I feel like presup is mostly pointless

Status
Not open for further replies.
Phil D. said:
Personally it's hard for me to see how one methodology of apologetics is vastly superior - nay, triumphal over the other, especially in real world interactions where the rubber meets the road. My own conversion experience involved the instrumentality of being challenged by both approaches.
Click to expand...

Here is a thought experiment. Read Turretin, Owen, Charnock, Vermigli, Shedd, and all the others. When you are done reading them, ask, "Does the Reformed tradition consider classical methodology to be good or bad?" The next question is trickier: if we jettison these writers on methodology, does it change their theology?
 
Apologia Christou said:
Could you provide some specific treatments on this very topic? Like articles, chapters, debates or whatever. I would like to know what the response is to this objection.
Click to expand...
Not really off the top of my head. Outside Moore's "Proof of An External World". And then Anscombie gave an analysis of it the G. E. Moore edition of the "Libray of Living Philosophers". Google brain in the vat problem. Strawson's "On Indiduals". Wittgenstein on private language. The problem is the type of skeptical arguments your referring to have been fading out. See Plantinga's Warrent series. With paradigm case arguments its just disappeared.
If the skeptic says "how do you know if the world around exists?" We can ask "can you tell my experience would be different if it were?" They'll always say which means they given no reason to doubt it.
 
jwright82 said:
If the skeptic says "how do you know if the world around exists?"
Click to expand...

Wait, I (considered as an Atheist) don't doubt that the world exists. All I doubt is the interpretation and meaning that you give to the world. I say it exists, but it is ultimately meaningless.

Do these resources adress this?
 
Here are some summaries I provided about Van Til's article about Natural Revelation and Natural Theology fromm The Infallible Word several years back. I think it might help some understand why Van Til (and others) refuse to allow plain "reason" to stand about us and our place in the universe without reference to God. It's not, as has seemed to be argued, that the thinker refuses to use reason and evidence but that he refuses to use those tools as if the thinker is in a place to judge "facts" as if they exist in no relation to the Creator. It may not convince anyone to become a "presuppositionless" but it does seem to play out this way every time I see men committed to reason or philosophy as method and assume that we're all approaching the topic in the same way. I'm not saying, in other words, that believers have to give up reason but that they do need to remind the unbeliever that his use of reason is ultimately blinded by the things he suppresses. Having just completed Death in the City by Schaefer he points out how the humanist or naturalist or unbeliever essentially leaves the deeper things completely off the table and assumes he apprehends reality even as he is using the tools of reason given by the very Creator he is denying and leaving the deeper questions unanswered.

How is natural theology necessary?

Scripture does not claim to speak to man in any other way than in conjunction with nature.[1] God's revelation of Himself in nature combined with His revelation of Himself in Scripture form God's one grand scheme of covenant relationship of Himself with man. The two forms presuppose and complement one another.[2]

It was necessary in the garden as the lower act of obedience learned from avoiding the tree of knowledge of good and evil man might learn the higher things of obedience to God. The natural appeared in the regularity of nature.

After the fall, the natural appears under to curse of God and not merely regular. God's curse on nature is revealed along with regularity. The natural reveals an unalleviated picture of folly and ruin[3] and speaks to the need for a Redeemer.

To the believer the natural or regular with all its complexity always appears as the playground for the process of differentiation which leads ever onward to the fullness of the glory of God.[4]

What is the authority of natural revelation?

The same God who reveals Himself in Scripture is the God who reveals Himself in nature. They are of the same authority even if the former is superior in clarity than the latter. We are analogues to God and our respect for revelation in both spheres must be maintained and it is only when we refuse to act as creatures that we contrast authority between natural and special revelation. What comes to man by his rational and moral nature (created in God's image) is no less objective than what comes to him through the created order as all is in Covenant relationship to God. All created activity is inherently revelational of the nature and will of God.[5]

What is the sufficiency of natural revelation?

It is sufficient to leave men without excuse for their sin and denying the God they know they are created to worship but insufficient at revealing the grace of God in salvation. Natural revelation was never meant to function by itself (as above) but it was historically sufficient as it renders without excuse.[6] God's revelation in nature is sufficient in history to differentiate between those who would and who would not serve God.[7]

What is meant by the perspicuity of natural revelation?

God's revelation in nature was always meant to serve alongside His special revelation. God is a revealing God and the perspicuity of nature is bound up in the fact that He voluntarily reveals. Both natural and special revelation would be impossible if God remained incomprehensible as He is in Himself (archetypal theology). Man cannot penetrate God as He is Himself - he cannot comprehend God. But created man may see clearly what is revealed clearly even if he does not see exhaustively. Man need not have exhaustive knowledge in order to know truly and certainly.[8]

God's thoughts about Himself are self-contained but man is an analogue who thinks in covenant relation to the One who created him. Thus man's interpretation of nature follows what is fully interpreted by God. Man thinks God's thoughts after him - not comprehensively but analogically.

The Psalmist doesn't declare that the heavens possibly or probably declare the glory of God. Paul does not say that the wrath of God is probably revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men. Scripture takes the clarity of God's revelation for granted at every stage of human history.[9] The God who speaks in Scripture cannot refer to anything that is not already authoritatively revelational of Himself for the evidence of His own existence.[10] Everything exists that is His creation.

It is no easier for sinners to accept God in nature than it is for them to accept Him in Scripture. The two are inseparable in their clarity. We need the Holy Spirit to understand both. Man must be a Christian to study nature in a proper frame of mind.

How does Greek natural theology and the natural theology of Kant result in denying any rationality higher than itself?

Neither allow analogical reasoning to understand the world. They start from nature and try to argue for a god who must be finite in nature. It starts with a "mute" universe that has no revelation and makes it revelational only with respect to the autonomous mind of man. No distinction is made between Creator and creature.

Kant's great contribution to philosophy consisted in stressing the activity of the experiencing subject. It is this point to which the idea of a Copernican revolution is usually applied. Kant argued that since it is the thinking subject that itself contributes the categories of universality and necessity, we must not think of these as covering any reality that exists or may exist wholly independent of the human mind. The validity of universals is to be taken as frankly due to a motion and a vote; it is conventional and nothing more.[11]

Plato and Aristotle, as well as Kant, assumed the autonomy of man. On such a basis man may reason univocally (have the same mind as God) and reach a God who is just an extension of the creature or he may reason equivocally and reach a God who has no contact with him at all.[12] Man is left with either God being part of nature (pantheism) or being so transcendent that He cannot get into nature (deism).

We're now left with a world where the scientist supposedly interacts with the physical world and can learn about the world apart from any reference to God and "ministers" who speak about God's revelation that has no reference to history and interaction with the world. Man is fractured intellectually where reason deals with things of the world and faith deals with things that cannot affect reason or the world.

The very idea of Kant's Copernican revolution was that the autonomous mind itself must assume the responsibility for making all factual differentiation and logical validation. To such a mind the God of Christianity cannot speak. Such a mind will hear no voice but its own.[13]


[1] Stonehouse and Woolley, The Infallible Word, New Jersey: P&R Publishing, 1967, p 263.
[2] Ibid, p 267.
[3] Ibid, p 271.
[4] Ibid, p 272.
[5] Ibid, p 274
[6] Ibid, p 275.
[7] Ibid, p 276.
[8] Ibid, p 278.
[9] Ibid, p 278.
[10] Ibid, p 279.
[11] Ibid, p 296.
[12] Ibid, p 297.
[13] Ibid, p 298.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Apologia Christou said:
Wait, I (considered as an Atheist) don't doubt that the world exists. All I doubt is the interpretation and meaning that you give to the world. I say it exists, but it is ultimately meaningless.

Do these resources adress this?
Click to expand...
I referring to extreme skepticism in general. Of which your question. Its a good question its just fall into an extreme skepticism and be to those arguments, employed one of them here.
 
jwright82 said:
Not really off the top of my head. Outside Moore's "Proof of An External World". And then Anscombie gave an analysis of it the G. E. Moore edition of the "Libray of Living Philosophers". Google brain in the vat problem. Strawson's "On Indiduals". Wittgenstein on private language. The problem is the type of skeptical arguments your referring to have been fading out. See Plantinga's Warrent series. With paradigm case arguments its just disappeared.
If the skeptic says "how do you know if the world around exists?" We can ask "can you tell my experience would be different if it were?" They'll always say which means they given no reason to doubt it.
Click to expand...
It's not true at all that the scepticism surrounding perception and reality has been 'solved'. I took an entire module on the Problem of Perception which is still a very lively area of research today. Moore was over a 100 years ago and nobody found his argument convincing (basically, here's my hand, here's my other hand, thus an external world exists). Plantinga's contributions have been excellent, basically improving upon Thomas Reid's work.

Here's Tim Crane's (long) introductory article on the Problem of Perception, covering both its history and the contemporary discussion:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/perception-problem/
 
Okay, I decided to listen to the debate between Sproul and Bahnsen referenced in this thread and took some notes. If I'm honest, I have read very little of either of these men (I read Sproul's What Is Reformed Theology? a few years ago and that is what helped convince me to be Reformed but have read nothing of his apologetics work) so it was interesting to see how much of my own ideas, some of which I've shared here, came out in the debate.
  • I think I read earlier that Bahnsen 'destroyed' Sproul, so I came into the debate expecting something completely different from what actually happened. In fact, I think by the end, Bahnsen was struggling to answer the challenges made to him.
  • Sproul articulates his belief that Van Til and his followers are the most effective apologists in the history of the Church at pointing out flaws on opposing philosophical systems. That is high praise indeed. This also makes sense; figures such as Aquinas and the Reformers predate Enlightenment philosophy, so of course they are going to be limited in giving arguments against later philosophical ideas.
  • Bahnsen is right that when we get to absolute first principles, we run into circularity. But this isn't denied by the naturalist; as I've said before, someone like Quine just rejects first principles and our knowledge of it and sets the boundaries around a purely naturalistic scientific method which is self-justifying. If you claim he can't make sense of his scientific method without God, he will just say that is exactly what he is doing, and that it woks everyday. In fact, he could turn that against the presuppositionalist and claim that if he can do science without direct knowledge of God, which is apparently required in order for logic, mathematics, experimentation etc to function, then that suggests the presuppositionalist is incorrect in his assertion.
  • Bahnsen rejects mediate knowledge in favour of immediate knowledge. But this seems completely contrary to Paul's argument in Romans 1. Romans 1:20 suggests that it is because of the visible things which we perceive, that we make clear inference to God's existence. Basically Bahnsen's argument depends on this immediate, direct knowledge of God that we all have. I think Paul is arguing that it is observation of the creation itself, the natural world, that leaves us without excuse when it comes to acknowledging that there is a God.
  • Bahnsen does not give an adequate account of certainty. He appeals to passages in Scripture that he believes supports his view of absolute certainty, but I agree with Sproul that the biblical authors are likely not using certainty in the logical sense that Bahnsen is suggesting.
Having listened to the debate, I think I've put my finger on the issue with presuppositionalism. The problem for the presuppositionalist is the lack of positive arguments for God. This is what @RamistThomist has said throughout this thread. Here's the thing; presuppositioanlism receives zero attention outside of a narrow stream of Reformed thought. Meanwhile, so-called classical arguments are debated everyday in philosophy departments. There is a reason for this.

When arguing for the existence of God, both parties are largely in agreement with basic rules of logic, i.e. if the argument is valid and the premises are true, the conclusion follows. In arguments for God's existence, therefore, if premises are given that even the naturalist is forced to accept, and which concludes that God exists, then the naturalist has a problem. And this is exactly why they take it seriously - they have to dispute those premises so that they cannot conclude that God exists. That is what leaves them without excuse; if they cannot do so, then they are forced to conclude that God exists. The fact that they will come up with any wild theory to make the premises false is proof that they are in rebellion, but then the apologetic task is complete, it has been demonstrated that they have no feasible explanation to reject God. There's a reason philosophy of religion has exploded in the last 50 years or so.

On the other hand, the presuppositionalist basically forces the opposition to begin with the premise that God exists, which they obviously aren't going to accept. So it immediately falls flat on its face before it gets going. That's why it riles up anyone who doesn't already agree to presuppositionalism. But then how can it be an appropriate apologetic method if all it does is cause opponents to roll their eyes and hate engaging with Christians who use these arguments?

There is a point where the presuppositionalist has to wonder whether it is a good thing that only a small subsection of Christianity (and even within the Reformed camp both pre- and post-Van Til) champions itself as having the ultimate apologetic method, when it has zero impact outside of that small subgroup. I'm not saying this to cause trouble, but this is the reality of the situation and one presuppositionalists ought to consider.
 
This is what I love about such interactions, it really crystallizes the thinking process behind each step and demands justification for it. So maybe one day there will not only be creeds concerning christology but also about apologetic methodology. :cheers:

The last point really sticks with me, that is, that the world does serious thinking and can not simply ignore those arguments for God's existence, perfectly aligning with what Peter says, putting them to open shame.

Is there more debate on this than Bahnsen vs Sproul? The only other debate I am aware of is that between Sye and Dillahunty, which is only somehow similar.
 
Last edited:
Semper Fidelis said:
I think it might help some understand why Van Til (and others) refuse to allow plain "reason" to stand about us and our place in the universe without reference to God. It's not, as has seemed to be argued, that the thinker refuses to use reason and evidence but that he refuses to use those tools as if the thinker is in a place to judge "facts" as if they exist in no relation to the Creator.
Click to expand...

RC Sproul acknowledged all of that decades ago in Classical Apologetics. Thomas Aquinas in SCG rebutted the idea of "unaided reason." God is first in the order of being. But for men, the laws of logic are first in the order of knowing. Before I can even say "God exists," I have to use the law of non-contradiction for that sentence to make sense.

We can appreciate Van Til's reminder to us, perhaps not always understood by CA advocates, of what it means for God to be first in the order of being.
 
RamistThomist said:
RC Sproul acknowledged all of that decades ago in Classical Apologetics. Thomas Aquinas in SCG rebutted the idea of "unaided reason." God is first in the order of being. But for men, the laws of logic are first in the order of knowing. Before I can even say "God exists," I have to use the law of non-contradiction for that sentence to make sense.

We can appreciate Van Til's reminder to us, perhaps not always understood by CA advocates, of what it means for God to be first in the order of being.
Click to expand...
I have a lot of respect and affection for R.C. as he is the reason I understand the Gospel and I appreciated that work.

I'm not advocating for a method (e.g. TAG). Whatever one thinkws of James White, I think he's a good example of someone who considers himself a presuppositionalist but engages with unbelievers on facts ane evidences.

I suppose what I'm identifying is that I think Van Til was critical of the idea that some hold (not necessarily in the Refomred camp) that we're all just looking at the facts in the same way. I don't believe man's faculties are necessarily "fallty" in terms of their ability to use logic and reason, but that their bondage to sin means that they'll always look to use reason in an autonomous way. Natural Revelation, in this sense, is not perspicuous because it always tries to differentiate as if man is in a place to reason with brute facts. I witness so many encounters where some Christians virutally applaus unbelievers for being authentic to what they know and can accept from the facts they discern and that somehow God "honors" their philosophical inquiries even if it leaves them doubting or denying God on the preponderance of the evidece. Some of the most famous Christian apologists also end up inviting people to believe (meaning some motion of the will they conrol) to see that Christianity is the most probable explanation of all things based on the preponderance of the evidence and use of reason and arguments go back and forth with unbelievers along those lines. There is a Pelagian or semi-Pelagian undercurrent to all these things.

It's not that the tools of reason change, per se, but there is a commitment in Van Tillian thought that it's not the tools of logic or reason that are the problem but spirutal life itself. Man, in Adam, cannot get to a true acknowledgement of God even if one were to assent to every single proposition that is logically true about the Creator. The questiion for me is never method, but at what point does anyone simply realize that man's rebellion can only ever be freeed by the Spirit throught the Word.
 
Semper Fidelis said:
I have a lot of respect and affection for R.C. as he is the reason I understand the Gospel and I appreciated that work.

I'm not advocating for a method (e.g. TAG). Whatever one thinkws of James White, I think he's a good example of someone who considers himself a presuppositionalist but engages with unbelievers on facts ane evidences.

I suppose what I'm identifying is that I think Van Til was critical of the idea that some hold (not necessarily in the Refomred camp) that we're all just looking at the facts in the same way. I don't believe man's faculties are necessarily "fallty" in terms of their ability to use logic and reason, but that their bondage to sin means that they'll always look to use reason in an autonomous way. Natural Revelation, in this sense, is not perspicuous because it always tries to differentiate as if man is in a place to reason with brute facts. I witness so many encounters where some Christians virutally applaus unbelievers for being authentic to what they know and can accept from the facts they discern and that somehow God "honors" their philosophical inquiries even if it leaves them doubting or denying God on the preponderance of the evidece. Some of the most famous Christian apologists also end up inviting people to believe (meaning some motion of the will they conrol) to see that Christianity is the most probable explanation of all things based on the preponderance of the evidence and use of reason and arguments go back and forth with unbelievers along those lines. There is a Pelagian or semi-Pelagian undercurrent to all these things.

It's not that the tools of reason change, per se, but there is a commitment in Van Tillian thought that it's not the tools of logic or reason that are the problem but spirutal life itself. Man, in Adam, cannot get to a true acknowledgement of God even if one were to assent to every single proposition that is logically true about the Creator. The questiion for me is never method, but at what point does anyone simply realize that man's rebellion can only ever be freeed by the Spirit throught the Word.
Click to expand...

Agreed. The point of classical apologetics, minus some loose words by BB Warfield, has never been to reason them into the kingdom. Rather, it is to remove intellectual stumbling blocks and build up the brethren and sisteren.
 
Ulster Fry said:
It's not true at all that the scepticism surrounding perception and reality has been 'solved'. I took an entire module on the Problem of Perception which is still a very lively area of research today. Moore was over a 100 years ago and nobody found his argument convincing (basically, here's my hand, here's my other hand, thus an external world exists). Plantinga's contributions have been excellent, basically improving upon Thomas Reid's work.

Here's Tim Crane's (long) introductory article on the Problem of Perception, covering both its history and the contemporary discussion:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/perception-problem/
Click to expand...
Did they discuss the brain and the vat problem? I believe its Donald Davidson that applied a paradigm case argument to that one but its the same. If I can't trust my senses than the skeptic needs to tell me how I can judge my own experience to determine if its real or not. Some cases to compare it to. If they can't than I have no reason to doubt my senses because they've given no reasons.
Before paradigm case arguments the skeptic assumed the proponents of say reliability of senses had to provide a positive argument for their view. After it became the skeptic's job to provide a positive argument against that belief. That's all I mean. Also Plantinga put the burden of proof back on the skeptic.
 
I am loath to resurrect this thread since it appears to have died (a fact for which I am honestly thankful), but my best friend sent me this today, and I wanted to post it here to prove that, as a presuppositionalist, I don't take myself too seriously. Plus, it is genuinely funny. ;)

329749886_3486666011653557_4926533971213423486_n.png
 
Didn’t Spurgeon say something similar with regards to persons who first discover the doctrines of grace? Like, you got to lock them in a room for some days until they calm down.
 
Apologia Christou said:
I've seen an interesting debate between an Atheist (Dillahunty) and Orthofox Christian (Dyer), and I thought I just leave it here. I still got to digest what was going on there. He makes use of the transcendental argument, and as far as I am aware of learned from Bahnsen in some way (seminary or something).

https://www.youtube.com/live/AajJBhdRpDA?feature=share

Click to expand...

Dyer has set Christian debating back several hundred years. I normally make it a point to cheer for whoever is debating him. He pretends to be your friend on social media, and then challenges you to debate him at his discord RIGHT NOW!!!! If you don't, he curses at you and blocks you. He doesn't realize that we don't have time to debate--scratch that, get interrupted by him and his manlet followers.

He used to be a Bahnsenite, then became Sedevecantist Catholic, then became Orthodox, then became almost Jewish, then because alt-right Orthodox (again). He is unstable in all his ways.
tentsofshem.wordpress.com

On debates and dialogue

I’m fairly good on not blogging about the latest blow up on social media. This post isn’t important in the grand scheme, though it may serve as the “Suburban Agrarian Manifesto.&…
tentsofshem.wordpress.com tentsofshem.wordpress.com
tentsofshem.wordpress.com

Links responding to Day Jyer

While I think links showing how emotionally unbalanced he is are good, the more important point concerns some of the arguments used against Protestant canon, etc. (This has a link to Josh Brisby&#8…
tentsofshem.wordpress.com tentsofshem.wordpress.com
 
RamistThomist said:
Dyer has set Christian debating back several hundred years. I normally make it a point to cheer for whoever is debating him. He pretends to be your friend on social media, and then challenges you to debate him at his discord RIGHT NOW!!!! If you don't, he curses at you and blocks you. He doesn't realize that we don't have time to debate--scratch that, get interrupted by him and his manlet followers.

He used to be a Bahnsenite, then became Sedevecantist Catholic, then became Orthodox, then became almost Jewish, then because alt-right Orthodox (again). He is unstable in all his ways.
tentsofshem.wordpress.com

On debates and dialogue

I’m fairly good on not blogging about the latest blow up on social media. This post isn’t important in the grand scheme, though it may serve as the “Suburban Agrarian Manifesto.&…
tentsofshem.wordpress.com tentsofshem.wordpress.com
tentsofshem.wordpress.com

Links responding to Day Jyer

While I think links showing how emotionally unbalanced he is are good, the more important point concerns some of the arguments used against Protestant canon, etc. (This has a link to Josh Brisby&#8…
tentsofshem.wordpress.com tentsofshem.wordpress.com
Click to expand...
Very good summary.
 
"The Facebook Page Inspiring Philosophy was open to debating him. They then asked him if he could promise not to insult people. He got angry and started insulting them."

This is so funny.
 
RamistThomist said:
Dyer has set Christian debating back several hundred years. I normally make it a point to cheer for whoever is debating him. He pretends to be your friend on social media, and then challenges you to debate him at his discord RIGHT NOW!!!! If you don't, he curses at you and blocks you. He doesn't realize that we don't have time to debate--scratch that, get interrupted by him and his manlet followers.

He used to be a Bahnsenite, then became Sedevecantist Catholic, then became Orthodox, then became almost Jewish, then because alt-right Orthodox (again). He is unstable in all his ways.
tentsofshem.wordpress.com

On debates and dialogue

I’m fairly good on not blogging about the latest blow up on social media. This post isn’t important in the grand scheme, though it may serve as the “Suburban Agrarian Manifesto.&…
tentsofshem.wordpress.com tentsofshem.wordpress.com
tentsofshem.wordpress.com

Links responding to Day Jyer

While I think links showing how emotionally unbalanced he is are good, the more important point concerns some of the arguments used against Protestant canon, etc. (This has a link to Josh Brisby&#8…
tentsofshem.wordpress.com tentsofshem.wordpress.com
Click to expand...
I love what he said in the first link you gave "even those degenerates at the DNC are more polite than him", or something like that
 
Apologia Christou said:
"The Facebook Page Inspiring Philosophy was open to debating him. They then asked him if he could promise not to insult people. He got angry and started insulting them."

This is so funny.
Click to expand...

And the messed up thing is that they are soft on evolution, so I probably would agree with Dyer, but he can't promise not to insult people.
 
Jacob who are these guys who are arguing with Dyer? Could you give me some small introduction? I am reading the comment sections of your links, and Steve for example, seems to be arguing soundly and smoothly. But who is it? Or the other guys you mention in your second link to your blog. Is this some kind of apologetic online community?
 
Apologia Christou said:
Jacob who are these guys who are arguing with Dyer? Could you give me some small introduction? I am reading the comment sections of your links, and Steve for example, seems to be arguing soundly and smoothly. But who is it? Or the other guys you mention in your second link to your blog. Is this some kind of apologetic online community?
Click to expand...

One of the guys was Paul Manata (Maul P). The other was Josh Brisby. That's about all I know.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

S
Presup Questions
2
Replies
45
Views
3K
jwright82
jwright82
sastark
  • Locked
Francis Schaffer: Evidentialist or Presup?
Replies
15
Views
6K
Robert Truelove
R
C
  • Locked
Does presup lead to Rome?
Replies
21
Views
4K
JohnV
JohnV
Scott
  • Locked
presup, multiple worldviews, and operating systems
Replies
7
Views
2K
Scott
Scott
A
  • Locked
Is Presuppositionalism Self-Defeating?
2
Replies
48
Views
9K
rbcbob
rbcbob
Back
Top