Saturday, 01 March 2008
-
Presuppositionalism simply
Christianity, approached presuppositionally, contains a self-authenticating set of propositions derived from the Lord God adopting a rag-tag wandering tribe of people, leading them through several geographic moves, giving them victory over their enemies when they followed and obeyed Him, and letting them lose when they didn't.
God established some rather rigid rules for them to follow, and what we would today consider draconian punishments for breaking those rules. Those included the circumcision requirement, which was considered useless and silly at the time, but which medical science has discovered today to be an enhancement to public health (75% less cervical cancer), and makes sense due to the prothrombin (blood clotting) level of a little boy being at its highest level of his entire life when he is 8 days old.
God established a very detailed worship and sacrificial system over 4,000 years, as a symbol for the real sacrifice of Jesus Christ to come later. He transitioned from his adoption of that one rag-tag wandering tribe to an adoption of people from every tribe and nation who would believe in Jesus Christ.
God led his church leaders to write down His revelations, including a 600 year period of time in which dozens of detailed predictions about the life on earth of Jesus as a man were predicted and came true in minute detail (such as the fact that his bones would not be broken when he was hung in execution); and later church leaders spent several hundred years hammering out which writings would be recognized as from God and which ones not. These writings did not, as atheists and agnostics imply, spring out of nowhere.
The fact that presuppositionalism starts with God and the Scriptures, does not mean that there is no self-authenticating foundation to them. Atheists may not be aware of, or respect, that self-authenticating foundation, but their ignorance or disrespect does not negate the foundation.
Take the analogy of a denial of the law of gravity. An atheist may deny the law of gravity, but if he jumps off a high building, his denial is not going to stop his fall to earth. His fall to death affirms gravity, despite his vehement denials.
Take the analogy of a denial of the existence of air. An atheist may not believe in air, but in drawing a breath of air to deny air, he's affirming what he denies.
Rail that these analogies are silly, because no intellient atheist would deny gravity or air; but it's really a creature's denial of his Creator that's the ultimate silliness.
I tried to explain all this here on an atheist/agnostic blog called ExtremeGoatMaster, but the best they could argue in reply was that I was engaging in "circular reasoning," my analogies were "faulty," and my ideas were "stupid" and "ignorant." I think a fair-minded person can see that is not the case, from this short explanation.
Intellectual honesty requires that in a debate, each side admit what his presuppositions are. I did that, as summarized here, and invited these athetists/agnostics to admit theirs. They declined, demanding that I prove what theirs were. How silly! Everybody has a starting point -- what's so hard about laying your cards on the table for everybody to see?
-
recommend
- recs 0
-
share
-
email
- sent 0
Post a Comment
- Back to HaigLaw's Xanga Site!
- Note: your comment will appear in HaigLaw's local time zone: GMT -06:00 (Central Standard - US, Canada)
Comments (17)
Hello, old sport.
Thanks for the kind words at my blog. Hmm. You've been dialoging with AtheistThoughts, eh? I debated him once upon a time when I was at some sort of intermediate phase between a reverent evidentialism and a cautious presuppositionalism. I was just thinking yesterday about revisiting that debate...of course, I'd probably have to make a post explaining my current stance (insofar as it is a stance) on apologetics. (I resigned from the debate largely as a result from unrelated stress, but a certain presuppositionalist blogger I won't mention left a comment on JB's blog to the effect of "(sigh) Never send an evidentialist to do a presuppositionalist's job", which I found rather condescending, not to mention unfair. It was sort of a deterrent at the time to resume the discussion.)
It strikes me as interesting that even evidentialist or classical apologists will, in spite of themselves, often seem...mm, how do I put this...to have an underlying presuppositional attitude, as though at the heart of their supposedly empirical arguments is an implicit acknowledgment that, in fact, the skeptic is being an intellectual rebel for not already believing in God (and, perhaps more significantly, not believing God), whereas the empirical arguments, at the end of the day, are under some sort of authority. Does this make sense? I'm thinking, for example, of C.S. Lewis' analogy (it's somewhere in Miracles; I can't find the exact quote) of Christianity being like the sun, which cannot directly be seen (I distinctly remember that he makes this point, often forgotten in the paraphrases I've seen) but by which everything else is seen. I've seen presuppositionalists quote this in the same breath that they'll bash Lewis' apologetics; justifiably enough, but it suggests to me that a sort of presuppositionalism sort of naturally evolves into one's thinking upon being saved even if they don't elucidate that into their philosophy. (I haven't been out of bed long and haven't had breakfast, so I'm sorry if this is utterly incoherent.)
In Christ, and for the gospel of the kingdom,
Brett
@ProtestantWitness - I don't see it as having to choose between the two camps. Fran Schaeffer didn't, and knew them all, and reached more intellectuals in his generation than any of us.
Another point -- I read somewhere that Frame delivered a moving tribute at Bahnsen's funeral, and they were friends. Both studied under CVT at Westminster. Greg and I were friends, although he didn't always agree with me, and I didn't always understand him. Hahaha.
I say I'm a presuppositionalist, yet you see I cite proofs from None of These Diseases, which is an evidentialist book. I've even been known to cite Josh McDowell, although if evidence demands a verdict, maybe it stands on its own two feet without a cite. Just kidding.
The atheists-agnostics read the Frame-Bahnsen debates, for example, don't understand a thing, yet come away citing points as if they somehow discredit God Himself.
Keep up the good work, my friend!
Grampa D
@HaigLaw - Heh, that's something I could never convince Jeremiah Bannister (paleocrat) of back in the day- he'd get on my case for using evidences to defend Christianity, and I tried to tell him that I was operating within an evidentialist framework almost for the sake of the argument itself. All to no avail. And None of These Diseases was a fascinating book, from what I read of it.
In Christ, and for the gospel of the kingdom,
Brett
nice introductory summary of presuppositionalism, Lover, for us non-theologian types. i suppose the big problem for the atheist/agnostic crowd when you challenge them to state their presuppositions is they first have to admit they have some, and then don't really like what they find when they get down to the bottom of why they live as they do.
@anchorpoet - You got it, Love.
The intensity of the anger of these guys is quite striking.
@bearnlbk - There is a teaching somewhere on the "inscrutability" of God, but I have not looked that up lately.
As for means and methods, what comes to mind is Chapter 5, para. 3 of the Westminister Confession of Faith, which can be found on the webpage of the Center for Reformed Theology & Apologetics, dealing with God's Providence, which says:
God in His ordinary providence maketh use of means (Isa_55:10, Isa_55:11; Hos_2:21, Hos_2:22; Act_27:31, Act_27:44), yet is free to work without (Job_34:10; Hos_1:7; Mat_4:4), above (Rom_4:19-21), and against them at His pleasure (2Ki_6:6; Dan_3:27).
Make sense?
Grampa D
I will have you know that I did lay out my "presuppositions" in this post. Playing dumb again, eh? Apparently you don't listen very well.
Your comparison of the law of gravity and air to God are bad comparisons, because I see clear evidence for God and air. I haven't seen clear evidence of God, however.
Intellectual honesty requires that in a debate, each side admit what his presuppositions are. I did that, as summarized here, and invited these athetists/agnostics to admit theirs. They declined, demanding that I prove what theirs were. How silly!
I never said such a thing. All I asked you to do was to show me why I hold certain "presuppositions" that you claimed that I/we had and you never set out to prove WHY we hold those presuppositons. Again, you're playing dumb.
By the way, I've tried and tried and TRIED to be reasonable with you, but you just never get it. It's part of why you're bein' blocked, buddy.
2/26/2008 11:48 AM) saying this, in italics, then answering me after the italics:
· You can call presuppositionalism "circular reasoning" all you want to, but you never have answered my challenge to admit your own presuppositions.
Actually, when I asked you to give me a reason or two as to why you think I hold my own particular presuppositions, you never answered me. To be fair, you must show how my Atheism requires presuppositions of its own in order to work…. In any case, when I asked that you give a source or two concerning "my givens," you didn't provide a thing.
However, if you want me to admit what my "presuppositions" or as I prefer to call them, "assumptions," I'll be happy to.
1. The universe essentially obeys a set of rules that do not change, for example the laws of gravity, inertia, thermodynamics, etc. Scientists assume that these laws are unchanging and that they will not change in the future, since we have no evidence of them ever being changed in the past. What is true today will be true tomorrow.
2. We rely on our senses to determine all the information around us. I'm really not sure that we can truly trust anything else and I don't think that there is much else to rely on. It's the foundation of how we acquire data, how we acquire knowledge, and how we determine much of the course of our very lives.
I will simplify those 2 this way:
· There are laws of physics and they never change.
· Nothing exists but what we can perceive by our senses.
Those are your only two, right? And how do you prove these are true, btw? If you say, by the laws of physics and perceivable senses, you are proving them by themselves, and thus using circular reasoning. If you say that you prove them in some other fashion, then that other fashion becomes your presupposition, and you’ve not honestly admitted what those are.
What about resolving issues related to grammar, numbers, the internet, past events, future contingencies, memories, dreams, love and beauty? (A few of these courtesy of the Bahnsen-Stein debate-http://www.bellevuechristian.org/faculty/dribera/htdocs/PDFs/Apol_Bahnsen_Stein_Debate_Transcript.pdf. I realize this drives you AA’s up the wall, because your guy didn’t do too well, but your senses still have to perceive it.)
Will your two “assumptions” always work for those?
And how did things exist before man discovered these laws of physics? Just chuck those pre-physics things, I suppose, to the AA’s ash-bin of non-existence?
And what about the tree that falls in the forest, when there is no one there with senses? Did it have a sound? Or what about the man out in the forest with no women around; is he still wrong?
Pardon me if I’m having just a little too much fun with this. But you’ve already banned me from your site; there’s nothing else you can do to me. And your reasons were, remember, I just refused to get it, when you explained your rules to me, and I was playing dumb. I think you just cannot stand the heat, and pretty soon you’re going to pick up your marbles and go home where no one will point out to you how you’re hoisted yourself upon your own petard.
-Grampa D@Extremegoatmaster - The above quote starts out with EGM quoting me, in italics, then replying, and then I answer him after that. Some of the formatting didn't come through.
@Extremegoatmaster - You said:
"I've tried and tried and TRIED to be reasonable with you, but you just never get it. It's part of why you're bein' blocked, buddy."
So you block HaigLaw, then go back to your site and do an expose of him -- Haiglaw strikes! OH NOOESS!! Tidbits from you:
"Man, this guy really pisses me off to absolutely no end. Why? Oh, it's not because of his intellectual argumentation."
"Haiglaw really shows his st00pidity."
You quote HaigLaw as follows:
Haiglaw: Do you think the question of the existence of God is a factual question, and should be answered in the same way as any other factual questions?
Do you think that every claim that someone makes must be treated as a hypothesis which must be tested by evidence, such as logical coherence and empirical observation, before accepting it?
Do you think that the use of logic or reason is the only valid way to examine the truth or falsity of any statement which claims to be factual?
And you concluded:
[I answered "yes" to all of them, except I went back and said, "EVERY claim? Not necessarily. My mom could claim that she drove to work and came home at 5:00pm. That's not all that extraordinary at all, and I don't think that I need to test such a claim."]
You devolve this discussion of your mom talking about everyday things, without apparently realizing that HaigLaw's 3 questions above were the same 3 that Bahnsen asked in his debate with your atheist hero Stein in 1985, in order to show the presuppositional nature of the atheist-agnostic positions.
But then again, since you've presupposed him to be soooo stOOpid, you have conditioned yourself not to recognize any truth coming from him.
You then cut and paste a lot of stuff you've said before about naturalistic proofs, and then make this curious statement about believing in Shakespeare:
"[In my last entry concerning extraordinary claims, Haiglaw asks if I believe in Shakespeare. He basically compares the miraculous claims of Jesus Christ with Shakespeare's works and I (rightly) thought that this was a really stupid comparison.]"
HaigLaw never said anything about believing in Shakespeare. The question had to do with the historicity of Shakespeare. Assuming you're not deliberately trying to distort the argument here, the only other apparent option is that you simply didn't get it. Yet you accuse him of being stOOpid!
He gave you the option of saying Shakespeare is a mythical figure, which would expose you to ridicule, or a historical figure, when the evidence for the historicity of Jesus Christ is much stronger than that for Shakespeare, which is obviously a choice more anathema to you.
So, instead of taking either of those choices, you distorted the argument. And yet accuse him of "playing dumb."
And "playing dumb" and "not getting it" were the grounds you gave for blocking HaigLaw from your site.
On those grounds, looks like you're the one who deserves to be blocked.
@Extremegoatmaster -
@anchorpoet -
@HaigLaw - On a lighter note...
An atheist was walking through the woods."What majestic trees"!
"What powerful rivers"!
"What beautiful animals"!
He said to himself.
As he was walking alongside the river, he heard a rustling in the bushes behind him. He turned to look. He saw a 7-foot grizzly bear charge towards him.
He ran as fast as he could up the path. He looked over his shoulder & saw that the bear was closing in on him.
He looked over his shoulder again, & the bear was even closer. He tripped & fell on the ground. He rolled over to pick himself up but saw that the bear was right on top of him, reaching for him with his left paw & raising his right paw to strike him.
At that instant the Atheist cried out, "Oh my God!"
Time Stopped.
The bear froze.
The forest was silent.
As a bright light shone upon the man, a voice came out of the sky. "You deny my existence for all these years, teach others I don't exist and even credit creation to just a cosmic accident." "Do you expect me to help you out of this predicament? Am I to count you as a believer"? The atheist looked directly into the light, "It would be hypocritical of me to suddenly ask you to treat me as a Christian now, but perhaps you could make the BEAR a Christian"?
The light went out. The sounds of the forest resumed and the bear dropped his right paw, brought both paws together, bowed his head & spoke:
"Lord bless this food, which I am about to receive from thy bounty through Christ our Lord, Amen."
@bearnlbk - yeah, it depends on your point of view, doesn't it?
-Grampa D
@HaigLaw - As far as the joke, I see you "Bear-ly" got it.
El C.
Rail that these analogies are silly, because no intellient atheist
would deny gravity or air; but it's really a creature's denial of his
Creator that's the ultimate silliness.
Amen.
@razzendahcuben - Thx for re-visiting my site.