Why Presupps Have Bad Rep...

All Presuppositionalists are not created equal.


More precisely, all Presuppositionalists are not the same.


Being a presuppositionalist can sometimes be frustrating, especially if one spends time doing “Internet apologetics”. As presuppositionalists, our main goal is to engage unbelievers and defend the Christian faith (at least, it should be). However, in some cases, when your interlocutor discovers the fact that you are a presuppositionalist, they lose all interest in engaging in a fruitful dialogue. A few reasons are given for this, ranging from “Presupps cannot be taken seriously because they are ignorant” to “Presupps are not worth talking to because they are dishonest, obnoxious, etc.” 


Obviously, these are sweeping generalizations. Not all presuppositionalists are ignorant or obnoxious. There are well-informed and gracious presuppositionalists. However, one cannot ignore the fact that these generalizations have some basis. This may be surprising or not depending on who you ask, but there is a kind of divide in the Presupp community. This divide is not based on disagreement. In fact, it is not easy to recognize this divide unless one pays attention, studies presuppositionalist literature, and really engages with a lot of presuppositionalists. Even some presuppositionalists do not recognize this divide. But both critics and sympathizers have noticed and pointed out this divide.


This is the divide between the anti-intellectual, philosophically illiterate, obnoxious kind of Presuppositionalism—“crude” Presuppositionalism as some put it—and the astute, philosophically nuanced, and gracious kind of Presuppositionalism. It should be noted that this divide, in reality, is not as clearly defined as this. Obviously, being obnoxious or gracious is not a function of one’s philosophical literacy. However, it just appears as though the philosophical illiteracy and the obnoxious nature are most of the time found together. The former kind are the most vocal and the kind that people encounter the most on the Internet. This motivates the kind of sweeping generalizations we saw above.


But we have to ask ourselves why such a divide even exists. 


In my opinion, it exists due to the fact that, over the last decade or so, the recent popularity of Presuppositionalism was due to certain “popularizers” who presented a version of the method that is easy to understand and can be easily deployed by the average man in the street. The method was condensed into a few short questions and a kind of “script” one can use to “win” any engagement with the unbeliever. A few short and quick responses were provided to possible objections, and armed with this, the “average man” is ready to employ the Presuppositional method of apologetics. Van Til would be proud! We are taking Presupp to the streets!


The inherent motivation for such a version of the method is understandable and is something I sympathize with greatly. Bahnsen maintained that the beauty of Van Til’s method was in its flexibility—it can be applied at the level of the common man and at the level of the most erudite academics with equal force and potency. However, what these popularizers provided was not a version of the method tailored for the man on the streets but rather a stunted and distorted method that is wholly unrecognizable from the original. Rhetoric is favored over substance and nuance. Questions are favored over well-reasoned arguments in the hopes of getting a “gotcha” moment. The entire Van Tilian programme is reduced to a “script”, losing all its nuance. This version, when compared to what Van Til and Greg Bahnsen advocated and employed and to what the more “astute” presuppositionalists employ, is unrecognizable.


This version is characterized by a lack of understanding of key philosophical issues. In extreme cases, study of philosophy is repudiated. When philosophically informed unbelievers engage such types, they get the impression that presuppositionalists in general are ignorant of basic philosophy. But this is not the case. Van Tilians are usually quite philosophically knowledgeable—or at least they should be, since Scripture instructs us to take every thought captive.


What is the way forward then? Is some form of intellectual elitism being advocated? Definitely not. I believe that Van Til’s insights can be tailored to the average man. Not everyone has to be well-versed in philosophy in order to be a competent presuppositionalist. However, when “dumbing down” the method, we should be careful not to strip it of its nuance. Nothing can take the place of careful study. There is no “quick fix” way to do apologetics. Intellectual humility and careful study should be in the toolbox of any apologist regardless of their literacy. What I advocate is a kind of re-teaching of the method. We must recapture the essence of Van Til which has been lost especially in the pop Presupp culture. Objections should be thoughtfully answered. Arguments should be carefully presented. We must not divorce the rhetorical force of the method (and trust me, it has plenty) from the argumentative force of the method. The two should be combined. And most of all, we should always be gracious and ready to learn.

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