The Beauty of Presuppositional Apologetics

As you probably know, when it comes to apologetic methodology, Presuppositional Apologetics as conceived of by Cornelius Van Til is probably the most controversial.

However, there is something about it that makes it the best defense of the Christian faith: the transcendental argument. Transcendental arguments in general aim to show that some principle which a skeptic denies is necessary for some other principle which the skeptic takes for granted. 

This implies that, if successful, a transcendental argument will show a performative inconsistency in the skeptic. This is the ad hominem nature of transcendental arguments. That is, they are directed to the man - the skeptic. They show that his skepticism is only possible due to the very thing he denies.

Apply this to the debate over the truth of Christianity. Van Til’s transcendental argument aims to establish Christianity as transcendentally necessary. In other words, it aims to establish Christianity as a necessary precondition of all rational and intelligible human experience. Thus, we can apply the ad hominem nature of the transcendental argument to the unbeliever. We can point out that skepticism of Christianity is only possible if Christianity is true. This observation leads to some interesting things. To see this, take a look at the following syllogism:


1. If the transcendental argument for Christian Theism [TACT] is sound, then there are no successful arguments against Christianity.

2. TACT is sound.

3. Therefore, there are no successful arguments against Christianity.


There are two key takeaways from the above argument:

First, it shows that even if the apologist does not have a rebuttal to a particular argument against Christianity, as long as he can show the soundness of his transcendental argument, he has a principled way to reject the argument as unsuccessful.

Second, it shows that the question of the soundness of TACT is logically prior to all others within the context of the debate between Christian and unbeliever. The unbeliever must first show that TACT is unsound before he can launch any argument or objection against Christianity.

Because arguments against Christianity can only be launched if reality is intelligible, the question of what worldview secures the intelligibility of experience must first be answered before any arguments/objections for or against Christianity can be addressed. This fact allows the presuppositional apologist to ensure that the unbeliever takes on the transcendental challenge. The unbeliever must demonstrate that he can secure the intelligibility of his experience (and, by extension, the possibility of even arguing rationally) while rejecting Christianity.

But as we know, he cannot demonstrate such a thing. This is because TACT is sound, and Christianity is, in fact, transcendentally necessary. All the Van Tilian has to do is demonstrate this to the unbeliever. 

And The Best Argument for Christianity was written to help Van Tilians do exactly that. It explains in a clear and concise way why Christianity - and Reformed Christianity ALONE - accounts for the possibility of human knowledge. You can get it here.

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

God bless!

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