Puritan Sailor
Puritan Board Doctor
Thead Split
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
from Chris
I completely agree with the sentence of yours that I highlighted above, that man does not know God because of His presuppositions - rather, as you said, God is the source of his presuppositions, such as the laws of logic, the uniformity of nature, the reliability of the senses, and the co-existance and nature of universals and particulars; and I am saying that God exists prior to those presuppositions. And indeed, presuppositionalism does not point to those presuppositions as the epistemological starting point, but points to God Himself as the sole starting point in the realm of knowledge and as the transcendental in which all those presuppositions are rooted. But as Patrick explained, those presuppositions are still the means by which He enables our human minds to conceive, process and understand the true knowledge we have about Him and everything else - and we see the job of the apologist as being to show that He is indeed the only possible root and source of it all.
Speaking of secular philosophers and logicians whose work can help in understanding some of the concepts related to presuppositional apologetics and its actual claims, the work of Immanuel Kant has a lot of parallels. For one thing, he was the first philosopher to formalize transcendental reasoning in his arguments, which is simply reasoning that proceeds to prove statement B specifically by showing that B is a necessary precondition for A being the case, and then showing that A is the case. In presuppositional apologetics, B is the fact that the biblical worldview is true, and A is the existence of logical rationality and meaningful experience itself.
The reason this is on my mind right now is that I'm studying Kant in my current philosophy course, and the parallels are interesting, especially his response to Hume's claim that our only conception of space comes from experience, which Kant countered by arguing that an innate knowledge of space existing in our minds prior to any experience of space is in fact a precondition for any such experience eventually giving us any greater conception of it at all.
So to bring this back around to its original point, even from the philosophical developments of the world of secular academia, there is more to transcendental reasoning and presuppositional thought than often first meets the eye.
Originally posted by Me Died Blue
Well put, John. If I'm reading what you said correctly, then I actually agree with everything in your last post, especially regarding the way in which we are to present our apologetic to the unbeliever, and the reason we are presenting it, and that doing so is vain if it does not include a presentation of the Gospel in our defense of the Christian worldview.
I also think we're either on the same page or close regarding the nature of the necessity of reason and logic - do you agree that while a rejection of it does indeed inevitably result in empty foolishness, it alone is still not enough to change that and to account for intelligible thought and experience?
Originally posted by knight4christ8
Insightful, but unfortunately you do exactly what you accused the atheist of. Van Tillian apologetics are filled with arguments that beg the question. Assume the Christian God to prove the Christian God, right? Maybe that is a little too basic for a summary of the position, but it caught my attn. when you accused him of this.
I don't post at the PB anymore. I did e-mail Draught Horse a response to see if he would post it, and he hasn't. Anyway, I want other presupps to be able to handle this kind of stuff. Here is what I wrote, you can post it for me if you wish
Just to let you know, Douglas Walton, one of the top experts on logic, fallacies, and circular arguments (and he's not a Christian/Van Tilian) writes: "Circularity: A sequence of reasoning is circular if one of the premises depends on, or is even equivalent to, the conclusion. Circularity is not always fallacious, but can be a defect in an argument where the conclusion is doubtful and the premises are supposed to be a less doubtful basis for proving the conclusion." (Oxford Companion To Philosophy, p. 135). So, here we have an expert in the field, who doesn't know about Van Til, or that knight would be arguing against my position, telling us that not all circular arguments are fallacious. So it's not as obvious as knight would have us believe. Now, in a sophmoric sense it is but this isn't interesting. Furthermore, Walton wrote a paper which was an award winning paper by logicians and philosphers titled: Are Circular arguments Necessarily Vicious? http://io.uwinnipeg.ca/~walton/papers in pdf/85circarg.pdf So, it is even understood that circular arguments are not always fallacious by a lot of the professionals in the field.
Now, the Bible tells us that in Christ are hid *all* the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. Also, the *begginning* of knowledge is the fear of Jehovah. Also, that "In Thy [God's] light we see light." And that He is the Lord over everything (including our reasoning). Since God is the ULTIMATE authority there is nothing more ultimate than Him that we can appeal to in order to prove his existence. So, it is foolish to assume that there is something more ultimate that we can appeal to in order to prove that God is ultimate! I would also point to my first blog titiled "Christian Hermaphrodites" where I lay out the distinctives of Christian thought. Since it is impossible to be neutral then one either presupposes God or one does not-"he who is not for me is against me." So, while I commit the schoolboy error of begging the question, others can commit the sin of being against Christ.
Finally, I'm not inconsistant, as knight suggests. You see, atheists like Jesseph like to think that they are not begging the question. I pointed out that he did, since all men do. I'm not saying it isn't allowed bu that they should be consistant. Furthermore, there is a difference between vicious circular arguments and non-vicious ones. I argue for the latter. And, Knight confuses temporal with epistemological presuppositions in his above post. So, I'd suggest that he do some study before he 'refutes' us and the top logicians with a wave of the hand.
Here is what I wrote on my blog:
Christian Hermaphrodites
Two Greek gods had a child. They called the gods Hermes and Aphrodite. They named the child Hermaphroditus. Hermaphroditus, born on Mount Ida, was a mixture of the names and beautiful elements of his parents. Later, Hermaphroditus was taken by the nymph-Slamacis. Slamacis prayed that she could keep Hermaphroditus forever, the gods granted her wish. They joined Hermaphroditus and Slamacis together, creating a being united in body and sex.
This certainly is a strange combination indeed. It's, well ... unnatural. Well what about Christians who unite, say, Aristotelian categories with Christian ones? What about Christians who think that their children should be well rounded- i.e., learning the Bible at home and then learning science and math from the state-enforced atheistic public schools. They will have a well rounded child, no? A perfect mixture of the wisdom of God and the "wisdom" of the world. What about Christian counselors? They sing "My Jesus, my savior, Lord there is none like you" at church on Sunday, but then chant "there is none like Nietzsche" at work on monday. I'm afraid that the Biblical teaching of the antithesis between unbelievers and believers has been sorely neglected in our pulpits today. Instead we have bought into a myth not unlike the Greek myths. We call this myth the "Myth of Neutrality." Since the title of this blog is "Pressing The Antithesis," I thought it well to begin with my thoughts on the antithesis and the myth of neutrality.
"And I will put enmity between thee and the women, and between thy seed and her seed: he shall bruise thy head, and though shalt bruise his heel (Gen. 3:15). From this we can see that God has ordained the antithesis that exists between the believer and the unbeliever. God also sustains the antithesis (by means of His covenant) throughout history by electing a people who are to be holy even as Jehovah is holy (Lev. 19:2). God will also complete the antithesis when the covenant breakers are eternally seperated from the covenant keepers by the chasm of Heaven and Hell.
What is the nature of the antithesis that exists between the believer and the unbeliever? More specifically, what is the nature of the antithesis that exists between the reasoning of unbelievers and that of believers? The antithesis is realized on recognizing the fact that the believer and the unbeliever have opposing worldviews. Dr. Bahnsen writes that, "Two philosophies or systems of thought are in collision: one submits to the authority of God's word as a matter of presuppositional commitment and one does not." Colossians 2:8 teaches that unbelievers follow a philosophy that is "after the traditions of men." The Christian, conversely, has a philosophy that is after Christ." As Christians we are told "no longer [to] walk as the Gentiles also walk, in the vanity of their mind, being darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God, because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the hardening of their heart" (Eph. 4:17-18).
Therefore, the Christian has a distinct way of thinking (one that submits to Christ as Lord). The Christian's mind is, and should be (note the ethical term 'should'), opposed to the mind of the non-Christian. We (the seed of the women) are at war with the unbelievers (the seed of the satan). As Christians we need to be aware of the antithesis that exists between the reasoning of the believer and the unbeliever. If we try to cover-up or suppress the antithesis we will be without a rational justification for our knowledge (Col. 2:3). All of this has been a long way of saying what Van Til succinctly said: "There is no choice but that of Theonomy or autonomy."
Now, like the Greek myths, there exists another myth which is destructive to Christian apologetics, philosophy, theology, and thought. This myth exist not only in the minds of unbelievers, but in the mind of believers. It is the belief that we can be neutral when it comes to God's word (or questions of ultimate authorities). They assume that when we look at ultimate reality we ned an "open mind." But it should be obvious, in light of the preceding discussion of the antithesis, that this cannot be achieved. I will give four reasons why neutrality cannot be achieved. The first is that attempting to be neutral is immoral. We saw from the previous discussion that there is a distinctly Christian way of thinking. There is no middle ground. Our Lord said, "No man is able to serve two masters" (Matt. 6:24). We have two options, either submit our minds to Christ (II Cor. 10:5), or to be enemies of Christ in our mind (Col. 1:21). For the Christian, to attempt to be neutral is nothing but an attempt to serve two Lords. About this Christ said that we will either love the one or hate the other; or hold to the one and despise the other! For these reasons it is immoral for the Christian (whose Lord is Christ) to attempt to put aside his commitment and join autonomous man in being neutral. In other words, neutrality begets Christian Hermaphrodites. "Whosever therefore would be a friend of the world maketh himself an enemy of God" (James 4:4).
The second reason why we should not be neutral is that it would rob us of our Christian distinctives. Colossians 2:3 tells us that "in Christ are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge." Paul tells us this so that we will see the importance of Christ in the epistemological realm. (Epistemologists might refer to this as our 'epistemic duty.') Notice that in Christ are hid "all" the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. There is no knowledge, therefore, that does not have for its foundation the word of Christ. Paul also tells us this so that no one will delude us with persuasiveness of speech (vs. 4). If we are not to be deluded by persuasive speech then we must be rooted in Christ (vs. 7). If we are rooted in Him, then we are presuppositionally commited to Christ. If we are presuppositionally commited to Christ we will be able to take heed lest there is someone who wishes to rob us by means of his philosophy, which is after the tradition of men (vs. 8). Of what are we robbed? We would be robbed of our treasures of wisdom and knowledge (vs. 3). If we wish to keep our treasures (i.e., our Christian distinctives) then we need to be presuppositionally commited (i.e., rooted) in Christ.
The third reason why neutrality cannot be acheived is because it is impossible theologically. We have seen that the Christian has a worldview and a distinct way of thinking, as does the unbeliever. The Bible tells us that the unbeliever hates God (Rom. 8:7). The unbeliever serves the creature rather than the Creator (Rom. 1:25), note: the unbeliever does serve something, he is not neutral. Scripture tells us that the unbeliever is a fool (Ps. 14:1) with a vain mind, which is darkened (Eph. 4:17-18). The only way for the unbeliever to change his mind is to repent and submit to Jesus as Lord (Rom. 10:9). Since God has revealed the nature of unbelieving thought, Christians should not lie to their opponents and tell them that they should be neutral, and examine the "facts" with an "open mind."
The final reason that neutrality cannot be acheived is that it is impossible philosophically. Imagine, if you can, someone who is totally neutral (he has no beliefs, either way, about anything). In the first place he could not tell you (or believe) that he is neutral because that assumes that there is such a thing as being neutral versus being non-neutral. This is to say, he is not neutral about his belief that he is neutral. Moreover, since I have shown that the Bible says that no one is neutral he would be holding (by logical implication) the view that the Bible is false, this is certainly no neutral. Also, such a person would not live very long. If he were totally neutral then he would not get out of bed or eat or breathe because all these things assume a certain view of neutrality. True neutrality does not allow us to assume such views.
Thus I would like to say that Christians who think this way need a spiritual "sex-change." Christian hermaphroditism is, well ... unnatural.
~Paul Manata
oh yeah, you can add this into what I wrote:
WCF
I. IV. The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, depends not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.
Those stupid divines, committing the schoolboy error of begging the question.
[/quote]oh yeah, you can add this into what I wrote:
WCF
I. IV. The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, depends not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.
Those stupid divines, committing the schoolboy error of begging the question.
Originally posted by knight4christ8
There must be something eternal is shown to be true through an analysis of the contrary: none is eternal.
None is eternal implies all is temporal.
If all is temporal, then all had a beginning.
If all had a beginning, then all came into being.
If all came into being, then being came from non-being.
Being from non-being is not possible.
Therefore the contrary . . . Something is eternal must be true.
[Edited on 4-4-2005 by knight4christ8]
I think that there may be a misconception involved here. Maybe its mine, but then my misconception is an affirmative one, while yours is negative. That is not evidence, but it certainly is a consideration. At least it has been for me, which is why I conceive of the arguments as I do.Originally posted by Me Died Blue
John, how do any of the historic Classical arguments attempt to show the absolute vanity and indeed non-existence of reason without God? I do not see that in the cosmological, ontological, teleological or other Classical arguments, which all traditionally seem to start from a neutral territory of thought with the skeptic, and from there proceed to reason their way to God by building arguments upon that neutral territory of thought. I cannot see how any of them even attempt to speak of God as a necessary precondition for any and all reason and experience to be intelligible. I do not doubt your personal commitment to that truth, but fail to see it properly accounted for in the Classical arguments. Even Matt (Webmaster), who is a Classicist, has said here before that while God ontologically precedes logic, logic epistemologically precedes God, which is consistent with what I see in the Classical arguments and have heard from most other Classicists.
Also, I couldn't agree more that the intellectual side of man is certainly not the only part that needs to be dealt with - and actually, that leads into another important point that I see in presuppositional apologetics, but honestly cannot see in Classical apologetics - and that is the presentation of the Gospel. Obviously a Classicist arguing for the faith can present the Gospel alongside of his arguments, but none of the Classical arguments seem to have any presentation of the Gospel inherently embedded in them, while the Transcendental Argument does, since it inevitably involves a presentation of the Christian worldview as a whole. So as an honest question, where is the Gospel necessarily presented in any of the Classical arguments?
Originally posted by Draught Horse
Originally posted by knight4christ8
There must be something eternal is shown to be true through an analysis of the contrary: none is eternal.
None is eternal implies all is temporal.
If all is temporal, then all had a beginning.
If all had a beginning, then all came into being.
If all came into being, then being came from non-being.
Being from non-being is not possible.
Therefore the contrary . . . Something is eternal must be true.
[Edited on 4-4-2005 by knight4christ8]
NOt bad but couldn't a Muslim do the same thing with Islam?