What stronger form of the argument? That we must presuppose the Trinitarian Christian theistic worldview in totality to make sense out of the world? As an argument yeah this is rubbish. I tend to think that Van Til meant this statement as a methodolical one. That in our method we presuppose the entirety of Christian worldview when engaging the unbeliever, but in our actual arguments of course we don't say every time, whatever the issue is, "you must presuppose Christian theism as a whole propositionaly" to make sense out science or ethics. That's not what Van Til meant. For instance he used the trinity as a doctrine to try to solve the one and the many problem in philosophy. So he used one major doctrine to "solve" one major problem as a method.
If I may, I'll jump in briefly, simply because I think Jacob's point is being missed.
Well as far as Foucalt goes the only interesting thing is his analysis of power structures in society. He sort of stops asking things like, not completly, what is the best way to cure madness (the other) to why are even trying to do it to begin with? Of course he's not advocating letting them roam free only pointing out various historical ways that we viewed and based on that view treated the mentally ill.
I completely agree, if it's simply warrant we're talking about for certain types of beliefs. I completely agree. When I was I married and someone could have asked me to prove that my wife at the time wasn't cheating on me because after all im not with her a 100% of time? I would have simply asked "can you give some reason to doubt that"? If no than i have complete warrant to not believe the statement. That fine and true but the warrant system can't work for all questions, like in what world (Christian, Muslim, Buddhist) does warrant epistemology even make sense?
I agree that only the Christian system can account for all facts. However, accounting for facts and knowing facts are not the same thing. Van Tillian epistemology says that they are the same thing ("How do you know that?" "You can't know that.").
Sort of. Remember Van Til us proposing a method of doing apologetics. That is of providing a rational defense of the faith. My point about the truth of Christian theism is a first step in building a method of apologetics.
Van Til is not merely positing an apologetic. He's also positing an epistemology, correct? The two are related but distinct. Van Til categorically rejected Scottish common sense realism, which is essentially proper function epistemology.
Yes but all within the context of an apologetical method. Yes there is an epistemology and I don't see an essential problem with mixing Plantinga and Van Til, an awkward. I don't see them as mutually exclusive just different.
I meant proper function in an epistemological sense. The point being is that any epistemology presupposes certain things to be true just to work.
'Proper function' in the epistemological sense relates to the proper function of our epistemological equipment. Clearly, rocks have no epistemological equipment (intellect, senses, etc.). That's what I understood you to be saying. The reliability of properly functioning epistemological equipment is self-evident; we can't know anything any other way.
Sure. My point was in a logical sense proper functioning cognitive faculties presupposes a being that possess these. It couldn't be otherwise. My point is that no one can get away from pressupossiton, so why not use a method that roots out and critiques these pressupossiton? We can use Plantinga all day long, and I do. I just supplement him Van Til.
True by why not use method designed to root and critique these pressupossiton? Everyone agrees in pressupossiton, why can't there be a method to deal with that?
Sure--what you're describing is basically foundationalism. Beliefs are founded upon (i.e, presuppose) other beliefs, until you get down to the foundation of properly basic beliefs--apart from which, beliefs are groundless. That's the traditional Scottish realist position (which Van Til eschewed).
Well foundationalsm, as I understand it has nothing to do, logically, with pressupossiton, different logical forms. But nether less different.
Ultimate defeating. It's the logical form that matters.
I'm not sure I understand. Can you please explain the 'logical forms' part?
Basic belief = some irrefutable belief that cannot be doubted, I exist for instance.
I'm using the metaphor because I don't like foundationalsm. I also regect coherentism. I've given the logical forms above. Plus I'm very skeptical of theories of truth outside of God's revelation, general and special ( not a Clarkian).
Are we to presuppose that? How can we have certainty if that?
