of people don't have, even Christians. Christians will say things that simply don't fit in with God's Word or Christianity in any way. How many times have we heard atheists use multiple arguments that attack Christianity, but don't fit together themselves? Everyone has a world view, but atheists, for example, like to pretend that they have no set beliefs and all it means is that you don't believe in the existence of God. Well, if you believe God doesn't exist, there are certain ramifications that have to be dealt with. Rarely do I see anybody dealing with them. Ignoring the "apologetics" part of it, we have to be willing to assume certain things and then work from there to see what fits in with your worldview.

I'm basically rehashing what Jlay said, but I certainly agree with it. There's simply no way to avoid certain biases, there is NO "neutral position". I'd also like to point out that presuppositional apologetics and evidential apologetics do not have to be at odds. You can examine evidence and make a determination as far as what view on a subject (take Christ's resurrection as an example) is correct. If you see that the evidence does indeed support the resurrection as a historical fact, then from there you can determine what the implications of belief of the resurrection should be.

From my experience, for people to actually change their minds on a subject, it can't be ABOUT the evidence. It has to be prompting by the Spirit and self-examination. If a person gives no thought as to what being an atheist actually means, I don't see much hope of that person changing his mind no matter how overwhelming the evidence may be.

[MarcusOfLycia]

I can tell that I'm fairly new to formal apologetics in that I never really thought of the two types (presuppositional and evidential) as separate things. Its really interesting to read about, so thanks for the information!

Just based on reading, I think I've naturally embraced both to defend/explain what I believe, although those I've had to defend my faith to typically only consider evidential claims, and pull the kind of stuff you were talking about, narnia ("How many times have we heard atheists use multiple arguments that attack Christianity, but don't fit together themselves"). I've heard atheists claim they 'think God is evil' and then cite lists of 'x verses that contradict' in the same breath, to which it should be asked (and I didn't at the time unfortunately...):

"So which is it? If you think the Bible has errors, couldn't God be good since your references might be in error? If the Bible doesn't have errors and it's accurate about what God has done (not necessarily you're interpretation if it), isn't it miraculous that it doesn't have errors about the Creator of the universe?"

[derrick09]

Derrick, thanks for starting this thread.

Yes, it can be misused. August has already given the heart of the answer I would have given.

It is also important to note that not all evidentialists or presuppositionalists are the same. These are very broad terms, and lack the ability to define the different fundementals within each category. Evidentialists have presuppositions. Presuppositionalists use evidence. Presuppositionalists that do not examine evidence are not being intellectually honest. The difference is how we use the evidence.

Evidentialist arguments can make the same mistakes that many materialists make. I call it evidence stacking. It assumes that the unbeliever's mind is suitable for finding God, apart from the revelation of the Word of God. Of course the bible warns us against this very thing. So you end up with a lot of "Yes, but....." "Yes your mind is perfectly adequate to discover that God exist. But, you just don't have enough evidence." And so you have a lot of, "but have you considered...."
and things like, "The odds of life originating out of random chance processes are, whatever %." That is a probability. Well the person opposed to God will likely run to the percentage that verifies his presuppositions. You see, if something is probable, not matter how much so, then the opposite is still possible. And that is where the antagonist will hide. They will develop defense stategies to maintain their worldview.

Another problem is the fallacy of reification.
"Evolution says....."
"This evidence speaks for itself."
"Science says...."
Evidence doesn't speak. Science doesn't speak. Scientists do. And people interpret evidence through the lens of their worldview, which includes their presuppositions. That is why it is totally insane that scientists would set out on explorations to FIND missing links. They have already presupposed what they will find. They have already corrupted the evidence with their worldview.
And it isn't surprising to see what is demonstrated by people like Hawking and Dawkins, who don't see where scientific method ends and philosophy begins. And thus you end up with bad philosophy. So, as apologists we don't want to make these same errors.


It is also circular to exclude biblical authority for evidential reasons.

*We should not rely on biblical authority when presenting apologetic arguments to a non-believer.
*Because non-believers do not believe the bible is true.
*Therefore it is not a good idea to presuppose the bible is true when dealing with this group.
This is the fallacy of neutral ground. Let me make this clear,there is NO neutral ground.

You see the reality is that almost everyone is going to fall back to a circular argument. You may have to take them back through their reasoning to show them how, but it is almost always the case. How many atheists have you met that when you cut through all the stuff, you find out that the reason they reject the bible ultimately has to do with an emotional issue. "Christians are hypocrites." Not evidence, but some personal issue. And so they are interpreting all the evidence through this lens.
So, what is the issue here? Evidence, or worldview?

We know that the Bible isn't true because of the Kalam cosmological argument. And if the KCA were demonstrated to be faulty, it wouldn't change the validity of the Bible. Yet there are some evidentialist who think that very thing. Too me, that is very dangerous place to establish your faith. Not that I don't see the value in the argument. I do. I think it is a good one. But it is not the foundation of my apologetic.

The best apologetic is when we can get someone to do an internal critique of their worldview. We need to tear down worldviews that are opposed to biblical truth. Otherwise, most people will see what they want to see. That is why I sited the OJ Simpson case in another thread. You see, the believer knows why logic, reason, the universe, morality, etc. exist. We have an explanation. Without the biblical worldview, there is no basis for any of these things. The unbeliever uses all these things, yet has no explanation as to why any of them are. None. And so we need to show the unbeliever that he can't come to any conclusion on anything apart from the Word of God. Otherwise he is merely trespassing on the Christian worldview. I'd say 90% of apologetics is evidential. Which is sad too me. Because we see how ineffective it is. You rarely see the unbelievers worldview being challenged. In fact I've challenged unbelievers worldviews right here on this site only to have evidentialist challenge me for challenging them.

Hello again, yes these are good things, the only thing that I"m concerned about is when apologists who use the presuppositional method to skip over a lot of things like showing why the Bible is true and reliable and not just like any other religious or cult book. I say this because many non believers think Christianity is just like the Jonestown and Heaven's Gate type cults, just on a larger scale. They really think there is no fundamental difference between people like us and people like those who partook of the Kool-Aid and apple sauce. And when we tell them, "we believe the Bible is the Word of God and is truth" and so on, the unbelievers see no difference in us saying the Bible is the Word of God and the cult followers saying that their books are the Word of God. I still think we need to show unbelievers why the Bible is more accurate and reliable than any other cult or religious book. Then, we can actually make progress with such people,(with the Holy Spirit of course, because people can still choose not to believe even when they are given the best stuff that Christian apologetics has to offer) just simply proclaiming our belief and our dogmas without showing that it's better than the rest won't persuade nearly anyone anymore.

I was also wondering why is it that no neutral ground exists, especially around people who study philosophies as objective as they can and refer to themselves as " truth searchers" aka people who follow the evidence wherever it leads. I mean if no one can really be objective than who needs scientists, detectives or the court system. Since all we would get from them (if I"m following your reasoning right) is their subconscious or emotional opinions about what they are examining?

Now you mentioned the "Christians are hypocrites" thing that many atheists and concerned believers (like myself) bring up. Now atheists in particular, can make that into a evidential argument, not so much as in physical evidence but philosophical evidence, here is how it would work.

premise 1: Christians believe that when Christ comes into a person's life and saves them, they become a new creature who either no longer sins or at the very least, sins much less than unbelievers.

premise 2: But we don't find any Christians who either don't sin or sin much less than non believers, aka, we find a bunch of hypocrites.

premise 3: Therefore, the Christian God cannot bring about true major change in a person's life

premise 4: Therefore, the Christian God does not exist.

Now three possible answers to this are as follows,

1. There may be hardly anyone living today who is truly Christian. Aka, nearly all professing current Christians are going to hell.

2. Christ still does change a person, but the change either takes time, is a struggle for most people, or the change is unseen.

3. The most common answer, it's irreverent to the issue of God's existence and Christianity's validity or invalidity.

Just curious as to how you and others here would answer this hypocrite argument, because it is a common argument from atheists today.

[Echoside]

premise 1: Christians believe that when Christ comes into a person's life and saves them, they become a new creature who either no longer sins or at the very least, sins much less than unbelievers.

premise 2: But we don't find any Christians who either don't sin or sin much less than non believers, aka, we find a bunch of hypocrites.

premise 3: Therefore, the Christian God cannot bring about true major change in a person's life

premise 4: Therefore, the Christian God does not exist.

Now three possible answers to this are as follows,

1. There may be hardly anyone living today who is truly Christian. Aka, nearly all professing current Christians are going to hell.

2. Christ still does change a person, but the change either takes time, is a struggle for most people, or the change is unseen.

3. The most common answer, it's irreverent to the issue of God's existence and Christianity's validity or invalidity.

Just curious as to how you and others here would answer this hypocrite argument, because it is a common argument from atheists today.

It is a commonly boring argument. Premise 1 sounds faulty simply because accepting Christ as far as I know does not turn you into a superhuman with 100% righteous powers. Many christians are less "good" than lets say some atheists, but the difference is the christian acknowledges the need for God to turn to a better path, the atheist is outraged that he should be called evil because there is a christian who by his utilitarian measures for good is "worse" than him.

premise 2 fails because of premise 1. How do you know they are in fact hypocrites? Also, you have no way of knowing how much one sins anyway.

Your possible objections are much more than just possible, an atheist who denies them is being extremely dishonest. The bible itself says things like the way to salvation is narrow, or many "christians" will be told at judgment that God never knew them. I find this type of argument as one of the biggest emotional things an atheist will try to pull, it is not logical and very weakly supported by a twisted and narrow minded view of christian theology.

[derrick09]

Premise 1 sounds faulty simply because accepting Christ as far as I know does not turn you into a superhuman with 100% righteous powers

Try explaining that to a lot of today's run of the mill evangelical fundamentalists. To me, they take 2 Corinthians 5:17 way too literally. Good point though, very good point.

[MarcusOfLycia]

Premise 2 I don't know if I agree with completely either. Scripture never claims that we won't sin, only that we'll become sinless in God's eyes thanks to Christ's sacrifice. And to be honest... while there are a lot of "Christians" who wear the name because everyone else does (or who are just really early in their walk) and haven't had their character developed, I can safely say that the people I respect the most are the godly Christians I've met, who while they aren't sinless certainly know how to do what's right most of the time.

Remember that Christ came for the ungodly and the sinners. He loves them, and regardless of whether they 'shape up' or not, He still loves them. That's the Gospel. Sometimes it takes a long time, sometimes no time at all, but either way God transforms us.

[derrick09]

Good point, btw, don't you like the changes I made to my profile? Pretty epic heh?

[Byblos]

Good point, btw, don't you like the changes I made to my profile? Pretty epic heh?

I like the profile pic but to be honest those fluttering flags are much too distracting when reading your posts.

[jlay]

the only thing that I"m concerned about is when apologists who use the presuppositional method to skip over a lot of things like showing why the Bible is true and reliable and not just like any other religious or cult book.

What makes you think that presuppositionalists skip over things?

I still think we need to show unbelievers why the Bible is more accurate and reliable than any other cult or religious book.

Of course we do. This is called supportive evidence. And as a presuppositionalists, I am all for it.

In the end arguments don't persuade. They may support or strengthen the Christian position. They may tear down or put holes in non-believers arguments. People come to Christ because they see a glaring need in their life. A spiritual issue that must be dealt with. Presuppositionalism is at the heart of showing the lost how faulty, hollow and meaningless their own worldview is for answering these essentials. How did we get here? Why are we here? And, what happens after you die? A person can not rightly embrace the Christian worldview until they realize the futility of their own worldview. All the evidential arguments do not convey to a person why they need Christ. The personal issue of sin, a holy God, the power of salvation, and a faith that is certain and sure.

IMO, this is why we see so many evidentialists Christians falling off the faith wagon. They've come bases on a preponderance of evidence, and not in truth and power.

[derrick09]

Good point, btw, don't you like the changes I made to my profile? Pretty epic heh?

I like the profile pic but to be honest those fluttering flags are much too distracting when reading your posts.

Ok, how's this? Is this much better? I bet IT IS much better!

[derrick09]

the only thing that I"m concerned about is when apologists who use the presuppositional method to skip over a lot of things like showing why the Bible is true and reliable and not just like any other religious or cult book.

What makes you think that presuppositionalists skip over things?

I still think we need to show unbelievers why the Bible is more accurate and reliable than any other cult or religious book.

Of course we do. This is called supportive evidence. And as a presuppositionalists, I am all for it.

In the end arguments don't persuade. They may support or strengthen the Christian position. They may tear down or put holes in non-believers arguments. People come to Christ because they see a glaring need in their life. A spiritual issue that must be dealt with. Presuppositionalism is at the heart of showing the lost how faulty, hollow and meaningless their own worldview is for answering these essentials. How did we get here? Why are we here? And, what happens after you die? A person can not rightly embrace the Christian worldview until they realize the futility of their own worldview. All the evidential arguments do not convey to a person why they need Christ. The personal issue of sin, a holy God, the power of salvation, and a faith that is certain and sure.


IMO, this is why we see so many evidentialists Christians falling off the faith wagon. They've come bases on a preponderance of evidence, and not in truth and power.

Ok, about presuppositionalists skipping over things. Well I think that many of them would mostly because of the presuppositions that they themselves hold and the presuppositions that they think others hold which depending upon the person may or may not be the case. Coming into a discussion with a unbeliever thinking that they may see everything with evolutionary colored glasses may or may not really be the case. Some unbelievers do have that while others not so much. Some unbelievers may not believe in Christian Theism either due to evolution or others may not believe due to the problem of evil or some other issue or issues.


This falling off the faith wagon thing, are you saying that evidentialist Christians are turning away from Christianity and becoming atheists or agnostics or are you saying that evidentialist Christians are not holding to a blind or emotional type faith? The kind of faith that more traditional, 20th century, run of the mill, and average church going believers consider to be a virtue or a good thing.

[Sudsy]

From original thread post -

Now then, I'm scared that many Christians who swear by presuppositional apologetics may misuse it in such a way and almost use it as an excuse for not giving good reasons (whether it be scientific, historical or philosophical evidences and arguments) for their belief. I'm nervous that it could also lead to circular reasoning such as in this example...

I guess I'm a believer in getting permission from an unbeliever to hear the Gospel message regardless of what their worldview is. I believe when the Gospel message is presented in a quite straightforward and simple form, the Holy Spirit goes to work convicting the person of their sin and need for a Saviour. It is not a matter of how high of an I.Q. a christian has that determines how effective they will be at leading someone to Christ but rather how they are lead by the Holy Spirit in presenting the Gospel message and how God enables the listener to respond. With God all things are possible. Anyone with any worldview can be saved.

My reason for my belief is that I have been convinced by the Holy Spirit that I am a sinner and if I want the gift of eternal life I must turn away from sin and trust in a righteousness that God has provided through Christ. What concerns me more is that the simple Gospel message is not getting out and I am one that fails to deliver it when I could. But when I have talked to people regarding their hope after death, most refer to trusting that their good works will outweigh their bad. They have not heard the Gospel either because it has not been shared in a straightforward manner or they have not allowed the Holy Spirit to convict them of it's truth.

I have seen new converts, using a most simple explanation of the Gospel, lead people to Christ. Myself, I have taken various 'soul-winning' courses and have concluded that we make things much too complicated and do not rely enough on the fact that it takes a miracle of grace to save anyone. Scripture says that unless the Holy Spirit opens one's spiritual eyes, the preaching of the cross is foolishness to those who perish. We need to let go of pride and accept that we will be regarded as fools by the reasonings of the world. My father thought my mom had lost her mind when she was first born again but 2 years later, he too experienced salvation through the miraculous work of the Holy Spirit.

At some point, as lead by the Holy Spirit, I believe we 'wipe our feet and move on' instead of going in circles with human reasonings. The Holy Spirit may provide us with arguments to break down certain strongholds but we, through our own reasonings and arguments, are encapable of saving anyone.

Anyway, thats my 2 cents.