difference between Evidential and Presuppositionalism

[panta dokimazete]

It seems that Rev. Winzer is saying something similar to Kant saying that the Ontological argument is the most basic; if it does not work, then do not worry about other kinds of arguments.

Sort of. I just think it is dishonest to speak of human rationality making ultimate truth claims when ultimate truth itself cannot be proven to exist without an Ultimate Rationality to verify it. Why should anyone care what human reason proves? Who died and made Reason king? Without the God of truth reason is nothing more than a chemical soup discharging an electric flash.

 

[Cheshire Cat]

To restate the arguments you haven't responded to above, "when we ask someone to use their reasoning ability when it comes to some text that allegedly shows that Reformed claims are true, does that mean "man is the master of rationality"? In other words, when we have exegetical debates, are we saying "man is the ultimate reference point"? If not, why not? What is the relevant difference?

The difference is that the text of Scripture is understood by all to be authoritative. What is says, God says, and what God says is final. There is a presupposition that God has spoken and we must submit.

I realized you might respond with this, which is why right below the paragraph you quoted, I stated, "Suppose an unbeliever has a mental block holding him back from professing faith due to his belief that the bible teaches he has libertarian free will and that nature is therefore indeterminate. Suppose he thinks this irrational and says he can't believe the Bible. Couldn't I go to the Bible and show him that the Bible does not teach libertarianism & indeterminism? And since he's an unbeliever at the time, he's not granting authority. So, would I be "assuming he's the master?""

Even though it is an exegetical debate, the unbeliever is not granting authority. How do you respond to this?

[In an evidential argument, the reason of man is being appealed to as an authoritative source for determining the issue of God's existence. It is yet to be proved that God exists, and hence human rationality is considered the ultimate authority before which all must bow.

"Authoritative, ultimate authority"...right. Even when one's gives the AFR or TAG we are supposing the unbeliever can reason through the argument, and when giving these arguments, "it has yet to be proved that God exists".

 

[Cheshire Cat]

Is there not an argument at different levels happening here?

Epistemologically, one says that proper reasoning leads to X, while metaphysically, one says that God is the foundation of reasoning, logic, etc.

It seems that Rev. Winzer is saying something similar to Kant saying that the Ontological argument is the most basic; if it does not work, then do not worry about other kinds of arguments.

CT

I don't think it is at different levels. After all, the design argument for God's existence is a metaphysical argument. For some reason, armourbearer seems to put metalogical arguments for God's existence on a pedestal, and if we don't use the metalogical argument first, then we are being "autonomous", "making man's Reason (note the capital 'R' makes for better effect) master", etc.

 

[MW]

I realized you might respond with this, which is why right below the paragraph you quoted, I stated, "Suppose an unbeliever has a mental block holding him back from professing faith due to his belief that the bible teaches he has libertarian free will and that nature is therefore indeterminate. Suppose he thinks this irrational and says he can't believe the Bible. Couldn't I go to the Bible and show him that the Bible does not teach libertarianism & indeterminism? And since he's an unbeliever at the time, he's not granting authority. So, would I be "assuming he's the master?""

Even though it is an exegetical debate, the unbeliever is not granting authority. How do you respond to this?

The unbeliever is stating that he will believe the Bible only on condition that it teaches what is in accord with his reason; hence he is exercising autonomy. When the Bible is accepted as authoritative because of its own self-authenticating witness then the person will believe whatever the Bible teaches, and can then commence the process of understanding by faith, Heb. 11:3.

 

[Cheshire Cat]

It seems that Rev. Winzer is saying something similar to Kant saying that the Ontological argument is the most basic; if it does not work, then do not worry about other kinds of arguments.

Sort of. I just think it is dishonest to speak of human rationality making ultimate truth claims when ultimate truth itself cannot be proven to exist without an Ultimate Rationality to verify it.

Say we grant reasoning processes require God's existence. This would be shown by a metalogical argument for God's existence. Okay, but why do we have to start here in an apologetic dialogue?
You say:

Why should anyone care what human reason proves? Who died and made Reason king?

Because if "human" reason can point us to God's existence, I think we should care about it. In fact, you are using "human" reason right now to argue against me. Btw, who died and made metalogical arguments king?

Without the God of truth reason is nothing more than a chemical soup discharging an electric flash.

As if materialistic naturalism is the only opposing philosophy of Christianity...

 

[MW]

Say we grant reasoning processes require God's existence. This would be shown by a metalogical argument for God's existence. Okay, but why do we have to start here in an apologetic dialogue?

One must use reason in an apologetical dialogue; if the reason being so used does not acknowledge that reason is the gift of God, then it is being used against God. Romans 1:21, "Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened." A biblical apologist should not accredit to natural, fallen reason a neutral integrity which the Bible does not afford it.

 

[MW]

Because if "human" reason can point us to God's existence, I think we should care about it. In fact, you are using "human" reason right now to argue against me. Btw, who died and made metalogical arguments king?

Human reason cannot point us to God's existence because its fallen nature renders it an idol factory. I am using reason informed by Scripture. Jesus died and made His truth king.

 

[Cheshire Cat]

I realized you might respond with this, which is why right below the paragraph you quoted, I stated, "Suppose an unbeliever has a mental block holding him back from professing faith due to his belief that the bible teaches he has libertarian free will and that nature is therefore indeterminate. Suppose he thinks this irrational and says he can't believe the Bible. Couldn't I go to the Bible and show him that the Bible does not teach libertarianism & indeterminism? And since he's an unbeliever at the time, he's not granting authority. So, would I be "assuming he's the master?""

Even though it is an exegetical debate, the unbeliever is not granting authority. How do you respond to this?

The unbeliever is stating that he will believe the Bible only on condition that it teaches what is in accord with his reason; hence he is exercising autonomy. When the Bible is accepted as authoritative because of its own self-authenticating witness then the person will believe whatever the Bible teaches, and can then commence the process of understanding by faith, Heb. 11:3.

So basically you are saying I couldn't go to the Bible and show him that the Bible does not teach libertarianism & indeterminism. That is ridiculous. Instead, I *must* start with TAG or AFR or some metalogical argument. Everytime. Realistically the unbeliever is just going to walk off. Yeah, the TAGster "shut the unbeliever's mouth". Now *that* is what I call doing apologetics...

 

[Cheshire Cat]

Say we grant reasoning processes require God's existence. This would be shown by a metalogical argument for God's existence. Okay, but why do we have to start here in an apologetic dialogue?

One must use reason in an apologetical dialogue; if the reason being so used does not acknowledge that reason is the gift of God, then it is being used against God. Romans 1:21, "Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened." A biblical apologist should not accredit to natural, fallen reason a neutral integrity which the Bible does not afford it.

And it hasn't been shown how a biblical apologist using the design argument is accrediting a neutral integrity to natural, fallen reason.

 

[MW]

So basically you are saying I couldn't go to the Bible and show him that the Bible does not teach libertarianism & indeterminism. That is ridiculous. Instead, I *must* start with TAG or AFR or some metalogical argument. Everytime. Realistically the unbeliever is just going to walk off. Yeah, the TAGster "shut the unbeliever's mouth". Now *that* is what I call doing apologetics...

That is not what I said. I was addressing his natural condition, which you stated was one in which he would not accept the authority of the Bible unless it taught what agreed with his reason. By all means set him straight on what the Bible really teaches; but in doing so you do not address his real problem, which is a refusal to accept the authority of the BIble as divine revelation.

 

[Cheshire Cat]

Because if "human" reason can point us to God's existence, I think we should care about it. In fact, you are using "human" reason right now to argue against me. Btw, who died and made metalogical arguments king?

Human reason cannot point us to God's existence because its fallen nature renders it an idol factory. I am using reason informed by Scripture.

I think CT's point comes into play here. You are conflating epistemic and metaphysical issues. Obviously you grant it can because the unbeliever is using "human" reason when thinking through a metalogical argument such as TAG or the AFR.

Jesus died and made His truth king.

yes...

 

[MW]

And it hasn't been shown how a biblical apologist using the design argument is accrediting a neutral integrity to natural, fallen reason.

As already noted, one might very well use the design argument, and it could be used to great effect to confirm the existence of God. But if it is utilised to "prove" the existence of God -- as evidentiary apologetics employ it as a theistic "proof," noting the title of the thread -- then it is supposing a man who does not yet accept the existence of God can neutrally weigh the facts when the Bible teaches otherwise.

 

[Cheshire Cat]

So basically you are saying I couldn't go to the Bible and show him that the Bible does not teach libertarianism & indeterminism. That is ridiculous. Instead, I *must* start with TAG or AFR or some metalogical argument. Everytime. Realistically the unbeliever is just going to walk off. Yeah, the TAGster "shut the unbeliever's mouth". Now *that* is what I call doing apologetics...

That is not what I said. I was addressing his natural condition, which you stated was one in which he would not accept the authority of the Bible unless it taught what agreed with his reason. By all means set him straight on what the Bible really teaches; but in doing so you do not address his real problem, which is a refusal to accept the authority of the BIble as divine revelation.

If he accepted the authority of the Bible as divine revelation then I wouldn't even need to have the apologetic dialogue in the first place. In setting him straight on what the Bible really teaches, I am supposing his reasoning processes work and are valid, and he can think through the issues. If this isn't making "man the master of Reason", then why is my supposing his reasoning processes work and are valid when using the design argument any different?

 

[MW]

I think CT's point comes into play here. You are conflating epistemic and metaphysical issues.

There is no conflation. You maintain that rationality can "demand" something without presupposing the existence of God. You are making it an ultimate authority, but have no "rational" basis for so doing.

 

[MW]

If he accepted the authority of the Bible as divine revelation then I wouldn't even need to have the apologetic dialogue in the first place. In setting him straight on what the Bible really teaches, I am supposing his reasoning processes work and are valid, and he can think through the issues. If this isn't making "man the master of Reason", then why is my supposing his reasoning processes work and are valid when using the design argument any different?

As already noted (please take note), he is only willing to accept what accords with his own reason; therefore he is making himself (autonomously) the ultimate authority. And this is precisely what happens when an unbeliever considers the design argument. He will accept it only insofar as it is something which accords with his own reason -- idolatry; but then what will happen when you bring him to the Bible and ask him to believe something that does not accord with his own reason, and he must accept it on the basis of divine authority alone? He will reject it, because he has never had his underlying presuppoitions challenged.

 

[Cheshire Cat]

And it hasn't been shown how a biblical apologist using the design argument is accrediting a neutral integrity to natural, fallen reason.

As already noted, one might very well use the design argument, and it could be used to great effect to confirm the existence of God.

I was not aware this is already noted. I was under the impression that it was wrong under any circumstance to use, unless the metalogical argument was used before it.

But if it is utilised to "prove" the existence of God -- as evidentiary apologetics employ it as a theistic "proof," noting the title of the thread -- then it is supposing a man who does not yet accept the existence of God can neutrally weigh the facts when the Bible teaches otherwise.

Practically most philosophers nowadays don't believe in brute facts (e.g. Moreland and Craig don't). It depends on how one defines 'proof', but most view it as an argument for God's existence, and not a proof of the God of Christianity by itself.

 

[Cheshire Cat]

I'm done for the night, i'll respond more tomorrow. Cheers.

 

[MW]

I was not aware this is already noted. I was under the impression that it was wrong under any circumstance to use, unless the metalogical argument was used before it.

In my first post (your response to which initiated this discussion) it was noted that a man might find a watch and deduce a watchmaker. That was granted from the outset. But it was noted that he would still continue to be the master of the facts until such time as the watchmaker revealed himself to the individual.

 

[Cheshire Cat]

I was not aware this is already noted. I was under the impression that it was wrong under any circumstance to use, unless the metalogical argument was used before it.

In my first post (your response to which initiated this discussion) it was noted that a man might find a watch and deduce a watchmaker. That was granted from the outset. But it was noted that he would still continue to be the master of the facts until such time as the watchmaker revealed himself to the individual.

Okay one last comment, ha. Say an unbeliever is pondering TAG and deduces the 'logicmaker'. I guess here we should note that he would still continue to be the "master of the facts" until such time as the 'logicmaker' revealed himself to the individual. So, using TAG on the unbeliever is presupposing the autonomy of man's reason, just like the design argument. Right...

 

[MW]

Okay one last comment, ha. Say an unbeliever is pondering TAG and deduces the 'logicmaker'. I guess here we should note that he would still continue to be the "master of the facts" until such time as the 'logicmaker' revealed himself to the individual. So, using TAG on the unbeliever is presupposing that autonomy of man's reason, just like the design argument. Right...

Helping an individual to use his reason in dependence on God does not in the slightest confirm him in his autonomous claim to the right of human reason. From the outset the apologist is addressing the presupposition which underlies his examination of the evidence that is presented to him. It is an honest approach which makes a man admit what he is and what he is not, and doesn't seek to trick him into believing something which is basically contradictory to his natural enmity against God.

 

[rgreen]

It seems that Rev. Winzer is saying something similar to Kant saying that the Ontological argument is the most basic; if it does not work, then do not worry about other kinds of arguments.

Sort of. I just think it is dishonest to speak of human rationality making ultimate truth claims when ultimate truth itself cannot be proven to exist without an Ultimate Rationality to verify it. Why should anyone care what human reason proves? Who died and made Reason king? Without the God of truth reason is nothing more than a chemical soup discharging an electric flash.

Excellent. Well put.

 

[panta dokimazete]

This is a great discussion - wish I had time to more actively participate!

 

[Cheshire Cat]

Okay one last comment, ha. Say an unbeliever is pondering TAG and deduces the 'logicmaker'. I guess here we should note that he would still continue to be the "master of the facts" until such time as the 'logicmaker' revealed himself to the individual. So, using TAG on the unbeliever is presupposing that autonomy of man's reason, just like the design argument. Right...

Helping an individual to use his reason in dependence on God does not in the slightest confirm him in his autonomous claim to the right of human reason.

Your word choice is clever here, but I think it muddles things. Of course if the unbeliever grants TAG then they grant their use of reason is dependent on God in one sense (as they couldn't reason without him existing), but while thinking through the argument they will only grant the conclusion if it accords with their own thinking. They are *not* granting his "authority" from the outset. Only after the conclusion is proved will they grant the conclusion. Even then this says nothing of their hearts toward God. They could still be at enmity with him. Arguments don't convert people, God does. (Of course God could have people use arguments as the process of means to the end, but I think you grasp my main point).

Presumably, the unbeliever could deduce the 'logicmaker', all the while only accepting it because the conclusion of TAG accords with his own reason. This says nothing as to his heart towards God.

To quote you from a couple posts ago,

As already noted (please take note), he is only willing to accept what accords with his own reason; therefore he is making himself (autonomously) the ultimate authority. And this is precisely what happens when an unbeliever considers the design argument. He will accept it only insofar as it is something which accords with his own reason -- idolatry;

Same with TAG, the unbeliever is only willing to accept the conclusion if it accords with his own reason.

From the outset the apologist is addressing the presupposition which underlies his examination of the evidence that is presented to him.

Yes, this is granted if the apologist is using TAG, AFR, or even arguing against the opponents philosophy (e.g. naturalism).

It is an honest approach which makes a man admit what he is and what he is not, and doesn't seek to trick him into believing something which is basically contradictory to his natural enmity against God.

Just like the design argument is an honest approach which makes a man admit what he is (a creature dependent on his existence by God) and what he is not (primordial ooz or what have you), "and doesn't seek to trick him into believing something which is basically contradictory to his natural enmity against God".

Btw, I understand it is a jump from designer to God, but it is also a jump from 'logicmaker' to God ;-).

 

[MW]

I still fail to see how calling an individual to use his reason as a gift from God is confirming him in his autonomy, and I can easily see how this differs from presenting evidence for the existence of God which allows him to remain the independent arbiter of the facts. From the outset we are calling him to do what Dr. Calvin has so eloquently stated is necessary for the knowledge of God, namely, the knowledge of ourselves: "we cannot seriously aspire to him before we begin to become displeased with ourselves. For what man in all the world would not gladly remain as he is -- what man does not remain as he is -- so long as he does not know himself, that is, while content with his own gifts, and either ignorant or unmindful of his own misery? Accordingly, the knowledge of ourselves not only arouses us to seek God, but also, as it were, leads us by the hand to find him."

The presuppositional approach helps men to know themselves, and therefore is not merely an apologetical approach which prepares for evangelism, but one which has already commenced to evangelise the lost, because it leads the unbeliever by the hand so as to find God. Yes, God converts; but He does so by means. It pleases God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. Apologetic arguments must confront men in their natural condition and show them their misery without God. This applies as equally to their use of reason as in any of the other gifts of God.

 

[Cheshire Cat]

All agree that mere knowledge does not convert. Nor is it a matter of saying sin affects the intellectual ability of man and only the Holy Spirit can convert. The intellectual ability of man is affected morally by sin, not propositionally, so man can know things which pertain to God; and further, when the Holy Spirit converts, He uses intellectual means, and so might use evidential arguments.

The real difference is this: evidential arguments require a starting point which presupposes rationality. Man's rationality is either given by God or possessed autonomously. Where man begins with the belief that he is an independent being and can arrive at facts by a neutral observation of them, the evidence presented to him and the conclusion drawn from it can only reaffirm that presupposition. Hence an evidentialist may in fact be providing the fuel whereby the fire of sinful autonomy is maintained.

I think it is best to go back to your original post I initially responded to. I agree with your first paragraph. I think what you are trying to say in the second paragraph, and correct me if I am wrong, is that the evidential arguments (e.g. the design argument) presuppose man is "an independent being and can arrive at facts by a neutral observation of them. The evidence presented to him and the conclusion drawn from it can only reaffirm that presupposition."

We have to unpack this. For one, it depends on who the design argument is being given to. If it is being used on another believer, it may bolster the other believer's faith. If it is being used on an unbeliever, i'm not sure how it would presuppose man is "an independent being and can arrive at facts by a neutral observation of them". In what sense is 'independent' being used? After all, the conclusion of the design argument is that the unbeliever is designed (created) by God, and therefore is dependent on God for his existence.

Is 'dependent' being used to say that the unbeliever's reasoning faculties are not dependent on God in order to properly function (or even exist)? The design argument itself doesn't even touch on that topic, so it is hard to see how it could presuppose that. It presupposes one can think through the argument and come to the correct conclusion, but just because its starting point isn't at the metalogical level, it doesn't mean the argument makes a value judgment as to the metalogical state of the unbeliever's reasoning faculties one way or the other.

Perhaps you mean the unbeliever's attitude is negative and autonomous in how they think through an argument. They won't accept a conclusion unless it agrees with their concepts of truth, validity, etc (which might be the correct one's, they could be psychologically inconsistent). But of course they will have this attitude whether one presents them with TAG or an evidential argument such as the design argument (depending on how 'design' is defined).

There is no reason in any of these cases to think that evidential arguments such as the design argument presuppose man's autonomy.

 

[MW]

There is no reason in any of these cases to think that evidential arguments such as the design argument presuppose man's autonomy.

In the case of the believer, that is true; hence I say that it is corroborative.

In the case of the unbeliever, his reasoning functions with himself as the ultimate reference point. All that reasoning produces is a reflected image of the self. Any concept of God is by nature idolatrous because the man thinking with reference to himself is making God after his own image. He must be brought to see, first and foremost, that his life is nothing without God. All that is good about his life is the gift of God and all that is bad is the creature's sinful abuse of God's gifts. That is, his rationality must be taught to reason with God as the ultimate reference point.

 

[Cheshire Cat]

In the case of the unbeliever, his reasoning functions with himself as the ultimate reference point.

In TAG, one could *conclude* that the unbeliever's reasoning processes are dependent on God. But the unbeliever isn't going to grant this from the outset. As I have said before, the design argument doesn't start on the metalogical level, but so what? It doesn't make a value judgment one way or the other with respect to the dependence of the reasoning faculties. But it does make a judgment as to whether or not man is designed (created) by God. So God is the ultimate reference point of man's existence, his being designed. It seems you are faulting it with a category mistake. It doesn't even speak on the subject of metalogic.

All that reasoning produces is a reflected image of the self.

Ah, so it produces a personal intelligent and creative being. What a horrible thing to produce!

Any concept of God is by nature idolatrous because the man thinking with reference to himself is making God after his own image.

Really, *any* concept of God? Like a personal creative being. Sounds idolatrous to me.

He must be brought to see, first and foremost, that his life is nothing without God.

Ah, so for example, his existence is dependent on being designed by God.

All that is good about his life is the gift of God and all that is bad is the creature's sinful abuse of God's gifts. That is, his rationality must be taught to reason with God as the ultimate reference point.

That is, he must be taught to understand he was designed by God, and therefore God is the ultimate reference point of his existence.

 

[MW]

All that reasoning produces is a reflected image of the self.

Ah, so it produces a personal intelligent and creative being. What a horrible thing to produce!

Here is something we might be able to work with. Does the design argument in and of itself ONLY produce an intelligent and creative being when it is being understood by a person who only reasons with reference to himself? What happens when this self-referencing individual looks out at creation and sees another form of evidence in the shape of "evil." Now, thinking himself an authority on all things "God," is he not at liberty to use the same process of reasoning to conclude that the Designer of this half-good, half-bad universe is not holy, holy, holy? Of course he is, and the reason is because he is the master of the facts; and what is worse, the Christian apologist has given him good reason to think so, because afterall, by his own reason he has been able to produce an intelligent and creative being.

 

[Cheshire Cat]

Does the design argument in and of itself ONLY produce an intelligent and creative being when it is being understood by a person who only reasons with reference to himself?

I don't follow you on the "reason with reference to himself" part. The design argument in and of itself only produces an intelligent and creative being (designer).

What happens when this self-referencing individual looks out at creation and sees another form of evidence in the shape of "evil."

I don't know about the "self-referencing" part, but for the rest, okay, he sees evil.

Now, thinking himself an authority on all things "God," is he not at liberty to use the same process of reasoning to conclude that the Designer of this half-good, half-bad universe is not holy, holy, holy?

Don't see why he would think himself an authority on all things "God". No, he is not "at liberty to use the same process of reasoning to conclude that the Designer of this half-good, half-bad universe is not holy, holy, holy", because he is not in an epistemic position to make that judgment call.

Of course he is, and the reason is because he is the master of the facts;

No he isn't. In addition, I can make no sense out of the phrase "master of the facts".

and what is worse, the Christian apologist has given him good reason to think so, because afterall, by his own reason he has been able to produce an intelligent and creative being.

Yeah, just like "by his own reason" he has been able to produce the 'logicmaker' from TAG.

 

[MW]

Don't see why he would think himself an authority on all things "God". No, he is not "at liberty to use the same process of reasoning to conclude that the Designer of this half-good, half-bad universe is not holy, holy, holy", because he is not in an epistemic position to make that judgment call.

After the apologist has given him all epistemic confidence to make the judgment call by means of the design argument, why should he now be forbidden from following through on the logic of the design argument and infer something from the evil that is present in the world? In other words,, why should limitations be placed on human rationality only when the results of human rationality fare badly for the apologist, but otherwise they should be given unlimited scope when the conclusion fares well for the apologist?