Multiple worldviews

[Scott]

According to presuppositionalism, in principle only one worldview can be right. While we often show that the Christian view is true by disproving other views (internal critiques), is there a way to avoid having to critique all other worldviews by showing positively that in principle only one worldview can be correct? How would someone defend this idea?

Paul Manata, I am looking for help here!

 

[bradofshaw]

The claims made by Christianity are such that If they are true, then any deviation must be false.

Presupps would say that Christian Theism is the necessary condition for reality to make sense (Transcendental argument I believe).

So I suppose you could appeal first to the intelligibility found in Christian Theism, then show how Christianity claims to be the only true truth, then you could systematically show how every other view fails.

Maybe I'm oversimplifying?

 

[Arch2k]

Originally posted by bradofshaw
The claims made by Christianity are such that If they are true, then any deviation must be false.

Presupps would say that Christian Theism is the necessary condition for reality to make sense (Transcendental argument I believe).

So I suppose you could appeal first to the intelligibility found in Christian Theism, then show how Christianity claims to be the only true truth, then you could systematically show how every other view fails.

Maybe I'm oversimplifying?

But showing that all other worldviews fail does not positively "prove" the Christian worldview, despite if that is what Van Tillians try to do in the Transcendental argument.

Here is where I am more Clarkian I guess.

 

[ChristianTrader]

Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel

Originally posted by bradofshaw
The claims made by Christianity are such that If they are true, then any deviation must be false.

Presupps would say that Christian Theism is the necessary condition for reality to make sense (Transcendental argument I believe).

So I suppose you could appeal first to the intelligibility found in Christian Theism, then show how Christianity claims to be the only true truth, then you could systematically show how every other view fails.

Maybe I'm oversimplifying?

But showing that all other worldviews fail does not positively "prove" the Christian worldview, despite if that is what Van Tillians try to do in the Transcendental argument.

Here is where I am more Clarkian I guess.

But Transcendental argumentation does not just prove by defeating all known competitors. It really wouldnt be different from deductive and inductive argumentation. The goal with Transcendental argumentation is to show that no matter where you run, you will always have to accept something in order to go anywhere.

Such was Aristotle and transcendental argument for logic. Even if you reject logic, you have to accept it for your rejection to make any possible sense.

Same thing with the Christian worldview, you can reject it, but in fact you have to accept it, in order to make sense of you rejection.

A person rejecting the Christian worldview makes as much sense as rejection logic or saying that I can go it alone, without logic. The only issue is getting them to understand that.

CT

 

[ChristianTrader]

Originally posted by Paul manata

Originally posted by Scott
According to presuppositionalism, in principle only one worldview can be right. While we often show that the Christian view is true by disproving other views (internal critiques), is there a way to avoid having to critique all other worldviews by showing positively that in principle only one worldview can be correct? How would someone defend this idea?

Paul Manata, I am looking for help here!

Here's where Clark fails because he cannot refute an infinite number of worldviews. Van Til's brilliance is that there are only *two* worldviews; those for and those against Christ. So, atheism and Buddhism alike are just different ways of saying the same thing: "in Christ are *not* hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge."

So, the argument doesn't look like this:

A or B

~B

Therefore A

because then the opponant will say, "what about C, D, E, ...n?"

Rather, the formulation looks like this:

A or ~A

~~A.

Therefore A.

Paul what is the difference between, someone lets call him "Clark" saying, "I cannot demonstrate the defeat of the infinite possible worldviews, but I would if I had infinite time because Christianity is true", and someone we can call him "Van Til" saying, "There are two classes, Christianity and non Christianity. Mr. Unbeliever, you hold to a element of the class non Christianity. I have just defeated you, and I have shown that the class non Christianity does not work. Therefore Christianity".

The response to both "Clark and Van Til" by Mr. Unbeliever is the same. All either has done (or can possibly do) is show that what I am doing is crap, not that non Christianity is crap.

It seems that at the end of the day, all that has been done is the burden of proof has been shifted to those who wish to oppose Christianity. And you can then say that it is irrational for the Unbeliever to reject Christianity.

That is as good as I see it getting, but it seems that the claims want to go beyond that.

I see the same thing happening with Transcendental proof of logic.

 

[ChristianTrader]

Originally posted by Paul manata

Paul what is the difference between, someone lets call him "Clark" saying, "I cannot demonstrate the defeat of the infinite possible worldviews, but I would if I had infinite time because Christianity is true", and someone we can call him "Van Til" saying, "There are two classes, Christianity and non Christianity. Mr. Unbeliever, you hold to a element of the class non Christianity. I have just defeated you, and I have shown that the class non Christianity does not work. Therefore Christianity".

Let me answer after you tell me how that someone, call him Clark, *knows* that Christianity is *true* i.e., that there are no other consistent worldviews. I think if you re-read what you wrote you'll see the problem and, therefore, the difference.

I, not Clark, would say because the Bible says that it is true. I cannot demonstrate the truth to the exclusion of the infinite number of worldviews.

 

[Saiph]

I do not think Christianity, or anything for that matter is true because the Bible says so. Am I a heretic ? ?

Christianity, or the Christian world view is true because of the impossibility of the contrary.

 

[ChristianTrader]

Originally posted by Paul manata

Originally posted by ChristianTrader

Originally posted by Paul manata

Paul what is the difference between, someone lets call him "Clark" saying, "I cannot demonstrate the defeat of the infinite possible worldviews, but I would if I had infinite time because Christianity is true", and someone we can call him "Van Til" saying, "There are two classes, Christianity and non Christianity. Mr. Unbeliever, you hold to a element of the class non Christianity. I have just defeated you, and I have shown that the class non Christianity does not work. Therefore Christianity".

Let me answer after you tell me how that someone, call him Clark, *knows* that Christianity is *true* i.e., that there are no other consistent worldviews. I think if you re-read what you wrote you'll see the problem and, therefore, the difference.

I, not Clark, would say because the Bible says that it is true. I cannot demonstrate the truth to the exclusion of the infinite number of worldviews.

and thats' why many people criticise Clark as a fideist/dogmatist. So, now you see the difference?

No, I dont, because what I see is that Van Til is in the same boat, he is just able to avoid the title due to symantics.

For it would seem that Van Til et al. have to be dogmatic that not being the Christian worldview is what dooms all other perspectives. But one can never demonstrate this due to not being infinite or having infinite time.

 

[ChristianTrader]

Originally posted by Saiph
I do not think Christianity, or anything for that matter is true because the Bible says so. Am I a heretic ? ?

Christianity, or the Christian world view is true because of the impossibility of the contrary.

Where are my torches

The issue is demonstrating the impossibility of the contrary. I believe that the contrary is impossible, I just have yet to see someone demonstrate it.

 

[Saiph]

But one can never demonstrate this due to not being infinite or having infinite time.

Whatever is true in logic temporally, is true in logic eternally.

 

[ChristianTrader]

Originally posted by Saiph
I do not think Christianity, or anything for that matter is true because the Bible says so. Am I a heretic ? ?

Christianity, or the Christian world view is true because of the impossibility of the contrary.

Prove that God created in the space of six days vs. any other number of days.

 

[ChristianTrader]

Originally posted by Saiph

But one can never demonstrate this due to not being infinite or having infinite time.

Whatever is true in logic temporally, is true in logic eternally.

Could you restate that for me please

CT

 

[Scott]

Here's where Clark fails because he cannot refute an infinite number of worldviews. Van Til's brilliance is that there are only *two* worldviews; those for and those against Christ. So, atheism and Buddhism alike are just different ways of saying the same thing: "in Christ are *not* hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge."

So, the argument doesn't look like this:

A or B

~B

Therefore A

because then the opponant will say, "what about C, D, E, ...n?"

Rather, the formulation looks like this:

A or ~A

~~A.

Therefore A.

But when internally critiquing alternate worldviews, apologists don't just pinpoint the absence of Christ. Rather, they take the worldview on its own terms and examine how that alternate worldview does not make human experience intelligible. So from a practical perspective it seems that we are in the boat of asking "what about C, D, E, ...n?" Given the nature of the internal critiques that presups give (and I am presup of the Bahnsen variety), it seems hard to escape.

 

[Saiph]

I cannot prove the duration of creation with the Bible, or without it.
Not sure how that question was relevant.

You mentioned not having infinite time. My point is that if A != !A in any point in time, then the same is true eternally, or, without reference to time.

Does that answer your question ?

 

[ChristianTrader]

Originally posted by Saiph
I cannot prove the duration of creation with the Bible, or without it.
Not sure how that question was relevant.

You mentioned not having infinite time. My point is that if A != !A in any point in time, then the same is true eternally, or, without reference to time.

Does that answer your question ?

You cannot prove that Christianity is the only possible consistent worldview with any more force than you can the days of creation.

You explanation does help me, but I still dont see that as saving your position concerning the impossibility of the contrary.

First off, you can only deal with that which you are confronted with, and to say that you have confronted everything isn't going to work. But if it did, then Clark would be just as good as Van Til.

 

[ChristianTrader]

Originally posted by Scott

Here's where Clark fails because he cannot refute an infinite number of worldviews. Van Til's brilliance is that there are only *two* worldviews; those for and those against Christ. So, atheism and Buddhism alike are just different ways of saying the same thing: "in Christ are *not* hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge."

So, the argument doesn't look like this:

A or B

~B

Therefore A

because then the opponant will say, "what about C, D, E, ...n?"

Rather, the formulation looks like this:

A or ~A

~~A.

Therefore A.

But when internally critiquing alternate worldviews, apologists don't just pinpoint the absence of Christ. Rather, they take the worldview on its own terms and examine how that alternate worldview does not make human experience intelligible. So from a practical perspective it seems that we are in the boat of asking "what about C, D, E, ...n?" Given the nature of the internal critiques that presups give (and I am presup of the Bahnsen variety), it seems hard to escape.

I think the issue that Paul addresses is not that we have to go in and demonstrate how worldview X goes wrong, I think he is talking about what is the worldview missing that makes error inevitable.

 

[Saiph]

The nature of reality is not as diverse as you are making it out to be.
If I confront every worldview that is not Christianity, they will all be found to be internally conflicting. Only a personal, triune, omnipotent, omniscient, self-existing, omnibenevolent God who became flesh can make rational sense of this world. The universals and particulars are bridged only in the triune ONE in whom one person became flesh.

Present a worldview other than Christianity that can account for these things.

As for scripturalism, (Is that what you mean by Clark?) read Manatas critiques of all knowledge being X on his blog.

[Edited on 10-26-2005 by Saiph]

 

[ChristianTrader]

Originally posted by Saiph
The nature of reality is not as diverse as you are making it out to be.
If I confront every worldview that is not Christianity, they will all be found to be internally conflicting. Only a personal, triune, omnipotent, omniscient, self-existing, omnibenevolent God who became flesh can make rational sense of this world. The universals and particulars are bridged only in the triune ONE in whom one person became flesh.

Present a worldview other than Christianity that can account for these things.

If I thought I could present another worldview, that could account for those things, I would be banned from board because I couldn't hold to the confessions anymore

The issue is that worldviews come and go. For example, there are other things running around that Augustine did not run into. (You could make a n argument that the cores have not really changed) but you would have to look at the worldviews of today and then refute and then say, the core has not changed. Doing this would pull you into the infinite worldview game.

As for scripturalism, (Is that what you mean by Clark?) read Manatas critiques of all knowledge being X on his blog.

[Edited on 10-26-2005 by Saiph]

When I said, Clark I meant, he went and defeated the unbelieving worldviews that he came into contact with. If what you said, is the case, then there really is no distinctive with Van Til's argumentation vs. Clark.

You just defeat everything you see, and than say, everything that will come up later will look like I just saw. Therefore I win.

 

[Saiph]

You just defeat everything you see, and than say, everything that will come up later will look like I just saw. Therefore I win.

The impossibility of A being equal to Not-A is never going to change.
Therefore, since my worldview is the only one that accounts for that law being in existence, and all life depends on it to continue, ANY contrary world-view will always be wrong.

 

[ChristianTrader]

Originally posted by Paul manata

Originally posted by ChristianTrader

Originally posted by Paul manata

Originally posted by ChristianTrader

Originally posted by Paul manata

Paul what is the difference between, someone lets call him "Clark" saying, "I cannot demonstrate the defeat of the infinite possible worldviews, but I would if I had infinite time because Christianity is true", and someone we can call him "Van Til" saying, "There are two classes, Christianity and non Christianity. Mr. Unbeliever, you hold to a element of the class non Christianity. I have just defeated you, and I have shown that the class non Christianity does not work. Therefore Christianity".

Let me answer after you tell me how that someone, call him Clark, *knows* that Christianity is *true* i.e., that there are no other consistent worldviews. I think if you re-read what you wrote you'll see the problem and, therefore, the difference.

I, not Clark, would say because the Bible says that it is true. I cannot demonstrate the truth to the exclusion of the infinite number of worldviews.

and thats' why many people criticise Clark as a fideist/dogmatist. So, now you see the difference?

No, I dont, because what I see is that Van Til is in the same boat, he is just able to avoid the title due to symantics.

For it would seem that Van Til et al. have to be dogmatic that not being the Christian worldview is what dooms all other perspectives. But one can never demonstrate this due to not being infinite or having infinite time.

no, if Van Til is correct then we have escaped the many-worldviews objection.

If he is correct, then yes we have. The issue is demonstrating that he is correct. And I dont know how you can do that without, taking on the worldviews one by one.

And if you say you dont need to demonstrate, then I would ask, why do you call it a proof.

And, we give an argument for logic et al (e.g., needing a personal God, who reveals himself to man, who is universal, imutable, etc.) That worldview provides the preconditions.

Here I would ask, how do you go from shifting the burden of proof to the unbeliever to saying: QED

At this point the only route I see is the fristian objection.

It always ends with Fristian

Does this argument have anything to do with the Senate Majority leader?

 

[ChristianTrader]

Originally posted by Saiph

You just defeat everything you see, and than say, everything that will come up later will look like I just saw. Therefore I win.

The impossibility of A being equal to Not-A is never going to change.
Therefore, since my worldview is the only one that accounts for that law being in existence, and all life depends on it to continue, ANY contrary world-view will always be wrong.

Which is why people will just say, we have yet to find the contrary worldview yet. Just like searching for Gold, no one says that gold just appears suddenly underground of certain places. It however takes time to discover. It was always there.

Which is the problem with inductive arguments. You have to assume that you have seen everything under all conditions. They can turn out wrong.

 

[Arch2k]

Originally posted by Paul manata

A or B

~B

Therefore A

If you are trying to use the argument as representative of Clark, then I would disagree that he taught that (at least from the books of him that I've read).

Clark did not accept any proofs for the existence of God, but rather insisted that Scripture must be assumed, and not argued for.

 

[Arch2k]

Originally posted by ChristianTrader

Originally posted by Saiph
I do not think Christianity, or anything for that matter is true because the Bible says so. Am I a heretic ? ?

Christianity, or the Christian world view is true because of the impossibility of the contrary.

Where are my torches

The issue is demonstrating the impossibility of the contrary. I believe that the contrary is impossible, I just have yet to see someone demonstrate it.

 

[Saiph]

Which is why people will just say, we have yet to find the contrary worldview yet. Just like searching for Gold, no one says that gold just appears suddenly underground of certain places. It however takes time to discover. It was always there.

Which is the problem with inductive arguments. You have to assume that you have seen everything under all conditions. They can turn out wrong.

So what kind of argument would you use ?

And I would tell them, in order to have rational integrity, they might as well believe Christianity until they find that nebulous "other" worldview.

 

[Arch2k]

Originally posted by Saiph

Which is why people will just say, we have yet to find the contrary worldview yet. Just like searching for Gold, no one says that gold just appears suddenly underground of certain places. It however takes time to discover. It was always there.

Which is the problem with inductive arguments. You have to assume that you have seen everything under all conditions. They can turn out wrong.

So what kind of argument would you use ?

And I would tell them, in order to have rational integrity, they might as well believe Christianity until they find that nebulous "other" worldview.

Christ didn't present "arguments" in the desert with the devil, but just replied with "It is written." Appeal to the highest authority in heaven and earth, the Word of God. Why start with anything less?

That is our duty.

 

[Saiph]

Christ didn't present "arguments" in the desert with the devil, but just replied with "It is written." Appeal to the highest authority in heaven and earth, the Word of God. Why start with anything less?

That is our duty.

So fideism is the only option? Take a leap of faith, as Kierkegaard says.
Believe the scriptures blindly?

In one sense this is where I agree with Augustine, that understanding is the reward of faith. Each person must be awakened by the regenerative act of the Holy Spirit to their existential need for God.

But I like rational proofs when confronting fools. There is nothing wrong with crushing their gods.

[Edited on 10-26-2005 by Saiph]

 

[ChristianTrader]

Originally posted by Saiph

Which is why people will just say, we have yet to find the contrary worldview yet. Just like searching for Gold, no one says that gold just appears suddenly underground of certain places. It however takes time to discover. It was always there.

Which is the problem with inductive arguments. You have to assume that you have seen everything under all conditions. They can turn out wrong.

So what kind of argument would you use ?

Well if you listen to Frame, there really isnt that much difference from Trans and Deductive

I do know that uses the term "impossible" and inductive argument together, does not work very well.

I have no problem saying, because the Bible says so, to end a debate.

And I would tell them, in order to have rational integrity, they might as well believe Christianity until they find that nebulous "other" worldview.

I would do a bit better here. I would say that you cannot maintain rationality and reject Christianity. If you have a reason to reject everything that you have seen besides Christianity and you have a reason to accept Christianity, but you refuse, that is just irrational.

 

[Saiph]

I would do a bit better here. I would say that you cannot maintain rationality and reject Christianity. If you have a reason to reject everything that you have seen besides Christianity and you have a reason to accept Christianity, but you refuse, that is just irrational.

You said that better than I did. In the end it is still Pascal's wager.

 

[ChristianTrader]

Originally posted by Saiph

Christ didn't present "arguments" in the desert with the devil, but just replied with "It is written." Appeal to the highest authority in heaven and earth, the Word of God. Why start with anything less?

That is our duty.

So fideism is the only option. Take a leap of faith, as Kierkegaard says.
Believe the scriptures.

In one sense this is where I agree with Augustine, that understanding is the reward of faith. Each person must be awakened by the regenerative act of the Holy Spirit to their existential need for God.

But I like rational proofs when confronting fools. There is nothing wrong with crushing their gods.

I dont think it is fair to call it a leap of faith. Its more like its the only train leaving town before a nuclear holocaust.

The only options are to embrace Christianity or embrace, irrationality.

I can't prove everything in the Christian worldview (some stuff I have to just say, God said so, game over) but there really is no other options.

 

[Saiph]

I can't prove everything in the Christian worldview (some stuff I have to just say, God said so, game over) but there really is no other options.

Even though God said so, He also said, "Come now, let us reason together", he did not leave us stranded to acquiesce into systematic scepticism, and epistemological fog.

If we love Him with all our minds, we will silence the philosophy of fools with our arguments.

[Edited on 10-26-2005 by Saiph]