I feel like presup is mostly pointless

[Ulster Fry]

I would say that, today at least, a philosopher is someone who works or previously worked professionally as a philosopher. They have published in philosophy journals etc. There are many theologians who have a very good grasp of philosophy and who have even written books on philosophy, but that doesn't make one a philosopher.

The thing is, contemporary philosophers of religion such as Plantinga, Swinburne, Van Inwagen, WLC, etc are well respected philosophers in secular academia, even if their views are rejected. Presuppositionalists ought to be able to defend their philosophy at the same level. The fact is that if other Christian philosophers can get a hearing in the biggest universities and have their views taken seriously, then there is no excuse for the presuppositionalists not to be doing the same. It really is quite an irrelevant system in terms of its impact outside of a small subsection of Reformed Christianity. Compare that to something like Reformed epistemology.

 

[Apologia Christou]

If there's no sense than how are you talking?

What's the problem? You see it's possible. We talk in a random world. I don't see why that can not work. Anything can work in a random world. That's the beauty of it.

Are others as smart as Brian Greene or chaos theory on this issue alone?

I don't know.

So its meaning or value you have in mind? What do you value? What has meaning?

I value my beer and my family. But ultimately, that doesn't have any real meaning, only to me personally, due to some chemical reactions that are going on in my head.

 

[jwright82]

Sure. They are. Very few presups today are really using Knudsen. Bahnsen is the big gun, not Knudsen.


I specifically said Frame was a philosopher. Oliphint is trained in philosophy, but I am leaving him aside since much of his stuff is just bad from a Reformed perspective.


I don't dispute that. I grant Edgar is a good thinker, but he is not what people have in mind when they talk about presuppositionalism.


Are you asking a question. Poythress got his PhDs in Math and Theology. He has some good philosophical ideas, but he is primarily a mathematician and New Testament theologian.

Typo about Poythress but he is philosophical in his writings. He wrote a book on it. Doesn't make him right but at least he understands the territory. But Edgar is a presuppositionalist despite your equivicating. Oliphant is good as far as his apologetics goes. I've quoted Knudsen how many times on this forum?

 

[jwright82]

What's the problem? You see it's possible. We talk in a random world. I don't see why that can not work. Anything can work in a random world. That's the beauty of it.



I don't know.



I value my beer and my family. But ultimately, that doesn't have any real meaning, only to me personally, due to some chemical reactions that are going on in my head.

You know well first off being Irish (if the red hair doesn't give it away, my daughter didn't obviously get that) I would love nothing more than to have a beer with you and discuss this. The talking thing id like to focus on, how does language work without some kind of stability in reality? We have to talk stable things right? I don't watch sports but it would be incoherent to say some team won some game that didn't actually win right? So where does this stability come from in a random universe?

 

[Ulster Fry]

For example, here's Stanford's entry on religious epistemology. All the big name Christian philosophers feature. Presuppositionalism doesn't even get a mention. Van Til and his followers don't feature at all in any entry in the Stanford encyclopaedia, and there's an enormous amount of material in Christian philosophy. If it wants to be taken seriously as a philosophy, it needs to be making itself heard here.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/religion-epistemology/#Rel

 

[Apologia Christou]

So where does this stability come from in a random universe?

You think its stable? I think it's random. It just seems stable. As I told you, anything works in a random universe.

You know well first off being Irish (if the red hair doesn't give it away, my daughter didn't obviously get that) I would love nothing more than to have a beer with you and discuss this.

Cheers!

 

[Apologia Christou]

Look, maybe we can stop here, since I think you realise that I can just constantly appeal to my random universe to avoid any difficulty. Anything works here, since there are no rules in randomness.

Now, why can I do this? Am I allowed to do this? I say yes, I am. Why? Because, let's say I answered your first questions in this way:

I'm assuming you believe your making sense right? I mean whats the point otherwise?

Yes, I am making sense.

Also you said we live in a random world, is there anything random about walking out in front of a car or did you just have poor judgment?

No, there is nothing random about that. So maybe the world is orderly afterall.

And then I realise: Hmm, he has a point. Making sense and objective reality imply a God. So there has to be a God. But, since he only assumed his God, I can do the very same thing, and assume a non-God, a random universe where there are no rules, and answer the same questions again, without having any difficulties.

And that's my way out.

 

[jwright82]

You think its stable? I think it's random. It just seems stable. As I told you, anything works in a random universe.



Cheers!

Thank you first off, much appreciated. If its random than how do you go about in life? Something has to be stable or less you'd be dead. You don't seem to want to engage in deeper questions, why's that?

 

[RamistThomist]

That is not Van Til. Stop bringing in internet (whater you want to call them) please its just complicating. I've gone over the TA so many times I don't know what else to say. We judge worldviews by reality and state's of affairs as we experience them. Since CT is true that's the only option that works.

That is Van Til. That's every Van Til book.

 

[jwright82]

Look, maybe we can stop here, since I think you realise that I can just constantly appeal to my random universe to avoid any difficulty. Anything works here, since there are no rules in randomness.

Now, why can I do this? Am I allowed to do this? I say yes, I am. Why? Because, let's say I answered your first questions in this way:



Yes, I am making sense.



No, there is nothing random about that. So maybe the world is orderly afterall.

And then I realise: Hmm, he has a point. Making sense and objective reality imply a God. So there has to be a God. But, since he only assumed his God, I can do the very same thing, and assume a non-God, a random universe where there are no rules, and answer the same questions again, without having any difficulties.

And that's my way out.

Um why? How does no God equal order?

 

[Apologia Christou]

Um why? How does no God equal order?

In my universe, there is no order. Anything is possible here. Come and join me. Your world needs order, my world needs nothing - not even a God.

 

[jwright82]

That is Van Til. That's every Van Til book.

I dont think you understand him then, with all do respect. I have never read a Van Til book that agrees with nor a reputable second source. Your gonna have to give sources.

 

[RamistThomist]

I dont think you understand him then, with all do respect. I have never read a Van Til book that agrees with nor a reputable second source. Your gonna have to give sources.

If I can find the 20 Van Til books I read 17 years ago, I will. But that's the common refrain: no one understands him. Maybe we don't. But if enough people say that about Van Til, the problem might not be on our end.

 

[jwright82]

In my universe, there is no order. Anything is possible here. Come and join me. Your world needs order, my world needs nothing - not even a God.

So you survive on a day to day basis on no order? I know this is hypothetical and your not personally crazy but that viewpoint reeks of mental instability. So at this point for our hypothetical intolocuter I would say you need mental help not apologetical help.

 

[jwright82]

If I can find the 20 Van Til books I read 17 years ago, I will. But that's the common refrain: no one understands him. Maybe we don't. But if enough people say that about Van Til, the problem might not be on our end.

Fair enough. Read the Bahnsen reader, disproves you on the TA. Read Knudsen's "Roots and Branches". Read Edgar's "Reasons of the Heart". Read Frame's book on Van Til. Read "Christian Apologetics" by Van Til. Since I'm referring to bad internet versions of his thinking you support, supposedly, why am I the one who has to get sources? Unless absolutely positively I'm wrong about Van Til's argument than ill get sources.

 

[jwright82]

So you survive on a day to day basis on no order? I know this is hypothetical and your not personally crazy but that viewpoint reeks of mental instability. So at this point for our hypothetical intolocuter I would say you need mental help not apologetical help.

BTW with that person I would probably just be worried about getting them to a hospital.

 

[Apologia Christou]

So you survive on a day to day basis on no order? I know this is hypothetical and your not personally crazy but that viewpoint reeks of mental instability. So at this point for our hypothetical intolocuter I would say you need mental help not apologetical help.

Of course this random worldview is unreasonable and a fantasy. But I can get away with it, and that's all I care about.

Again, the whole point is, that this makes the apologetic of the presuppositionalist of no effect. I don't see how God can make use of that, since it's faulty, as the Atheist in this case shows.

The atheists "arguments" and "answers" can be as unreasonable as it can get, since the very worldview on which he stands and which he is allowed to assume is meaninglessness itself, and so he has no problem here.

 

[Logan]

Again, the whole point is, that this makes the apologetic of the presuppositionalist of no effect. I don't see how God can make use of that, since it's faulty, as the Atheist in this case shows.

As I said way, way back, this is a silly way of invalidating presuppositionalism. An atheist gonna do what an atheist gonna do. He'll respond the same way to classical apologetics but I'd not say that invalidates classical apologetics (I see both as tools of in the apologist's toolbox, so why hate on one?).

An atheist can look at all your evidence and arguments for the existence of God and simply say "I don't accept your premise", or "I believe the first cause was the big bang and nothing you say can dissuade me of that" and leave it at that. Does the atheist in this case show your apologetic is faulty? No, he shows his own heart is faulty.

 

[Apologia Christou]

BTW with that person I would probably just be worried about getting them to a hospital.

You don't have to, since he really isn't that way naturally. But, to picture it out, it's like you are handing him out a bush to hide. He can eclipse your apologetic completely in this way.

You don't have to get him into a hospital, but change your methodology.

 

[Taylor]

I think this article would be of great benefit to this discussion. It is written by my friend Ron DiGiacomo. He is remarkably conversant with the philosophical issues involved in this debate. I strongly encourage everyone to read it carefully.

Along with this article, I think this video will also be helpful:

 

[Apologia Christou]

An atheist gonna do what an atheist gonna do.

Yes, but he is justified by acting this way against the presuppositionalist, but not against the classisist. That's the difference. And if he's justified in doing that, God isn't in your apologetic, since God is perfectly righteous. He cannot judge by faulty methods. He may still work through faulty methods, but he can not judge by it. So why cling on something which is not sound? That's why I left this.

 

[jwright82]

Of course this random worldview is unreasonable and a fantasy. But I can get away with it, and that's all I care about.

Again, the whole point is, that this makes the apologetic of the presuppositionalist of no effect. I don't see how God can make use of that, since it's faulty, as the Atheist in this case shows.

The atheists "arguments" and "answers" can be as unreasonable as it can get, since the very worldview on which he stands and which he is allowed to assume is meaninglessness itself, and so he has no problem here.

Yes but you pointed out without realizing it the limit of your argument. You went to a mentally unstable POV to prove presuppositionalism wrong, that's a bit extreme. Your person is suffering from psychosis, a disconnect from reality. Your hypothetical person needs pills and therapy, not apologetics. I would ask them if they heard voices before I would give them an argument. I do care you know, two of my brothers are mentally unstable.

 

[RamistThomist]

Read the Bahnsen reader, disproves you on the TA.

No, it doesn't.

Since I'm referring to bad internet versions of his thinking you support, supposedly, why am I the one who has to get sources?

Probably because I donated over 600 books from my library and I don't have all the sources I used to.

 

[jwright82]

No, it doesn't.


Probably because I donated over 600 books from my library and I don't have all the sources I used to.

Fair enough, give me a couple of days to come up with quotes. I work realtail so let me see what I can get.

 

[Ulster Fry]

As I said way, way back, this is a silly way of invalidating presuppositionalism. An atheist gonna do what an atheist gonna do. He'll respond the same way to classical apologetics but I'd not say that invalidates classical apologetics (I see both as tools of in the apologist's toolbox, so why hate on one?).

An atheist can look at all your evidence and arguments for the existence of God and simply say "I don't accept your premise", or "I believe the first cause was the big bang and nothing you say can dissuade me of that" and leave it at that. Does the atheist in this case show your apologetic is faulty? No, he shows his own heart is faulty.

I don't think sophisticated philosophical naturalists will argue in the way presented. Most do believe there is order in the universe, but would reject any appeal to some first principle that cannot be empirically demonstrated. And of course there are genuine Platonists, Idealists, etc.

However, you do have to ask yourself why so many atheist philosophers do take seriously the classical arguments for God and engage with them rigorously. There are atheist philosophers of religion who make a career of trying to deal with such arguments (such as Graham Oppy).

In fact pretty much every philosopher worth his salt in history has written fairly extensively on philosophy of religion. I do not see the 'no atheist will engage' mentality at all. I don't see it in my own experience studying philosophy. The philosophy department where I study is mostly naturalistic, but not entirely. There are a few theists, and again their work is taken seriously. In fact the main threat I believe is all the social and political stuff happening behind the scenes.

 

[Ulster Fry]

I think this article would be of great benefit to this discussion. It is written by my friend Ron DiGiacomo. He is remarkably conversant with the philosophical issues involved in this debate. I strongly encourage everyone to read it carefully.

Thank you, I will try and read this when I get the chance and respond. It might take a good few days.

 

[Apologia Christou]

You went to a mentally unstable POV to prove presuppositionalism wrong, that's a bit extreme.

I think I proved the methodology of presuppositionalism wrong. And given the meaningless worldview that I am allowed to assume, nothing is crazy or extreme, since I am acting agreeable to it.

I still think like a presuppositionalist, and quite naturally point out inconsistenties and arbitrariness to my opponents. This thinking somehow sticks, and it's very useful, this is the Bahnsen in me. But I don't establish the Christian worldview with it, since this doesn't work.

 

[jwright82]

If I can find the 20 Van Til books I read 17 years ago, I will. But that's the common refrain: no one understands him. Maybe we don't. But if enough people say that about Van Til, the problem might not be on our end.

Bahnsen reader 496 to 529. The entirety of "Jerusalem and Athens". "Roots and Branches" as I've already mentioned. I would especially look at the essay "The Transcendental Perspective of Westminster Apologetic". And Edgar's book "Reasons of the Heart".

 

[Ulster Fry]

'Classical Apologetics (CA) seeks to establish Theism from nature and unaided reason. If a theistic universe with design, causality and / or morality can be established, then there is a basis for considering evidence for the true and living God who has intervened in history in the Christ event, and in particular through the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. For the classical apologist, a two-step approach is advisable. First, establish theism in general; then, try to prove the resurrection through historical evidence. After all, until one becomes persuaded of the possibility of a Designer, an Unmoved Mover, a Moral Law Giver, or a conception of a “Supremely Perfect” being, he won’t likely be as open to evidence for the resurrection. In other words, before one begins marshaling evidence for God having raised Jesus from the dead, it is advantageous to establish first that there is a god who could possibly have raised Jesus from the dead.'

Had a quick glance, and from the get go this is almost entirely incorrect, I'm afraid, and sets up a straw man from the beginning. You need to read Aquinas' Summa Contra Gentiles, which entirely refutes this. Here are some examples:

'Since, therefore, there exists a twofold truth concerning the divine being, one to which the inquiry of the reason can reach, the other which surpasses the whole ability of the human reason, it is fitting that both of these truths be proposed to man divinely for belief.'

'The investigation of the human reason for the most part has falsity present within it, and this is due partly to the weakness of our intellect in judgment, and partly to the admixture of images. The result is that many, remaining ignorant of the power of demonstration, would hold in doubt those things that have been most truly demonstrated. This would be particularly the case since they see that, among those who are reputed to be wise men, each one teaches his own brand of doctrine. Furthermore, with the many truths that are demonstrated, there sometimes is mingled something that is false, which is not demonstrated but rather asserted on the basis of some probable or sophistical argument, which yet has the credit of being a demonstration. That is why it was necessary that the unshakeable certitude and pure truth concerning divine things should be presented to men by way of faith.'

'Beneficially, therefore, did the divine Mercy provide that it should instruct us to hold by faith even those truths that the human reason is able to investigate. In this way, all men would easily be able to have a share in the knowledge of God, and this without uncertainty and error.'

'No one tends with desire and zeal towards something that is not already known to him. But, as we shall examine later on in this work, men are ordained by the divine Providence towards a higher good than human fragility can experience in the present life. That is why it was necessary for the human mind to be called to something higher than the human reason here and now can reach, so that it would thus learn to desire something and with zeal tend towards something that surpasses the whole state of the present life. This belongs especially to the Christian religion, which in a unique way promises spiritual and eternal goods. And so there are many things proposed to men in it that transcend human sense.'

'It is also necessary that such truth be proposed to men for belief so that they may have a truer knowledge of God. For then only do we know God truly when we believe Him to be above everything that it is possible for man to think about Him; for, as we have shown, the divine substance surpasses the natural knowledge of which man is capable. Hence, by the fact that some things about God are proposed to man that surpass his reason, there is strengthened in man the view that God is something above what he can think.'

'Another benefit that comes from the revelation to men of truths that exceed the reason is the curbing of presumption, which is the mother of error. For there are some who have such a presumptuous opinion of their own ability that they deem themselves able to measure the nature of everything; I mean to say that, in their estimation, everything is true that seems to them so, and everything is false that does not. So that the human mind, therefore, might be freed from this presumption and come to a humble inquiry after truth, it was necessary that some things should be proposed to man by God that would completely surpass his intellect.'

Nothing about 'unaided reason' here. Quite the opposite actually; he argues that we require God to reveal to us the truth of those things our reason can adequately grasp. What Aquinas expresses here should be easily agreeable to presuppositionalists. Those who have not read Aquinas but have received the caricature from the likes of Van Til and his followers have no idea how badly he is misrepresented...

 

[RamistThomist]

'Classical Apologetics (CA) seeks to establish Theism from nature and unaided reason. If a theistic universe with design, causality and / or morality can be established, then there is a basis for considering evidence for the true and living God who has intervened in history in the Christ event, and in particular through the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. For the classical apologist, a two-step approach is advisable. First, establish theism in general; then, try to prove the resurrection through historical evidence. After all, until one becomes persuaded of the possibility of a Designer, an Unmoved Mover, a Moral Law Giver, or a conception of a “Supremely Perfect” being, he won’t likely be as open to evidence for the resurrection. In other words, before one begins marshaling evidence for God having raised Jesus from the dead, it is advantageous to establish first that there is a god who could possibly have raised Jesus from the dead.'

Had a quick glance, and from the get go this is almost entirely incorrect, I'm afraid, and sets up a straw man from the beginning. You need to read Aquinas' Summa Contra Gentiles, which entirely refutes this. Here are some examples:

'Since, therefore, there exists a twofold truth concerning the divine being, one to which the inquiry of the reason can reach, the other which surpasses the whole ability of the human reason, it is fitting that both of these truths be proposed to man divinely for belief.'

'The investigation of the human reason for the most part has falsity present within it, and this is due partly to the weakness of our intellect in judgment, and partly to the admixture of images. The result is that many, remaining ignorant of the power of demonstration, would hold in doubt those things that have been most truly demonstrated. This would be particularly the case since they see that, among those who are reputed to be wise men, each one teaches his own brand of doctrine. Furthermore, with the many truths that are demonstrated, there sometimes is mingled something that is false, which is not demonstrated but rather asserted on the basis of some probable or sophistical argument, which yet has the credit of being a demonstration. That is why it was necessary that the unshakeable certitude and pure truth concerning divine things should be presented to men by way of faith.'

'Beneficially, therefore, did the divine Mercy provide that it should instruct us to hold by faith even those truths that the human reason is able to investigate. In this way, all men would easily be able to have a share in the knowledge of God, and this without uncertainty and error.'

'No one tends with desire and zeal towards something that is not already known to him. But, as we shall examine later on in this work, men are ordained by the divine Providence towards a higher good than human fragility can experience in the present life. That is why it was necessary for the human mind to be called to something higher than the human reason here and now can reach, so that it would thus learn to desire something and with zeal tend towards something that surpasses the whole state of the present life. This belongs especially to the Christian religion, which in a unique way promises spiritual and eternal goods. And so there are many things proposed to men in it that transcend human sense.'

'It is also necessary that such truth be proposed to men for belief so that they may have a truer knowledge of God. For then only do we know God truly when we believe Him to be above everything that it is possible for man to think about Him; for, as we have shown, the divine substance surpasses the natural knowledge of which man is capable. Hence, by the fact that some things about God are proposed to man that surpass his reason, there is strengthened in man the view that God is something above what he can think.'

'Another benefit that comes from the revelation to men of truths that exceed the reason is the curbing of presumption, which is the mother of error. For there are some who have such a presumptuous opinion of their own ability that they deem themselves able to measure the nature of everything; I mean to say that, in their estimation, everything is true that seems to them so, and everything is false that does not. So that the human mind, therefore, might be freed from this presumption and come to a humble inquiry after truth, it was necessary that some things should be proposed to man by God that would completely surpass his intellect.'

Nothing about 'unaided reason' here. Quite the opposite actually; he argues that we require God to reveal to us the truth of those things our reason can adequately grasp. What Aquinas' expresses here should be easily agreeable to presuppositionalists. Those who have not read Aquinas but have received the caricature from the likes of Van Til and his followers have no idea how badly he is misrepresented...

That's why I didn't read the article. I knew some of the background going into it. That author and I have disagreed on Van Til before.