Presuppositional apologetics method...

[musician]

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.

This is what I love about antitheists going about "debunking" everything, as it is basically an admission that they set out to find and support one conclusion.

- Nathan

[Noah1201]

Could someone expand on this a bit more. . .? OK, they begin their "apology" for Christianity with the presupposition that the Bible is true. That much I get. So how exactly can this kind of reasoning ever be convincing to an unbeliver with a critical mindset?

[August]

Could someone expand on this a bit more. . .? OK, they begin their "apology" for Christianity with the presupposition that the Bible is true. That much I get. So how exactly can this kind of reasoning ever be convincing to an unbeliver with a critical mindset?

You are mistaken in your assumption, as are many about what a presuppositional apologetic is. The presupposition is that all knowledge is from God, and is revealed through general and special revelation..nature and the Bible. Ultimately everyone brings presuppositions, believers and unbelievers, and in these types of discussions, the two sets of presuppositions are compared for logical consistency in the absence of the mythical neutral middle ground.

In the discussion, ontology, epistemology and ethics are normally touched on, in a framework of the transcendental and immaterial. The atheist cannot account for that, nor can he propose to know anything without being viciously circular.

The outcome resolves around the impossibility of the contrary, i.e. it is impossible for God not to exist.

In practice, these debates don't get very far, since the unbeliever cannot account for his worldview and presuppositions, and has to borrow from the Christian worldview to enter the argument.

PS: There is no "apology" for Christianity. Apologetics means defense of the faith, or providing reasons to believe and have hope. Nor is it intended to be convincing to an unbeliever, as nothing convinces unbelievers but the Spirit.

[jlay]

Great explanation.

It has already been pointed out that just because we accept a circular argument, doesn't mean this is the way we present our case. I would not, as a rule, present a circular argument to an unbeliever, wipe my hands and say, "OK, done!" Although this seems to be what many are thinking.

The problem with a purely evidential approach is the fallacy of nuetral ground. How many times have we heard someone say, "All you have to do is prove to me that God exist, without ever using the bible."
What they are doing is asking you to abandon your beliefs and step into nuetral territory. The problem is that they are unwilling to do the same. You see, they believe they are nuetral. And thus it is quite easy for those who "supress the truth in unrighteousness" to dismiss probabilities and non-biblical evidence. You see the pure evidentialist believer makes the mistake of thinking the unbelievers mind is all that is necessary to know God. "They just don't have enough evidence." The unbeliever thinks that God should be evident through reason, uniformity, logic, and science. The problem is that they have no basis as to why science, uniformity, logic, and reason are appropriate to understand anything. Why can we trust the laws of science? Logic? Reason? Uniformity? They will say they are valid, but have no case for "why" they are valid. Yet, there entire worldview hinges on them being true. They are tresspassing on the Christian worldview to condemn it.

The Christian knows why.
For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities-- all things have been created through Him and for Him.
He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. Col 1:16-17

"in whom (God & Christ) are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge." Col 2:3

It is quite a powerful argument when you really understand it. The unbeliever is being contradcitory to appeal to reason, logic, science, or uniformity.

[August]

Evidentialism fails as an apologetic for the same reason that it fails for atheism. It is inductive by nature...i.e. reaching conclusions based on contingent premises. In addition, conclusions in an inductive argument can never be absolute truth, precisely because the premises are not necessarily true, just contingently true. That is why we hear atheists crowing all the time about Christians having to show "evidence" for the existence of God, and rejecting it...(Evidence doesn't really matter to them anyhow, they will not worship God even if they see evidence, as they regard God as unworthy of worship)

This is why we have endless debates about origins, evolution, history etc. Evidence that is put forward as a premise in an inductive argument can only ever be partial evidence, unless one can prove without any doubt that all evidence, in all places, and at all times have been examined and show exactly the same result. Ludicrous, of course. For example, if one says that all swans are white, it takes just one that isn't white to falsify the argument.

The presuppositional method is deductive by its very nature, starting with premises that are necessarily true, leading to a necessarily true conclusion.

[jlay]

August.

Sounds like you have done your homework on why this is your apologetic platform. Do you have any materials that focus on the presuppositional method that you would recommend?

[Seraph]

When making an arguement from evidence, an intellegent person will never say "based on the evidence observed, all swans are white" because they realize that the evidence itself could be faulty and there might be a black swan out there. They will usually say "based on the evidence observed, it is most likely that all swans are white". That is the best anyone can do when attempting to discover truth, no one can know anything with 100% absolute certainty. Nothing you believe is necessarily true.

In explanations of presuppositional apologetics, I see a lot of attempts to prove that arguements from evidence are faulty, but I never really hear arguements for why arguements from presuppositions are not. How may I ask, are a presuppositionalist's premises necessarily true? How do you know that they are necessarily true?

[August]

August.

Sounds like you have done your homework on why this is your apologetic platform. Do you have any materials that focus on the presuppositional method that you would recommend?

jlay, it depends where you are at in terms of understanding Christian philosophy. From what you have previously said, I would guess that you are not a complete novice. I would recommend starting with Van Til's "The Defense of the Faith" and "Christian Apologetics". I would follow that with Greg Bahnsen's "Van Til's Apologetic". That gives a solid basis for then following it with John Frame's works.

A word of advice though...as a dispensationalist you may not always find the theology to your liking. The fathers of presupposition apologetics were all thoroughly Calvinist in their beliefs.

[August]

Seraph, I don't know your background so I don't want to patronize you in any way. But I have to ask whether you are familiar with philosophy, and specifically Christian philosophy, as presuppostional apologetics are very heavily steeped in that, and requires an understanding of terms and definitions. This is not meant to be a personal attack in any way, just establishing where you are in terms of understanding.

When making an arguement from evidence, an intellegent person will never say "based on the evidence observed, all swans are white" because they realize that the evidence itself could be faulty and there might be a black swan out there. They will usually say "based on the evidence observed, it is most likely that all swans are white".

Sure, if your argument is an inductive argument, like most arguments are.

That is the best anyone can do when attempting to discover truth, no one can know anything with 100% absolute certainty.

Do you know that with 100% absolute certainty? It is a self-defeating statement. If you cannot know that it is 100% true, then why should anyone believe you?

Nothing you believe is necessarily true.

Hmm. I think that you may need to rethink that statement. 2+2=4? Remember that I spoke of contingent truth, like we saw in the swan example, and in all of the cases where what we observe can approach absolute truth, but never absolutely conclude it.

However, there are non-contingent truths, like the laws of logic. They are necessarily, absolutely and transcendentally true. There are three basic laws of logic which cannot be falsified: The Law of Identity, The Law of Non-Contradiction and The Law of the Excluded Middle. The fourth law is that of rationality, or logical inference, and it follows the other three.

In explanations of presuppositional apologetics, I see a lot of attempts to prove that arguements from evidence are faulty

This is not true, and in some cases we do need to rely on arguments from evidence. We just need to use the right tool for the right job. A good example is the incarnation, death and resurrection of Christ, where the preponderance of evidence shows that a man such as Jesus lived, was crucified and rose again. There is no other way to arrive at that but by relying on the evidence before us.

Each school of apologetics has its place in the Christian arsenal. The establishment of the existence of God is better done with the presuppositional method, as it gets down to the very basis of thought and reasoning, upon which everyone, including the atheist, relies. Once that is established, then classical and evidential apologetics are extremely valuable in their own right, and serves to defend the faith vigorously and effectively.

The contention is that one needs to account for one's presuppositions, i.e. worldview, first, before one can venture to trust the outcome of one's cognitive and reasoning faculties. Surely that is properly basic, and precedes any use of the assumptions in a worldview prior to contending for evidence or arguments based on it?

but I never really hear arguements for why arguements from presuppositions are not.

I'm not sure I understand your question. Like I mentioned before, the pinnacle is the impossibility of the contrary. If we go back to what I mentioned before, that there are absolute and transcendental truths, such as a the laws of logic, which can only be accounted for by a mind that is absolute and transcendental, and in no other way, then it is impossible for the opposite to be true (as per the law of non-contradiction). In the atheist worldview there is no way to account for absolute transcendental truths, so it is impossible for God not to exist.

That is not to say that the non-believer does not try to account for such, but his arguments are logically inconsistent, a little like your own self-defeating statement earlier. They cannot get away from vicious circularity when trying to account for absolute truths. They may then do as you do, and deny the existence of absolute truths, in which case no-one has any reason to believe them for statements that intend to convey absolute truth.

How may I ask, are a presuppositionalist's premises necessarily true? How do you know that they are necessarily true?

The premises in a deductive argument are taken to be so strong that it guarantees the truth of the conclusion. That essentially makes the premises necessarily true. The truth is self-evident, like we see in the laws of logic, for example.

We can see this in an example:
1. All persons are mortal
2. Seraph is a person
therefore Seraph is mortal

In the end, when discussing the existence of God, we must assume something to start with. The atheist assumes there is no God, and proceeds to develop his argument from there, just as the Christian believes there is a God and develops his argument from that worldview.

If we proceed from here, it may get a little bit more hairy as we need to then delve into ontology and epistemology.

[jlay]

Thanks August. Not too worried, as I've got my copy of the Westminster Confession on my desk, and I admire many a Calvin scholar such as RC Sproul. Obviously we do have some differences on key theological positions. But at the end of the day we must let the bible shape our theology and not vice versa. I've had a great many teacher, some Calvanists, some Armenianists, some dispensationalists. At this time in my life I am interested in further training my mind in the areas of philosophy, logic and reason. I have to admit I am no philosophizer I've made a couple attempts to tackle this (philosophy) on more than one occassion, but I just haven't committed myself. Our old buddy Jac had hooked me up with some sources.

To date all the presuppositional materials I've studied don't appear to have a particular slant in this regard. At least not that I have noticed. Nor have i crossed anything that would conflict with, or exclude one of these worldviews. To be honest, I have never thought of presuppositional apologetics as being directly tied to Calvinism, Dispensationalism, Armenianism, per se. Besides, there are some areas i do not tow the dispensational party line. But I do find it the most consistent having come from a Calvanistic and Armenian influence the majority of my life. Obviously, these issues may come up in these materials. I am curious since you mentioned it. Do you see the presuppositional position as less compatible or more compatible with one or the other? And if so, why?

I gave a personal explanation of predestination on another thread just recently. Naturally from a non-calvanistic worldview. I would also be curious, since you brought it up, to hear your own. The reason i ask is I have heard many variants within Calvinism. Some that even seem to be at odds. I've always admired RC Sproul's explanations.

When making an arguement from evidence, an intellegent person will never say....

Sadly, intelligent people make errors in reasoning and logic all the time. We all do. In fact some errors have become so common they are regularly overlooked. There wouldn't be text books on spotting logical fallacies unless they were prevelant. Dawkins and Hitches are great examples. I have no doubt these guys are very intelligent. You could write a book just on their fallacious reasoning.

[Echoside]

The problem with a purely evidential approach is the fallacy of nuetral ground. How many times have we heard someone say, "All you have to do is prove to me that God exist, without ever using the bible."

What they are doing is asking you to abandon your beliefs and step into nuetral territory. The problem is that they are unwilling to do the same. You see, they believe they are nuetral. And thus it is quite easy for those who "supress the truth in unrighteousness" to dismiss probabilities and non-biblical evidence. You see the pure evidentialist believer makes the mistake of thinking the unbelievers mind is all that is necessary to know God. "They just don't have enough evidence." The unbeliever thinks that God should be evident through reason, uniformity, logic, and science. The problem is that they have no basis as to why science, uniformity, logic, and reason are appropriate to understand anything. Why can we trust the laws of science? Logic? Reason? Uniformity? They will say they are valid, but have no case for "why" they are valid. Yet, there entire worldview hinges on them being true. They are tresspassing on the Christian worldview to condemn it.

I'm sure any honest person would say something more along the lines of "All you have to do is show me that God could reasonably exist, without ever using the bible." I don't need a proof to further investigate the matter.

I'm kind of confused as to what you mean here though. While if you reduce science to a more philosphical definition maybe not, but reason and logic? Are you denying that that the concept of God is logical?

It feels like you are saying hey we can't really know anything, let's just go believe in whatever since there is no reason to believe logic works, 2+2=4, or that a belief can be reasonably examined. How is an unbeliever supposed to come to God if they cannot test if Christianity has a solid foundation in truth and reason?

[August]

Do you see the presuppositional position as less compatible or more compatible with one or the other? And if so, why?

The whole philosophy behind presuppositional apologetics is built on reformed theology, and even more so, vice versa...the absolute sovereignty of God and the depravity of man is in contrast to the Arminian view of autonomous man, and the resulting contingent God. If we wish to posit that God is ultimately sovereign and necessary, so as to establish the structured environment in which the universe exists, and which is what we argue for with a Christian worldview using transcendental examples, then man cannot be autonomous in terms of God's counsel. Van Til actually spends a lot of his book, The Defense of the Faith, on this topic.

I am glad that you touched on this point, actually. It demonstrates, to me at least, that one cannot consistently hold to a Christian worldview and not also hold to reformed theology. There is of course a whole lot of scholarship behind that statement, by some theological giants.

I'm not sure this completely answers what you asked, but let's discuss more.

I gave a personal explanation of predestination on another thread just recently. Naturally from a non-calvanistic worldview. I would also be curious, since you brought it up, to hear your own. The reason i ask is I have heard many variants within Calvinism. Some that even seem to be at odds. I've always admired RC Sproul's explanations.

RC is pretty solid, yes. I will have to go read what you wrote elsewhere. What is the thread? My personal view is pretty simple...Eph 1 and how it is explained in WCF XI. If there are specific nuances that you are interested in we can discuss.

[Noah1201]

Could someone expand on this a bit more. . .? OK, they begin their "apology" for Christianity with the presupposition that the Bible is true. That much I get. So how exactly can this kind of reasoning ever be convincing to an unbeliver with a critical mindset?

You are mistaken in your assumption, as are many about what a presuppositional apologetic is. The presupposition is that all knowledge is from God, and is revealed through general and special revelation..nature and the Bible. Ultimately everyone brings presuppositions, believers and unbelievers, and in these types of discussions, the two sets of presuppositions are compared for logical consistency in the absence of the mythical neutral middle ground.

In the discussion, ontology, epistemology and ethics are normally touched on, in a framework of the transcendental and immaterial. The atheist cannot account for that, nor can he propose to know anything without being viciously circular.

The outcome resolves around the impossibility of the contrary, i.e. it is impossible for God not to exist.

In practice, these debates don't get very far, since the unbeliever cannot account for his worldview and presuppositions, and has to borrow from the Christian worldview to enter the argument.

PS: There is no "apology" for Christianity. Apologetics means defense of the faith, or providing reasons to believe and have hope. Nor is it intended to be convincing to an unbeliever, as nothing convinces unbelievers but the Spirit.

For the sake of argument, I will agree that the atheist cannot account for the existence of reason, laws of logic, etc. However, by "unbeliever", I did not necessarily mean "atheist".

It seems to me that the Jew, the Muslim, or the deist could make precisely the same argument. Or, to frame my question better, is the Christian presuppositionalist's presupposition about the truth of Christianity arbitrary, in which case, no better than any other religion, or not?

[jlay]

The whole philosophy behind presuppositional apologetics is built on reformed theology, and even more so, vice versa...the absolute sovereignty of God and the depravity of man is in contrast to the Arminian view of autonomous man, and the resulting contingent God.

I do understand the differences in those views regarding Arm and Cal. But I don't see how that translates to the issue of presuppositionalism. Obviously, not being an Arminianist I won't defend. But I don't think you can look at the autonomy issue seperate from their view of prevenient grace. Quite essential.
Let's boil it down. Why should I adhere to presuppositional or evidential? Scripturally, I conclude that we are commanded to think the thoughts of God. "Let this mind that is in Christ, be in you.." When one adheres to reformed theology, Armenianism, etc. they are holding to a creed or doctrinal statement. At least as far as I have determined. And with all doctrinal statements, the devil is in the details. (no pun inteneded) Naturally I would expect you to respond that Calvinism is thinking the thoughts of God. If presuppositional is the God way, then it was the way eternally, and long before TULIP or any other doctrinal statement went into effect. And long before the 16th century. I'd have to obviously study the materials you referenced, but I don't see the reality that Reformed Theologists sculpted the basis of presuppositional apologetics as making it the right way. It is either right or it isn't. Otherwise, isn't it a circular argument?

It demonstrates, to me at least, that one cannot consistently hold to a Christian worldview and not also hold to reformed theology.

August, at the end of the day couldn't anyone make this statement? It demonstrates, to me at least, that one cannot consistently hold to a Christian worldview and not also hold to dispensational theology.

If we wish to posit that God is ultimately sovereign and necessary, so as to establish the structured environment in which the universe exists, and which is what we argue for with a Christian worldview using transcendental examples, then man cannot be autonomous in terms of God's counsel.

Obviously, autonomy is the prevailing issue here. And I understand the debate between Arm and Cal. And without going into a lengthy discussion, I fail to see how God's soveriegnty, the transcendental truths of uniformity, science, reason, logic are imcompatible apart from a reformed theology.

Also, I just finished a in-depth study of Ephesians, and for the life of me I just do not come away with a reformed view. Here is my post on predestination.

Is a beleiver's life predestined by god ?

Let's say I set before you two doors. A blue one and a red one. You have only one chance to pick which door. If one chooses the blue door, he will be rewarded with the finest banquet feast. If one chooses the red, he will be met with nothing but rotten apples. Let's even say, that I inform everyone who will be selecting what is awaiting them behind each door. But they are completely dependent on my testimony.

Who has predestined the outcome? I have. I have chosen what is behind each door.
So who will receive the banquet? Those who choose the blue door. Who will receive the rotten fruit? Those who choose the red door.

Have I determined their life? Not exactly. But I have chosen who will receive the banquet feast. Even if I explain the options to them, it is still my choice who receives the banquet. And my choice is only those who select the blue door. And since they must rely on my testimony as to what lies behind each door, I will choose those who have faith in me. Those who select the blue door are pre-destined to receive a banquet, according to my choice.I will add, Who is destined for rotten apples? Those who select the red door.

[August]

For the sake of argument, I will agree that the atheist cannot account for the existence of reason, laws of logic, etc. However, by "unbeliever", I did not necessarily mean "atheist".

It seems to me that the Jew, the Muslim, or the deist could make precisely the same argument. Or, to frame my question better, is the Christian presuppositionalist's presupposition about the truth of Christianity arbitrary, in which case, no better than any other religion, or not?

Noah, that is a great question. Fundamentally, the Christian God differs from all other gods.

The deist can be eliminated: One of the presuppositions that we hold to is the thinking of God's thoughts after him, accepting the authority necessary to make moral decisions and make the world intelligible, which requires a personal God, a God that reveals grace, wisdom and knowledge through Scripture and verified with personal Spiritual interaction. That is the position we take to start with, and which we defend in a presuppositional apologetic. The deist cannot logically hold that position. He may well argue for other elements, but ultimately cannot account for a consistent epistemology.

I of course do not believe that there is any reason to see Islam as valid. The origins and nature of its scriptures are too questionable. For the sake of argument though, for the Muslim wanting to use a similar argument, the problem arises from both the revelation and ontology of Allah. The revelation is at least partly, and affirmed internally, inspired by evil (the satanic verses), which leads one to question why any of the rest of it cannot also be of that nature? Allah is also not ontologically triune, and if we are to believe that we have personal spiritual interaction with a Holy Spirit as well as the grace, leadership and authority of Christ which makes revelation possible and logical, then what Allah is cannot reach it.

As far as the Jew is concerned, of course they are so close to what Christians believe that it is hard to argue that they cannot substantially make the same argument. We have to focus on the role of Christ to find our answer. Paul, in Col 1:15-20 pretty much describes that. In short, what that says, is that Christ has a redemptive-historical role and an eternal ontology which establishes a Christological view of creation. That view is impossible without the incarnation. The Jew may reject that out of hand, of course, but does so at the risk of undermining a future incarnation.

The Christological view of creation is essential when we establish a Christian philosophy which is firmly grounded in the doctrines of grace, and describes the eternal and temporal aspects of reality.

In closing, we have spoken about the method here, but no-one has really mentioned what the basic presuppositions are that we are using. I will do that later, when I have some time.