The Battle of Presuppositions

OBJECTION: "Logic, uniformity of nature, causation, a mind-independent reality, reliability of sense perception, etc are merely presuppositions of my worldview. They are properly basic and do not need to be justified. We both presuppose them so why do you need to add an extra entity (i.e. God)?"

This kind of objection is encountered rather frequently and is used by unbelievers who have been faced with the insurmountable difficulty of answering the presuppositionalist's questions about these things. But there are three problems I'd like to point out with such a response. 

First, it is incredibly naive to think that one can just posit these things without a broader worldview in which they can be made intelligible. Sure, they may be presuppositions in a sense and as such more basic than other beliefs. But without a metaphysical background to give them meaning they are, to use Van Til's terms, just rocks in a bottomless ocean. There needs to be a hard place where they can firmly rest. This "hard place" is meant to be provided by the metaphysical and epistemological commitments of a certain worldview.

For example, something like logic doesn't fit into just any metaphysical picture of the world. A purely monistic metaphysics, for instance, is completely at odds with logic which presupposes distinctions. What the apologist needs to do is press the unbeliever about his hard place.

How can he bring the purely formal, abstract, unchanging principles of logic into meaningful contact with the ever-changing, contingent realm of concrete particulars? 

How can he hold to the principle of the uniformity of nature and causation given a metaphysics of chance and pure contingency? 

How can he hold to a mind-independent reality given the egocentric predicament? 

How can he hold to the reliability of sense perception given belief in biological evolution and a fundamental disconnection of the subject from the objects of knowledge?

These questions can only be answered from a broader metaphysical framework provided by a worldview. So the question isn't about whether you have the rocks. The question is "do you have a hard place to keep them?"

The second problem I'd like to point out with this objection is one of arbitrariness. The unbeliever asserts the presuppositional status of these beliefs in order to claim that they need not be justified. Such a move introduces a problem of arbitrariness into his epistemology. Certainly, such a move is disallowed elsewhere in his epistemology so why should it be allowed at the start? Why should he be allowed to have unjustified beliefs about things like logic and uniformity while simultaneously holding other beliefs (e.g belief in God) to different standards?

Well, it is claimed that these special in some sense. But this is obviously special pleading. Different criteria are usually put forward in order to show that it is okay for these beliefs to be unjustified/unjustifiable. But what justifies the criteria itself? The unbeliever has still not gotten rid of the problem of arbitrariness. Why should that criteria be used or assumed to be the correct one?

Basically, the unbeliever is trying to ask for faith commitments in order for his epistemology to get off the ground and then wants to go ahead and say "no more faith commitments". His epistemology is reduced to arbitrariness.

Anyways, that’s what I wanted to share with you today. 

Cheers!

P.S.: if you’d like to learn how to demonstrate philosophical futility of his metaphysical and epistemological presuppositions, then consider grabbing a copy of my latest book The Best Argument for Christianity where I go into why Christianity Theism - and Christian Theism alone - is transcendentally necessary. Get it here 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Failure of Classical Apologetics

Classical apologetics attempts to rationally defend the Christian faith by employing, in most cases, the traditional proofs for God's existence. Offering proofs such as the cosmological, teleological, ontological and moral are the first in a two-step approach to establishing Christianity. The second being offering arguments from fulfilled  prophecy, miracles, resurrection, etc. Classical apologists aim to first establish that this is a theistic universe and then appeal to the arguments mentioned in the second step to distinguish Christianity from other forms of theism. In my estimation, such an approach to apologetics proves inadequate and unsatisfactory for reasons I will spell out shortly. I will divide these reasons into two categories - theological and philosophical. Theological Since the conclusion of the classical approach is that Christianity is probably true or is the most probable amongst others, the unbeliever is always left with an excuse to reject the existence of Go
Read more

Brute Facts Are Mute Facts: A Van Tilian Transcendental Argument

Recent discussions on the Internet have led me to believe that there is a need to write this post. Here I will be clarifying, formalizing, and defending an argument which I believe is central to Van Til’s thought. To my knowledge, there is no such clarification and formalization of the argument available and so in writing this article, I hope to bring something fresh to the Van Tilian’s arsenal of arguments. Van Til’s Doctrine of Analogy Central to Van Til’s thought is the doctrine of analogy. Van Til made a distinction between reasoning that is univocal and reasoning which is analogical . Greg Bahnsen describes univocal reasoning in this way: “ Univocal” reasoning does not honor the Creator-creature distinction, but assumes that God and man approach knowing in the same way and under essentially the same conditions. It refuses to “think God’s thoughts after Him” (cf. chap. 4.5 above) and asserts its intellectual autonomy. 1 However, for Van Til, human knowledge must be analogical. Tha
Read more

Why Atheists Can’t Know That 2 Apples + 2 Apples = 4 Apples...

The title of this article may be a bit misleading. There are obviously very capable and very knowledgeable mathematicians who are atheists. Such people do not only know that two apples plus two apples equals four apples, they can also provide elaborate proofs of the various mathematical theorems that undergird such a truth. This post is not meant as an attack on the intellect of atheists but rather as an attack on atheism as a philosophical system . A more accurate title would be “ Why Atheists Can’t Know that 2 Apples + 2 Apples = 4 Apples If They Were Being Consistent With Their Philosophical System ”. I know, not very catchy! But what is it about atheism as a philosophical system that precludes knowledge of a truth so basic and fundamental that even children know it? The short answer is that atheism commits one to an autonomous epistemology—an epistemology that rejects the necessity of divine revelation. Believing that two apples plus two apples equals four apples is easy enough. Th
Read more