Brian Bosse
"The Brain"
Hello Clark and Ben,
There is a difference between proving the claim "The Christian worldview is necessary for rational inquiry" and what TAG actually does. In practice, TAG takes a particular precondition regarding rational inquiry (for instance: induction), shows how the competing worldview (for instance: atheism) fails to account for this, and shows how Christianity is successful at accounting for it. Based on this, the Christian draws some conclusions. However, the conclusion that Christianity is necessary is not a necessary consequence of this. Rather, the apologetic is inductive in nature - it is falls short of certainty and ends up in the realm of probablilities.
Historically, TAG propponents have highly criticized those apologetic methods that provide "mere probability". In the end, this is all that TAG, itself, provides. (Yes, I know Bahnsen is rolling over in his grave.) Now, I do not hesitate to assert to the unbeliver that Christianity is necessary. In fact, I use TAG to support this claim. I just do not make the claim that TAG proves my assertion with certainty. Here is the main point: The following propositions are not the same...
(1) The Chrisitain worldview is necessary for rational inquiry.
(2) I can prove in an objective certain manner that the Christian worldview is necessary for rational inquiry.
The truth of proposition (1) is grounded in the Christian God, and I have no problem trumpeting this from the house tops. It is not dependent on whether or not I have a proof for it. However, the truth of proposition (2) is dependent on the one making the claim. The apologist loses nothing by affirming (1) and denying (2). In fact, the apologist is not telling a truth when he asserts (2).
Sincerely,
Brian
There is a difference between proving the claim "The Christian worldview is necessary for rational inquiry" and what TAG actually does. In practice, TAG takes a particular precondition regarding rational inquiry (for instance: induction), shows how the competing worldview (for instance: atheism) fails to account for this, and shows how Christianity is successful at accounting for it. Based on this, the Christian draws some conclusions. However, the conclusion that Christianity is necessary is not a necessary consequence of this. Rather, the apologetic is inductive in nature - it is falls short of certainty and ends up in the realm of probablilities.
Historically, TAG propponents have highly criticized those apologetic methods that provide "mere probability". In the end, this is all that TAG, itself, provides. (Yes, I know Bahnsen is rolling over in his grave.) Now, I do not hesitate to assert to the unbeliver that Christianity is necessary. In fact, I use TAG to support this claim. I just do not make the claim that TAG proves my assertion with certainty. Here is the main point: The following propositions are not the same...
(1) The Chrisitain worldview is necessary for rational inquiry.
(2) I can prove in an objective certain manner that the Christian worldview is necessary for rational inquiry.
The truth of proposition (1) is grounded in the Christian God, and I have no problem trumpeting this from the house tops. It is not dependent on whether or not I have a proof for it. However, the truth of proposition (2) is dependent on the one making the claim. The apologist loses nothing by affirming (1) and denying (2). In fact, the apologist is not telling a truth when he asserts (2).
Sincerely,
Brian
Last edited: