Presuppositionalism defeated by Anton Thorn!

[Evan Tomlin]

Bahnsen: "[You are] not presuppositionally neutral in [your] approach to factual questions and disputes... what [you] might call the pretended neutrality fallacy." [45]

Thorn: There's no pretense to neutrality on my part, Dr. Bahnsen. I do not claim to be neutral when it comes to issues of philosophy and reason. My worldview holds rationality to be a cardinal value. By rationality I mean specifically the commitment to reason as one's only means of knowledge and one's only guide to action. This is a commitment I choose with the full knowledge of what such a choice entails. Since I am committed to reason, I too am suspicious of pretenses or claims of impartiality with regard to man's knowledge and values. In fact, Dr. Bahnsen, it is because I am committed to reason that I am an atheist. You see, my atheism is not a primary; it is a consequence of my loyalty to reason.

This comes from his "Dialogue with Greg Bahnsen" found here

Of all the things that could be said about his ridiculous method of ripping Bahnsen out of context and thoroughly misunderstanding presuppositionalism, is there anything more glaring then his denial of neutrality and his subsequent demonstration of the very thing he denies?

Thorn: "I am not neutral, I just hold reason (which I claim is accessible to all rational thinkers) to be my starting point. Because of this, I hold to atheism because atheism is the only reasonable view."

The obvious response: "You claim not be neutral, yet you implore rational people to elevate reason as their starting point. You assume the very thing you deny. Secondly, when you assume reason as a starting point you have rejected the Lordship of Christ over all reason. Therefore, your choice to subjugate faith to reason is inherently atheistic because you have rejected the claimed authority of the very God you seek to accept or reject with your reason. Even if you did accept a god of some sort, he would always be subject to the whim of your reasoning"¦Therefore, you are lord over this God. Hypthetically, could this even be described as theism, much less Christian theism?"

"And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done." - Romans 1:28

Dr. Van Til

 

[BlackCalvinist]

Remind me to link to you, Paul.

BTW - Check the front page of my site. I may need a few of your articles for my upcoming debate with Jason Bradfield (full preterist).

 

[Evan Tomlin]

Paul,

I lightly follow much of your interaction with the atheists over at "goose" and elsewhere...Doesn't Tremblay use a variegated form of Randian philosophy as well? Is this type of thinking popular among Internet hack atheists? In my limited knowledge I didn't think Rand was even taken as a "philosopher" per se by the broader academic community. Just curious, thanks!