Puritan Sailor
Puritan Board Doctor
What is a presupposition, in the worldview sense?
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.
Originally posted by natewood3
Is it possible for our ultimate presuppositions to be proven, or are they simply taken for granted by faith?
Originally posted by puritansailor
What is a presupposition, in the worldview sense?
Originally posted by JohnV
But the way some are using the term, presuppositions refers to the underlying underlying basis of what we believe. They refer to those concepts that are at the very bottom of all thought, without regard to the personal or individual differences involved; they lie underneath that. They are the concepts that one needs in order to have concepts at all. These, then, are undefilable by men, in distinction to the ones that I referred to above which are our defiled presuppositions which need to be transformed and conformed. These undefileable tenets are the first principles of knowledge, such as truth, goodness, and beauty. Their attestation lies in themselves, to our view. But God's Word shows us the real origin of them, as attributes of God.
Originally posted by puritansailor
Perhaps I'll ask it a different way. What's the difference between a presupposition and a cultural norm or preference? Or is presupposition more of a broad term that embraces all the assumptions of our world view whether right or wrong?
Originally posted by JohnV
I shouldn't be answering these questions. I'm not a formal Presuppositionalist. I am in the sense that Van Til outlined back in '32, to a degree, but only as it is a regular arm of a classical argument. Van Til taught it at that time as just a method, and just to give his students confidence in their ministry. He didn't mean for his students to go and take issue with everyone who disagree with the method, as if it were some kind of breach of orthodoxy to do so.
He took Descartes' method and Reformed it, you might say. What is regretable is that he seemed to be influenced by Dooyweerd. That seems plain enough now, as modern Presuppositionalism has taken on some of his sphere sovereignty approach, applying it to an apologetic methodology.
Thus, what the term "presupposition" now means is really far out of my league to respond to. I am certainly not a Dooyweerdian. And I have already said that the fact that Presuppositionalism has been stated as a cornerstone doctrine to the Reformed faith, and that Presuppositionalists have not objected en masse, that it is greatly discredited in my view.
So I'm not really the one to ask.
Originally posted by natewood3
Is it possible for our ultimate presuppositions to be proven, or are they simply taken for granted by faith?
That's pretty good. I'd only split a hair and say they are basic beliefs a person uses to justify how he engages in thought - just so we are not saying that presuppositions themselves justify, but the person uses them to try to justify.Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
Presuppositions are basic beliefs, foundational beliefs, that justify how we engage in thought.
Originally posted by JohnV
Note carefully, Patrick, how different respondents are using the term. Its not always the same use, and not always referring to the same thing.
You know, I'm all about that unity stuff. The oilier Aaron's bear is the better.
Originally posted by JohnV
Thus, what the term "presupposition" now means is really far out of my league to respond to. I am certainly not a Dooyweerdian. And I have already said that the fact that Presuppositionalism has been stated as a cornerstone doctrine to the Reformed faith, and that Presuppositionalists have not objected en masse, that it is greatly discredited in my view.
Originally posted by MurrayA
Originally posted by JohnV
Thus, what the term "presupposition" now means is really far out of my league to respond to. I am certainly not a Dooyweerdian. And I have already said that the fact that Presuppositionalism has been stated as a cornerstone doctrine to the Reformed faith, and that Presuppositionalists have not objected en masse, that it is greatly discredited in my view.
I too disown Presupositionalism, except in the negative sense, as an exercise in ground-clearing with the unbeliever, demolishing his own edifices. Ultimately one has to use some kind of positive construction to press the positive claims for the Gospel, as I see it, and this is where evidences come in. The Creation Science and ID movements, for example, have utilised a powerful set of evidences to rehabilitate the Teleological Argument, and very successfully.
One other point: why oh why do so many Reformed believers make Van Tillianism an article of faith and a test of orthodoxy, such that if one does not adhere to it he is some sort of heretic? I think even Van Til himself disliked any such notion, but as is so often the case, the disciples have outgone the master.
Originally posted by JohnV
You know, I'm all about that unity stuff. The oilier Aaron's bear is the better.
You got me, Patrick. My mind is drawing a blank here.