How do you feel about presuppositional apologetics?

Question

Presuppositionalist's believe that the word of god is fact- "Christian apologist must assume the truth of the supernatural revelation contained in the Bible (that is, the Christian worldview) because there can be no set of neutral assumptions from which to reason with a non-Christian, and apart from such "presuppositions" one could not make sense of any human experience."

But then they go on to argue like this- "as assuming the world is intelligible apart from belief in the existence of God and then arguing exclusively on (purportedly) neutral grounds to support trusting the Christian Scriptures."

This is a fallacy and a contradiction. A fallacy because it is circular argument and a contradiction because they would argue the faultily of other views on neutral grounds, seemingly disregarding their beliefs.

Ask Mr. Religion-The solid ground you speak of I believe would go against "believing in god because of faith".

"Persons that seek absolute proof of something are inconsistently applying logic and rationality"

I liked this statement as well. Ok then why

"faith and scientific discourse, the "fact" that the sun will rise tomorrow."

I liked how you used the word "scientific discourse". We know what we do from scientific theory, which is basically an "educated guess". How does that fit into believing in an all powerful being who decided to create the universe?

"Persons that seek absolute proof of something are inconsistently applying logic and rationality"

So you would rather chalk it up to faith rather than say "I don't know how the universe came into being?" Which would be a more rational answer than having a presuppositionalist stance.

Disregard the second and third lines of my about edit.

above* edit, damn typos are eating me alive

Storm King- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presuppositional_apologetics

Answer 1

EDIT: By the way this is a good question and I wish we could see more of these types instead of the usual flippant questions.

--------------------------------


I am not sure I follow the last two points you are trying to make. I think you are stating that some believers will step out of their world view to walk a mile in the non-believer's shoes to find some neutral grounds. I have seen this in practice, but it is not as prevalent as you make it out to be.

I am a strict presuppositionalist. Many of us 5-pt strict Calvinists are. Van Til, is one of the better known persons in this category.

While all of my questions will never be definitively answered, I find that rationally my belief is on solid ground. There are many things in the world we do not fully understand or “see”, yet we have no problems in believing them. For example, solar physics is not fully known, yet we all objectively accept, using faith and scientific discourse, the "fact" that the sun will rise tomorrow.

Why is it we can believe in many things using rational analysis, even when what we believe is only partially known, yet when it comes to matters like a supreme being, we suddenly want the "show me beyond a shadow of doubt" proof? As Aristotle once stated, "It is the mark of an instructed mind to rest satisfied with the degree of precision which the nature of the subject admits, and not to seek exactness when only an approximation of the truth is possible."

Persons that seek absolute proof of something are inconsistently applying logic and rationality, for they do not seek this absoluteness in all things. Hence, their epistemologies are not fully formed; they speak without proper understanding of the nature of knowledge.

These persons must first take the time and formal study to answer the question:

"What is the justification for the presuppositions informing your epistemology and ethical system?"

When believers and non-believers ignore their presuppositions when discussing their positions, they are merely “talking past one another” instead of establishing a common epistemological framework for discussion.

To see how two parties can effectively communicate in this manner, I recommend the following audio file of what was called "The Great Debate":

http://www.straitgate.com/gbgs.ram

Answer 2

Your first mistake was phrasing apologetics as "presuppositional". There is no such thing. Apologetics is the positive defense of belief and faith. It makes no assumptions. However, your choice of phrasing, by implication, is in itself a contadiction because it is really saying that one can only assume that apologetics can't do what it purports to do, and that is to provide a defense of faith and belief. In that, you really don't even get past your initial question to any of the rest. Your question, as phrased, is an implication based on an assumption for which no evidence exists, thus committing the non sequiter fallacy of "assertum non est demonstratium"- to assert is not to demonstrate. I am not aware of any believer who would ever argue that intelligence apart from the existence of God is even plausible, or that lapses of faith for the sole purpose of trying to gain some middle ground with an unbeliever can ever be justified.Therein lies subservion. Not clever enough. Good try, though.
******
Like I said, there is no such thing as "presuppositional" apologetics. Who would argue like this? How can an assumption be neutral? The "reformed " church is not a good place to quote from. Period.

Answer 3

I agree. Yet, you have to realize that a thing's existence doesn't depend on logic for it's own substantiality. In other words, you can disprove the existence of lightning if you have never seen it, but never the less lightning exists with or with out your proof or belief in it.

Answer 4

I much prefer it to the practice of presuppositional religious criticism.

The scientific method applies well to the study of pure science, but it has no place in either philosophy or theology.

Answer 5

....I know you know how to look this up..... Proverbs, Chapter 30 vs...5 & 6. Then read the Book of John or go to Blockbuster and rent the movie..... you'll get the answers....

Answer 6

This defense is aimed at challenges from both outside and inside the Church.

Christianity is under attack today, and it must be defended.